Violence destroys trust and diminishes our moral authority as parents. Report this Argument Con My opponent, being both instigator and pro, has the burden of proof. This is utterly abusive. My C2 SPD show imminence, and my rebuttal of Pro"s C shows the invalidity of his remarks, allowing you to prefer the wealth of evidence I offer that alternatives aren"t available.
Therefore, his case lacks logicality and any type of warranted foundation. Report this Argument Pro First I will be briefly defending my case, then I will extend my arguments from earlier regarding my opponents case, and I will end by giving voters.
Secondly, my opponent would violate human rights offenses. From the broken pieces of my birth family we cobbled together a stronger family mosaic.
Pro concedes the two criteria I noted in terms of the potential for DV to be moral as well. My opponent has failed to provide definitions. Lethal force only choice left If my C3 still stands, this contention is not able to make an impact for Con.
Extend my arguments that Government doesn't solve for DV. Pro cannot make any arguments against my card, as those arguments would be new. Repeated reviews of numerous evaluations of these programs indicate that such efforts can result in increased knowledge for children about safety rules and what they should do if they are being abused.
I believe I made the more convincing arguments, and as such, won the round, for the following reasons listed below. Finally, Pro and I see to agree that the actions of the justice system do not, as a rule, reflect morality. Considering my undisputed analysis in R3 C1 stating that the likelihood for a morally neutral event to exist is extremely minimal, especially in a case as complex as a victim of DV using premeditated lethal force, I think it is reasonable to default to the idea that lethal force is immoral in this case.
This is an important drop considering I establish that the ability of the victim to carefully deliberate an action warrants them as responsible for their actions.
Any person stating Homosexuality is wrong is flying in the face of American tradition. An argument is a discussion which needs to take place, and sometimes it is not an easy topic. This is where we must look to my second point regarding the justifiability of an action in R3 SP B.
Again, I pointed out that the harms posed to the child should still be taken into account when considering whether a parent should use lethal force in a violent relationship. I knew they would be upset so I left the cracked plate on top of the other dishes and vainly hoped the problem would just go away.
That only leaves Con"s case to vote off of. We created expectations for the kids. Pro calls my points "inconclusive" because "certain cases" show otherwise.
Failure to do so means that the criterion was not upheld, and therefore the action cannot be justified. We are all entitled to our own opinions but there is a middle ground in most arguments.
Ultimately, it is because the existence of alternative is vague and dubious that lethal force is allowed. Voters Conduct goes to con for his extremely mannered behavior during and outside of the round, and for his choice to even go above and beyond in certain cases.
You have to be extremely firm on this. But, even if you disregard this card entirely, I still have enough offense to win. To say an argument provoke the abuse is so the abuser can blame someone else for their actions It will suck but you have to be FIRM.
Pro misconstrues what my card was saying, and so fails to realize that his C3 actually confirmed the point my source was making. The emotional and physical damage children suffer from abuse and neglect is extensive. We modeled the kind of behavior we expected.
Despite the lack of imminence, deliberate lethal force as a response to domestic violence is justified. Pro"s attempt at rebuttal is to say that "although an action may be immoral"they were not morally blameworthy.
Inevitably, my father came across the plate and called me upstairs. You stick to the issue at hand and resolve it to the best of the parties ability to move on. Look to my O1 defense this round if you are unsure how I am able to reach that conclusion.Child abuse is mainly perpetrated by an adult who wields physical and emotional control over a child.
Many factors can relate to someone’s risk to abuse children. Some of the factors at work in child abuse are cultural, social, and personal. In very early studies of child abuse, the assumptions were that abusers must be mentally ill. Ten Reasons to Prevent Child Abuse.
1) Child abuse can be fatal. Each year in the United States, an average of over four children a day are fatal victims of maltreatment. The vast majority of these children are under the age of three.
2) Child abuse can stymie a child’s normal growth and development. The emotional and physical damage children suffer. Ultimately, Con's argument about how domestic violence affects children carried a lot of weight to it, and I don't think Pro's line of reasoning was enough for me to dismiss it.
Nov 22, · Are people against child abuse. if you are why. and are you for it can you give me examples for pros and cons on child abuse please and thank you?
Most, if. My opponent, being both instigator and pro, has the burden of proof.
He must prove that child abuse should be legalized. Since he has offered no arguments. Child abuse by:Melissa Lecouffe Table of contents 1-Definition on child abuse 2-Types of child abuse 3-Effects of child abuse 4-Dangers of child abuse 5-How to stop child abuse Definition of child abuse Child abuse is any form of physical, psycological, social, emotional or sexual maltreatment* of a child.Download