Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repe

Good Day to my opponent. And to those who will judge this debate. First i would like to rebut a lot of the government side's statement. And if possible provide the answer as to what i will be writing after this: 1. Now, i'm not really aware of what your L-D High school format is but based on the debates I've believe through, you are suppose to first define and set the motion before anything else as to guide the listeners as to what we are going to be talking about today. 2. You're actually showing us that it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to "REPE"? i wonder what the word "REPE" means. So i will assume that it is an error in your spelling. And what you are trying to emphasize is RAPE, am i correct? 3. You have defined Domestic Violence in your speech, which is physical abuse; sexual abuse; emotional verbal and psychological abuse; economic abuse; intimidation; harassment; stalking; damage to property; entry into the complainant's residence without consent, where parties do not share the same residence; or any other controlling or abusive behavior towards a complainant, where such conduct harms, or may cause imminent harm to, the safety, health or wellbeing of the complainant. (I believe that you have already gone way beyond our scope as to the parameter of the issue is, which is only on RAPE.) 4. You are actually emphasizing that the value of your debate is the Quality of life. "Because it is held in important regard to not only individuals but to societies across the world as well" - Those criminals who commit the crime of rape are also part of individuals and societies across the world. (Then you are conceding to the point that these people's life are should be valued, which is contradictory to what your "motion" is all about, which is allowing victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to rape. ) 5. Let me define one word for you Mr. Speaker : Deliberation-is a process of thoughtfully weighing options since you said that the use of deadly force as a deliberate response. Let me clarify to you one thing Mr. Speaker, the act to murdering another individual is only permissible given that NO OTHER OPTIONS ARE OFFERED to the victim. But given that it is a deliberate response, then that would mean there are better alternatives for the victim themselves and avoid the point of ending another human life. 6. Do you sincerely believe that only men rape women? Don't you believe it would be bias for you to state that? - Given that in most cases men are seen as the offenders in rape, doesn't mean that women aren't also potential suspects. 7. In your first point you are actually stating a lot of types of abuse not connected to RAPE, AND AGAIN, you are now going out of the PARAMETER AND SCOPE of the motion. People react to different kinds of abuses, we are talking about RAPE, please focus on that Mr. Speaker! Read your first point again and assess. 8." When society fails to undertake necessary measures to eradicate, or at least meaningfully reduce, domestic violence, it ought to be morally permissible for potential victims to take matters into their own hands and prevent themselves from continuing to be victimized." - YOU STATED POTENTIAL VICTIMS, then later on i see the word VICTIMIZED, POTENTIAL VICTIMS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHO ARE VICTIMIZED. 9.You gave an example that the battered woman can actually excercise the power of the state to, which is death of the offender, do you know the state also has the power to arrest?? You have failed to state as to what grounds that the individual must have before resolving to such act! I agree the quality of life must be preserved, and with that those offenders must be given the same extent. The PRO of this debate has not clarify as to what grounds the person must have in order to resolve to defending himself / herself in to result to deadly force. And is primarily focused on abuses way beyond the parameters of his/her motion, which only focuses on RAPE. The PRO stated that it is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to rape. Yet he stated in his last point that it is only applicable when all else fail. (government) , so where's deliberation there? Where's the choice, if that's what you are clearly emphasizing in your last point. Overall, the cases presented by the PRO are weak in terms of the MOTION. Now let me present my case. 1.) Deliberation means there are other options. It's true than in times of being sexually abused (RAPE) it is important for us to resist. Why? Primarily it would prove to court that you have been raped. (Without it, it would end up being called another Sexual Intercourse) But if the need arises, there are always options. Never has it ever been approved that ending a life of a person is moral, given that there are a lot of ways to avoid ending another person's life. Since the motion is talking about a DELIBERATE, then there are options, of course there are options better than ending another person's life. Killing the offender should only happen, if and only if, the victim has no other choice, not when he/she still has options. 2.) It may be used as an excuse for murder. (Given that it will become permissible) A rough SEX regretted by the other person can be used as a reason for the him/her to kill the other and get away with it. Rough SEX can become another way or method of Legal Murder. Those who are good enough to understand this can actually use it to kill other people and get away with it. ( What's the connection of rough sex to RAPE? - Rough Sex can be manipulated in court as RAPE ) Given this facts, we on the Negative side of this debate, are proud to oppose such motion. I'll cut it short for now and wait for the reply of the PRO bench. Thank you and once again Good Day to everyone.