The entire neg functions as a side constraint for the aff, so even if they win all their social contract stuff, you still have to vote neg

Framework: 1. Devolves into skepdoesnt prove moral permissibility. They say that because the govt fails to uphold their end of the contract, the contract is therefore dissolvedmeaning we return to the state of the nature. So him trying to prove that something is morally permissible in the state of nature in which all moral claims are meaningless is 1) logically contradictory and 2) means that hes not actually affirming because hes only proving permissibility not moral permissibility.

2. TURN: State is the only objective arbiter between conflicting rights claimsletting people make their own moral decisions instead of looking to the protection of the state aka vigilantism makes the contract meaningless because people can just do whatever they want according to their own preferences.

3. Social contract between individuals is morally incoherent because individuals need a state to resolve all the value and rights conflicts that people haveso because it has to be universal then it cant dissolve for some persons and not for others.

4. TURNhis framework assumes individuals start from the beginning at an equal positionhowever thats fundamentally untrue. When the contract first was created women were at a position of fundamental inferiority so even in the contract today women have to buy into male theories of what it means to be strong and male theories of violence. Lynch 1 explains

Lynch 1Joseph J. Lynch, Womens Self-Defense and the Culture of Violence California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo

The implication seems to be that feminism is more pure, more visionary, and more long-term than the quick-fix of self-defense training. Further, women who do engage in aggressive self-defense training are merely participants in the established male culture of violence. Such women see themselves as strong because they have bought into male ideas about what it is to be strong. Therefore, there is nothing usefully critical or revolutionary about self-defense training.

Case:

3. And, the state is doing its job. Prah 1 writes.Prah 1(Pamela. Domestic Violence: Do teenagers need more protection? Johns Hopkins University Jan. 2006: CQ Researcher. 7 Feb. 2012.)Violence against women has been reported since ancient Roman times and has been commonplace in America since Colonial times. But in the last decade, the rate of domestic violence against women has dropped more than 50 percent. Many experts credit the changes to the billons of dollars spent in recent years on shelters, hotlines and legal help for victims and training sessions for police, prosecutors and judges. With more help available, [victims] abused women, in particular, recognized they no longer had to resort to violence to get out of a bad relationship.

The presence of moral alternatives means you automatically negate because theres always a better, more moral way of acting. For example, if I was a kidnap victim and I could run out the door, killing my abuser would be immoral because there was a better way I couldve acted.

4. Look to law as the best link to the social contract because it is the embodiment of what people fundamentally agree onand the law doesnt allow victims to just kill off their abusers 1) women who kill their batterers go to jail 2) govt doesnt impose death penalty as punishment