It is permissible for victims to use deadly force as a response to repeated domestic abuse.

I'll start with my opponent's case. Before I get to the specific arguments and contentions, I'd like to point out that my opponent's case literally provides no weighing mechanism to weigh the round under. No value/criterion, no burden system, nothing. Since my case provides a burden system to weigh the round under, you can prefer my case for that reason. Secondly, my opponent isn't actually affirming the resolution. My opponent must show that it is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE for victims to kill their abusers, not that it is LEGALLY permissible. To say that what is legal is what is moral commits the is/ought fallacy, which is like saying that because people DO use illegal drugs, then people OUGHT to use illegal drugs, which isn't the truth at all. As long as he provides no way to prove MORAL permissibility, and I am the only one showing why it is not morally permissible, then you negate. A2 C1:I concede the A point. Domestic Violence is widespread and affects various people. What isn't true is the B point, which is that all domestic violence is deadly. If I'm cussing at my wife and verbally degrading her constantly, it would fit the criteria of domestic abuse, but would she die? No. If I'm merely slapping her, would she die? No. Not all domestic violence is deadly, so the use of deadly force would be unreciprocal, and thusly unjustified. A2 C2:A point has a few problems with it. First: Even if the police system is flawed, it still doesn’t justify using deadly force because there are other ways the victim can use to get their batterer arrested. Since abusers are clearly arrested frequently, the problem the aff is trying to magnify just isn’t as big as he/she’s making it. Second: TURN: If the police system is truly as flawed as the aff is making it out to be, then the police might mistake the victim’s use of deadly force for something that it isn’t, which puts the victim at even more risk. This outweighs because the victim is the one being harmed instead of the abuser. Basically, it’s better for them to just report the problem to the police and, even if the response isn’t entirely adequate, it’s still better than being thrown into prison. The B point is just as flawed. First: This just isn’t true. A victim can always choose to simply walk out the door, psychological impacts aside. Instead of choosing to shoot the abuser in the head in the middle of the night, there is nothing preventing them from simply walking out the door. Second: TURN: there is no way to determine in fact whether or not a woman could’ve really left her situation. All domestic violence cases involve an element of “he said, she said”, and it would be incredibly easy for the woman to claim she had no other options, when she really did. A2 C3:I'll concede to this. Lethal force is a last resort. This doesn't make it justified, though. Just because going to nuclear war with Russia is a last resort, it doesn't make that last resort justified or morally permissible. With his case entirely refuted, let's go to responding to the arguments against my case, which he has vastly misinterpreted. "He is only providing a philosophy wich[sic] deals with a beings existense. "1. So? I'm the only person adressing the resolutions question of "moral permissibility". I'm showing exactly why it isn't morally permissible, as ending suffering by killing the abuser ruins the value of life. 2. He literally provides no warrant to his argument. All he does is asserts that suffering isn't necessary to find value and meaning in life, and provides no warrant as to why it's true. I'm providing you with clear evidence as to why suffering is necessary to find value and meaning in life, and these warrants were never attacked. "My opponent would have us believe that after a said person suffers from domestic abuse , he or she will get back on their feet and live life to the fullest. "Errp. Wrong. Not what my case claims at all. What my case says is that when we suffer, we allow life to have meaning and value to it. Without suffering, there is no reason why life has value or meaning. Pretty simple concept, but I guess I can understand how it would be difficult to wrap your head around. His argument here also relies on his contention that all domestic violence is deadly, which I already showed was false. The resolution asks of us that is the response of killing the abuser morally permissible, and my case directly refutes this. "My opponent has not brought up the topic of law. "So? Saying that the law derrives what is moral commits the is/ought fallacy, as I already explained. So at this point, the debate breaks down really simply. Heck, we can call the debate over right here and vote con for the following reasons:1. I'm the only one adressing the actual resolution. I'm showing exactly why it's not MORALLY permissible. My opponent is not doing this. Off of this, we can vote con.2. I'm the only one providing a way to weigh the round in my case. My opponent doesn't do this. As such, you prefer my case. Since he hasn't actually refuted what my case says, it goes entirely conceded and thus can be extended. So we can vote con here as well.3. We can extend my definition of negate being to deny the truth of. All I have to do is sufficiently refute the pro's case in order to meet the inherent resolutional burden placed on me as the negate, which is to deny the truth of the affirmative.