It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domes

I thank my oponent for his strong argument case. I also apologize for the poor eticate of my forfeiting of my round. I had something that ran in with the time i had to post it and i was not able to. First of all, my oponent says deadly force doesn't necessarily entail death. But would he agree that it is MOST LIKELY TO RESULT IN DEATH? Yes, which even he stated that that was the exact definition. Yes, it is true that part of the deadly force is just to rid yourself of abuse, but it is in human nature to want revenge. If someone who has been repeatedly abused by an agressor and has the chance to kill someone using DEADLY FORCE then they will. If they are put in the immediate circumstance to kill someone who has abused them for years, there is no doubt they would. My oponent says that we should value the victims life over the life of the abuser. Of course, we as bystanders and people who read about it in the news feel compassion for the victim. But this is from the victims perspective. The victim is valuing their own life over the life of the abuser, just as the abuser did. This is making the victim just as bad as the abuser. My oponent then says that Legality trumps Morality. But it is possible to call for help and find aid before it has to be taken to the level of deadly force. There is always another option, that is why there is laws for it. You can still maintain morality and legality and be safe. In my oponents first contention, he states about how aparently cops are a main group of abusers. I'm asking, so what? Who does it matter fully who the abuser is? It can be anyone, and it's still wrong. It boils down to an abuser and a victim, and It is still wrong to kill the agressor. You can still call for help. And, It is most likely the case that if a someone is getting abused repeatedly, that the law will be able to help regardless of if the abuser is a cop or not. My oponent acts as though no matter what happens, if your being abused, your basically screwed. There is nothing farther from the truth. Why does my oponent act as though the abuser (a cop in this sinerio) is friends with every cop in the United States? Will every cop just be staying outside surveying the activities of them to make sure the cop abuses his domestic partner? What the heck is up with that? If someone is being abused, they can always find a higher power to make sure she is safe. There is no way that there is no way out. So my oponent says that there is only two options. Kill yourself, or kill the aggressor. Kill, kill, kill. Is that all he says? I thought that in his rebutle towards me he said that deadly force was only "the intention to kill" and "doesn't necessarily entail death", but now he's saying kill or be killed. That is contradicting itself in it's own sense! What is up with that? And, as I firmly beleive, there is always another option. Talking to an even higher authority that cops (i.e. government). Also, law, as I stated, does have a side in this. Restraining orders. Even cops can't get past that to abuse someone. In court, how would It look if the cops case was that he went against a restraining order just to abuse someone? Of course, that would never ever work. As you can see, there is always an alternative, not just having to use deadly force. I am intrigued to see my oponents arguement and am glad to have had the chance to go against him in this debate.