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

MY CASE1: My opponent has stated that i "Provide no weighing mechanism to weigh the round under". I would like my opponent to clarify as to his first point aimed at me.2:My opponent continues on to say that i am not AFFIRMING the resolution. But, i say to the voter, that i can counter by saying that HE in fact has not NEGATED the resolution. He has only provided ONE ARGUMENT that is based on a pilosophy! How is this NEGATING the resolution? Now, as for the fact of me not AFFIRMING the resolution, I disvalue his attack at me by saying this: I am including not only why it is MORRALY permisable for a victim of continued abuse to dispatch his or her abuser, but i am also providing evidence as to why it is LEGALLY permissable.3:My opponent actually AGREES with me, something that no debater should ever do. To agree with ones opponent is to stand by him, therfore destroying ones own case.4: My opponent makes a deadly mistake, he states that i said that "all domestic violence is deadly" when i realy stated that "domestic violence is deadly". There is no ALL included in that statment. Now, my opponents states that if he were mearley slaping his wife, she would not die. But, i say to the voter that sometimes, a slap is enough to kill a person. A slap can do anything from making a said person fall back in pain and hitting the edge of a counter, to just hurting the said person. It would all depend on the abusers power, strenght and motivation. 5: My opponent begins his assult on my second contention by saying that " there are other ways the victim can use to get their batterer arested". This sentence makes no sense, first of all since the wording is out of place. Also, i say to the voter, that there just may not be another way for a victim to arreste said batterer! First of all, the said batterer may find a way to keep the victim in check, therfore leaving no way to properly contact the police. Now my opponent continues on to say that " this outweighs because...", and i ask him, what does this outweigh? He later continues on to say that "its better for them to just report the problem to the police and, even if the response isn't entierely adequate, its still better than being thrown in prison". But, i say to the voter, is DEATH better than prison? The fact that my opponent states that police responses may not be adequete, therfore leaving the victim in solitude and with only one other way to escape abuse: death to the abuser. Now i say to you, the voter and my opponent, that the simple action of contacting the Police may end up in the death of said victim, since the abuser will most likley NOT be very happy that his vicim is looking for help!6: My opponent continues on to say that victims can " always choose to simply walk out the door". But, i say that its not as simple as JUST walking out the door. What if the door is blocked by said abuser? What if all doors are locked by the said abuser? What if the victim cannot even leave a single room? It seems as if my opponent has not taken this into consideration.7:As for his attack on the fact that there is no way to prove wether or not a woman could have escaped, i say that there is no way to prove otherwise. 8:May I point out that once again, my opponent AGGREES WITH ME. The fact that it is a last resort, a last line of defence, proves that the victim had a right to use it. If all else fails, then a victim may see that the only real way to escape is to dispatch his or her abuser. Self defence is tied directly to ones moral views, thus this last resort falls under the category of self defence.9: My opponent CLAIMS to be the only one addresing the resolution. How exactly is he doing this? By providing a philosophy called Ontology. A philosophy that not many people undertake, at that. Could my opponent elaborate as to how ontology coexists with morality?MY OPPONENTS CASE10:My opponents states that he is providing clear evidence to support his claims. I ask, where is said evidence? Where are statistics? All my opontent has at hand is a few words from philosophers. Nothing solid, nothing tangible enough to be called evidence.11: My opponent continues on to say that his case says that when one suffers, he or she allows life to have a meaning. But i say to the voter, that i value my life greatly, with or without suffering. Suffering plays a little part in life. Thus, one should not allow suffering to govern the way one values life. Life should be valued as just that: your life! Suffering does not allow life to have a meaning. When i suffer at the hands of a scrape or a punch from a friend, i dont say "wow! I need to have meaning in life!" Thus, i have just voided my opponents arguments.12:My opponent continues on to say that law in no part, has anything to do with morals. Justice in itself is a moral, as is Law. Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, or equity(1)The word MORAL apears within the defenition of justice. Justice is used in law, therfore law is directly tied to Morality. Furthermore, he continues on to say "heck". Heck is informal, and should in no way used in a formal debate. One would not say Heck in a court of law, without the risk of sounding like one that is not educated in the ways of formality.I belive that it will always be moraly permisable for a victim of continued abuse to dispatch his or her abuser. I value life and innocent life should never be put in harms way if there is no need for such actions. Thus, i stand behind the resolution. Morals come from the rights claims we agree upon when we form the social contract. According to Hobbes, the only right which we cannot sacrifice completely is the right to self defense. If one’s life is threatened, he/she has the absolute right to defend, and the aggressor effectively sacrifices their right to life by threatening that of another. Repeated domestic violence can be said to actually threaten the victim’s life. It traps them in such a cycle of physical and psychological damage, that it effectively robs them of their life. Therefore, their deliberate use of deadly force to escape the situation is morally permissible.(2) To make it more explicit, suppose the person has been captured by a serial killer. The serial killer continually rapes and beats the victim for several years before killing them. Would we not admit that it is morally permissible for the victim to use deadly force to escape the situation? Why is repeated domestic violence any different?My opponent has also given the voter claims as to why one should vote for him. I shall also do the same1) I am apperently the only debater actualy looking at the resolution from various angles, whereas my opponent has only used a phylosophical aproach.2)My opponents case, at a seccond glance has no road map or structure. Structure in a case should be orderly.3) I am not here to tell the voter what to vote for, i am here only to try to convince the voter to vote for me. I am not here to MAKE you vote for me, since voting is a voters privelege. But i do advise the voter to take a look at the debate closeley.4) My opponent has acctualy NOT expalained why it is not morraly permisable for a victim to dispatch his or her abuser. He has not given any means as to why what he says is to be belived. 5)Furthermore, suffering should not be vital to find the meaning of life. The meaning of life is all around you. Your family, friends ,dislikes,likes and moral values should govern the true meaning of life. If i was to suffer continues domestic abuse, i certantly would not see suffering as a way to find a reason in life. Thus with this i close my case, and hope for the voter to follow his mind in chosing the winner. Thank you for even taking the TIME to sit down and read my arguments. I extend my thanks as well to my oponent for a great debate. Thank you and have a great day. 1)- http://en.wikipedia.org...2)- http://shatteringthelens.com...