Choose :P

Okay, so let's start with my opponent's arguments against my case.My opponent argues that while I say I don't advocate for the increasing of suffering, I supposedly do actually advocate it. My opponents reasoning for this claim is that I don't show that abuse is natural suffering or what natural suffering is. But he's overthinking what my case is saying. I'm not saying that all suffering must be grounded in the natural world when I use the world "natural". My argument is that any deviation from the original level of suffering (i.e. the natural flow), would case a change or loss in the value of life. What caues suffering to occur or what the origin of suffering is is irrelevant to my case, as that not what it's about. What my case simply says is that our suffering and confrontation with death is where we as beings find ontological value in life, and removing that suffering or ending that confrontation with death is morally wrong.Next, my opponent claims that since I'm supporting the advocacy that we don't remove suffering, then I must think that suffering is moral! False. Through the suffering, we find value in life, which is what I consider moral. To say that because we find value in life from suffering, then suffering is moral would commit the fallacy of origin, which isn't what my case says.Then he calls me immoral for advocating the advancement of suffering, but, again, that's not what I'm saying or advocating.Then he places the turn on my case by saying that it's illogical to think that we can suffer more because life itself is suffering. But this is inherently false, as already outlined in my case. In my case, I specifically said that suffering is not something that is static, as humans always have the capacity to suffer more. Thus, his turn is just wrong and can safely be ignored.With my case successfully defended, let's go to my opponent's syllogism. Note that since it is a syllogism, if I can refute one premise, then the entire syllogism falls. The premises I want to talk about in particular are premises 2, 3, and 4. We'll go in order.Premise Two: BWSMy opponent's second premise is basically saying that because abuse will generally lead to BWS, and BWS makes the woman think that there's no way out, then it justifies a lethal response. But this is inherently flawed since there's no corrolation between belief and truth. I can believe that flying purple fire-breathing unicorns exist, but that doesn't make it true that they suddenly exist. Moreover, I can believe that the only option is to steal a piece of candy from a baby, but that doesn't actually make it my only option, just because I believe it to be my only option. There is always other ways out of the situation, regardless of whether or not I believe them to be there. There's, literally, nothing stopping the victim from getting up and leaving in the middle of the night when the abuser is asleep. Thusly, belief does not corrolate to truth, and thus cannot corrolate to justification. This premise is successfully refuted.Premise Three: Killing = SDMy opponent claims that killing is an act of self-defense, but this is false. To prove that it is false, we must look at the three conditions that an action must meet in order for it to be considered self-defense: proportionality, necessity, and imminency.1: Proportionality - This basically says that in order for it to be self-defense, the action taken must be proportional in harm to the action threatened. I.e. if I'm being slapped, I can slap back under self-defense. If I'm being slapped, I cannot stab the person whose slapping me, as the response of deadly force is unproportional to the slapping, a mere physical battering. Since not ALL cases of domestic violence are deadly (we can gleam this from the resolutional wording, as repeated domestic violence implies that the victim has already survived a wave or more than one wave of it, thus is not deadly), this is the first reason why killing isn't an act of self-defense.2: Necessity - This basically says that this must be the only possible course of action before it can be considered an act of self-defense. If running or talking the abuser out of killing you would stop the absue, even if it be just temporarily, that option becomes the morally permissible option, and killing would be considered impermissible. Nothing is stopping the victim from just running for it in the middle of the night, and the victim can always just talk the abuser down and try to calm him down in order to stop his abuse. Since those are both less violent alternatives that are possible, then deadly force fails to meet this condition as well.3: Imminency - This basically says that unless the threatened harm is being imminently threatened (i.e. within the immediate future), using a harm would not be considered self-defense. So if my husband is threatening to kill me in the morning, it still wouldn't be permissible for me to kill him in the middle of the night, as the threatened harm was not being imminently threatened. This is the third reason why the response of using deadly force fails to meet self-defense.Third premise refuted.Premise Four: Doctrine of Double EffectMy opponent here is claiming that the DoDE provides the warrant as to why self-defense is morally permissible. First off, this presumes that killing is actually an act of self-defense, but I already went over that, so I won't restate it here. Instead, I will go through the criteria the DoDE provides and refute them individually.1) the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferentUnless my opponent wants to argue that kiling people is suddenly a good thing, this one is self-refuting. He may stand up and say that the actual action is saving ones-self, but that isn't the very action in itself, but rather the motivation for taking the action. Killing is the action, and killing is inherently bad.2) that the good effect and not the evil effect be intendedThis is where I have my biggest issue with the DoDE because it's impossible for me to prove one way or the other that I intended x action without resorting to a massive "he said she said" fight. I could say I intended the good effect to happen, but actually have intended the bad effect to happen. This criteria is false.3) the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effectAs killing (the evil effect) produces the saving one's self (the good effect), this criteria refutes the possibility of it justifying self-defense. You can turn this argument.4) there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effectThis relies on killing being proportional, which I've already refuted.Thus, premise four is refuted.So at the end of the round, the voting is really simple.1. I've refuted three out of five of his premises. All I have to do is win one for his entire syllogism to be defeated. 2. But even if you're buying the syllogism, my case functions as a turn to the syllogism by saying that the syllogism actually causes us to lose the value in the victim's life, the same life that my opponent is trying to protect by affirming. So you can negate off of the syllogism.Overall, though, it's an obvious negative ballot.