It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

My opponent misinterprets Agamben. Extend Agamben 1 which is talking about how the affirmative's plea for self-defense turns the value of life to homo sacer, which is a zone void of any meaning and only perpetuates the violence and harms that the affirmative is trying to solve back for. The return to homo sacer blurs the lines between self-defense and murder and makes both permissible while stripping life of any meaning and value. The only way to solve back for Homo sacer is to affirm that all life is inherently greivable, regardless of what the abuser has done, which means that regardless of anything killing is inherently wrong. This negates the resolution straight out.He tries to answer back for this by saying that the abuser loses his right to life the moment he threatens the victims but go to that.First, there’s no warrant as to why the right to life is transferable; most philosophers would argue that the right to life is absolute, and even if there is a decrease in this right, the abuser still has some basic claim to life. Second, TURN: If people forfeit the right to life by attempting to kill others, then the victim, by exercising deadly force, would also be giving up their right to life. This means we would be able to justify it if the abuser or the abuser’s family turned around and killed the victim. This principle could then be applied to a myriad of situations, all of which would then justify “double jeopardy” which is not the moral precedent we want to set, especially if the point of deadly force is for the victim to regain agency.Third, Abusers don’t forfeit their right to life by abuse, but rather by killing their victim. Since the victim is considering whether or not to kill someone, they are obviously still alive and thus, haven’t forfeited their rights.Fourth, Even if this argument is true, we don’t know if it applies in this case. The abuser could simply be exercising different types of abuse, and it’s unclear as to what means the abuser forfeits his rights.Fifth, TURN: Establishing the precedent of “killing people who forfeit their rights” is dangerous because then any murder can be justified except against the most innocent. For example, a person could justify murdering a sex offender because they harmed another person. Additionally, we could kill robbers because they harmed another’s property, etc. This argument has very little brightline and means we can argue that agency is forfeited essentially whenever someone violates another’s agency—which can happen in very small and miniscule ways.Sixth, he's not responding to Butler that is explaining how all life is inherently grievable and precarious, which means that regardless of any actions taken their life still has value, which means that regardless of what the abuser does his life still has value. But then, go to the whole emotional appeal of physical violence increasing over time therefore self-defense.First, by making this argument, he concedes the link to the K, which means that he's allowing the return of homo sacer. And since he's not doing nearly enough to win on the K, you can negate straight away off of the K without even having to read the rest of the debate.Second, Not True: Self-defense can’t justify the use of deadly force because then every murderer could claim that they acted out of self-defense, relying on complex psychological analysis as to whether or not they actually felt threatened—analysis that is in no way falsifiable.Third, Doesn’t Matter: Even if self-defense does justify the use of deadly force, we can’t ascertain whether or not self-defense was necessary in this situation. Since every situation is distinct, prescribing a generic moral rule is unacceptable. Thus, the argument is at best a wash without specific context. Fourth, TURN: If this principle is true, then the batterer would be justified in killing his victim when she tries to kill him. In other words, the batterer could also claim self-defense against the victim and kill that victim. This outweighs because it fails to protect the lives of those who are actually being abused. And then, go to the whole you only get in 6 years for beating your wife and the legal system can't protect you.He hasn't responded to a single one of the four responses to this I made last round. Extend them.And then, off of his responses to the prison disad:He's making the argument that it's not guaranteed that you're going to get abused in prison, yet provides no warrant for this so extend the Buchanan '07 evidence which is talking about how abuse in the prison system is a widespread, instititutionalized activity. This is saying that if you're a woman going to prison, there's a massive probability that you're going to be abused and molested. And, his argument that the guards abusing people can be punished ignores the buchanan '07 evidence, which is talking about how institutionalized the practice is meaning that guards aren't getting punished, the Leonard '01 evidence which is saying how invisible women are in the patriarchical prison system, meaning that there's no possible way to seek recourse. And, his dismissal of all the harms of prison violence by him just saying "You'll get out eventually, suck it up" concedes the severity of the problem in the prison system explained in Leonard. The women suffering in here are absolutely invisible to society as a whole and no one is caring about their suffering, meaning that just tossing more of them in there isn't going to help anything.And, you can extend the harms of prison violence (buchanan) and the reasons why they outweigh domestic violence, as none of them were responded to. And then, go to his new argument of deterrence. First, Not True: There are always other options for the victim to take before resorting to deadly force; this means that deterrents can always come from other areas.Second, TURN: Deadly force doesn’t actually deter future violence but rather feeds into the cycle of violence by choosing the same path as the abuser took. This influences the victim and abuser’s children, relatives, etc. this just allows the cycle to continue and justifies the abuse and killing of even more people. Essentially, the affirmative needs to justify why the way to deter future violence is through the use of violence; the very statement seems rather contradictory, and that’s because it most certainly is.Third, Doesn’t Matter: The link between justice and deterrence is only tenable if we actually know about the victim’s intensions for killing their husband, but we certainly don’t know if this is true.Fourth, TURN: If we are trying to deter future violence, the better way to do it is to actually solve the ROOT problem of domestic violence, rather than using the band-aid solution of deadly force; solving the root problem can deter violence among the children, the spouse, and others. Thus, I would outweigh because by solving the root of domestic violence, I can at least deter violence on a greater SCALE (outweighing on scope) than the affirmative can by simply killing one person.And this impact is even more important because he's conceding the arguments I'm making on his side of the debate about how the best way to solve the root problems of domestic violence is by negating and fixing the problems in the legal system to provide better alternatives for victims rather than just giving them the green light to kill everyone. To summarize:My opponent barely responded to the K, and his only response was a misinterpretation of what Agamben was saying. He concedes the link to self defense in his last round, meaning that he's linking into the harms of Homo sacer. This means that you're negating right off the K, before you even have to think about the myriad of dropped arguments I made on the aff case. Moreover, he's not doing a sufficient job responding to the prison disad which is saying that if they kill their abusers, they just get thrown in prison and the prison violence and abuse there is far worse than the domestic violence. It's far better for their sake to not kill their abusers and seek other alternatives than get thrown into a place where the only people you can possibly go to for protection are the ones who are beating you and raping you. I'm extending clear and unresponded to analysis as to why prison violence outweighs domestic violence, therefore giving us a more important reason to avoid it and the only way to do that is by negating.Furthermore, he's dropped so many turns I made against his case that I would have to spend days covering them all. Extend out the refutations I made against the legal system not working as well as the refutations I made against the police system not working. All of these were dropped. This means that I'm showing two good alternatives to using deadly force straight off the bat. Then extend the turn I made that says that if victims really can't leave their abusers because they're afraid, that killing only worsens the problem. This goes dropped as well. And extend the argument I make that even if there aren't any alternatives that it doesn't justify the use of deadly force since morality isn't necessarily equated with running out of options. Also, don't let him make new arguments in the next round or go back to the arguments he dropped since I won't be able to make any kind of reply and he had his chance to respond to the dropped arguments and chose not to.So, tl;dr negate off the K that he doen't really respond to, negate off of the disad that he responds to really poorly, and negate off of the myriad of turns I made against his case that went unresponded to.