It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence

First off, thank you Zaradi for such a great round. You sure did a number on my case and it'll be hard to recover. I will start by providing the moral theory from which I was working from in presenting my case. That theory would be agent-centered deontology. Agent centered deontology is a moral theory very much inter-linked with the doctrine of double effect. "At the heart of agent-centered theories is the idea of agency. THE IDEA IS that MORALITY IS intensely PERSONAL, in the sense that WE ARE EACH ENJOINED TO KEEP OUR OWN MORAL HOUSE IN ORDER. OUR categorical OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT to focus on HOW OUR ACTIONS CAUSE OR ENABLE OTHER AGENTS TO DO EVIL; THE FOCUS of our categorical obligations IS TO KEEP OUR OWN AGENCY FREE OF MORAL TAINT. It is OUR INTENDED ENDS AND INTENDED MEANS that MOST CRUCIALLY DEFINE OUR AGENCY.[1] From this basis negative outcomes can occur, if the intent was not to cause them. The actions by which we produce the intended result factor in as well. To compare this to a victim of domestic abuse, I refer back to my conceded statistics on domestic abuse. We see that death is an occurrence that is possible, and not just possible but probable. Now for clarity on the Doctrine of Double Effect I will explain the 4 main points to it: 1) That the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent; 2) That the good effect and not the evil effect be intended; 3) That the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect; 4) That there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect" Now with this we see that as long as the consequence of causing the abusers death is unintended, and the person is acting purely in defense, then it is morally permissible. Indeed, even if the act was deliberately done, one could justify it by saying: 1) free-ing oneself from torture that causes serious harm(lethal) (neutral) 2) One intends that they will be free from the torture and one who is torturing them. Not intending the torturer to die. 3) One does not have to kill the torturer to free oneself necessarily. However during the escape the torturer attempts to stop oneself. Already the subject of torture, with the torturer now preceding at them violently, one is justified in believing that the intent of the other is to kill oneself. 4) The torturer has been and will likely be using lethal force. Thus ones life is in danger, and with no escape route, one has no choice but to defend themselves with lethal force. Now keep this example in mind for later when I present my last card. "The abuse is not deadly, since they survived the first round. Therefore the actor is not in imminent danger." Now take into account this reasoning, when compared to the evidence. To say that because the first occurrence has been survived means that all subsequent abuse will not be lethal in force. Indeed even if it were lethal in force, there is a chance that the person could survive. Lethal force does not always mean that the person who is the recipient of such force will die. Note the Hobbes card in which he states, "BECAUSE A MAN CANNOT TELL WHEN HE SEETH MEN PRECEED AGAINST HIM IN VIOLENCE, WHETHER THEY INTEND HIS DEATH OR NOT." Now this is crucial because when an aggressor in a domestic relationship acts violently, how is the recipient of that aggression to know what it is they intend on doing? Referencing my statistics we see that death does result from these cases so the person is wholly justified in believing the other intends to seriously harm them, if not kill them. "The abuse is periodical, so they have chances to escape but have chosen not to in favor of revenge." Now note my statistics about restraining orders and the effectiveness of those. With this we see that even if the person leaves, the violence can still occur. So just to say they have a chance to escape is not wholly true because in some cases escaping just doesn't work. ""deliberate" implies that the actor has contemplated their response before the actual confrontation, therefore it cannot have been based on the threat to the victim at the time since they would only have antecedently been aware of the magnitude of the risk to their life." I'm not sure if I mentioned anything about deliberate actions? But since we are on the subject. If I may reference back the Hobbes card, "THE SAME MAY BE SAID OF WOUNDS, and CHAINS, AND IMPRISONMENT; both BECAUSE THERE IS NO BENEFIT CONSEQUENT TO SUCH PATIENCE; AS THERE IS NO BENEFIT CONSEQUENT TO SUCH PATIENCE; AS THERE IS TO THE PATIENCE OF SUFFERING OF ANOTHER TO BE WOUNDED, OR IMPRISONED. A person is still more than justified as they are likely "trapped" in the situation with barely any assistance at all. Again, cross-apply my statistics of intimate partner violence and we see that even thought the first time was not fatal, it is still probable that it will be so in the future, or even if they manage to leave, the person might still abuse them, whether it be restraining orders or a prison sentence, it can occur again. Victim's of domestic violence are much akin to prisoners, as they are very much forced in staying sometime. Now I will present my next and final card, The American Civil Liberties Union writes: A) "46 PERCENT OF HOMESLESS WOMEN reported that THEY had previously STAYED IN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS BECAUSE THEY HAD NOWHERE TO GO." B) A WOMAN who has experienced domestic violence WILL OFTEN HAVE LITTLE OR NO ACCESS TO MONEY AND VERY FEW FRIENDS OR FAMILY MEMBERS TO RELY ON IF SHE FLEES a violent relationship." C) "50 percent of U.S. Cities surveyed reported that DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A PRIMARY CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS."[3] Cross-Apply this to my peers contention of having a chance to escape. Escape, but where to? How with barely any resources or support? There are societal aids that help, but those only go so far, and often they just dont do enough as the person either ends up homeless, or forced to return to the abusive relationship to prevent homelessness. A prisoner in the relationship if you will. "Even if self-defense justifies lethal force, it's impossible to know whether self-defense was truly necessary or not in the situation. Since every situation is different, applying an overarching moral rule to it just fails entirely." I do not see how it fails, considering crime investigation has reached a point where many things can be figured out without need to witnesses, etc. Also, as my previous statistics showed there is usually a pattern of violence that can easily be discerned and it can be figured out that the person who acted in self-defense had been repeatedly abused. "TURN: if self-defense is true, then the abuser is justified in killing the victim when the victim tries to kill the abuser. In other words, the abuser can then claim he was acting in self-defense and kill the abused person and get away with it. This will always outweigh because self-defense thus fails to protect the life of those who are abused." "If self-defense were true, then any murderer could claim he acted in self-defense and get away with it, relying on complex psychological analysis to prove whether or not they actually felt threatened – analysis that is in no way falsifiable." These last two essentially state the same thing. That nothing is stopping the aggressor of a situation from claiming self-defense. As I previously stated, there are ways to figure out whether or not self-defense was truly necessary. Also in cases of domestic violence, there is usually a pattern from which it can be discerned that abuse was occurring. Now for my peers case, in which he essentially states that morality rather than being objective is subjective. If that were the case easy win for me, because subjective means opinion based, I have the opinion that said act in question is morally permissible, therefore it is morally permissible. I thank Zaradi once more for such an excellent round and look forward to his final round.