It is morally permissible to use deadly force as deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

It is, then, left for the readers to decide whether my opponent is wrong for assuming the resolution needs to apply to all cases of repeated domestic violence. If we examine the resolution, it is simple to see he is stating requirements not evident in the resolution; requirements which benefit con in an irrationally disproportionate manner with regard to fair debate. The resolution states: It is morally permissible to do X as a deliberate response to Y. Now take the following facts: 1- Barbara Sheehan claims to have been the victim of repeated domestic violence. 2- Barbara Sheehan admitted to, and was jailed for murdering her husband as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. 3- Barbara Sheehan was acquitted of murder in a court of law. 4- The jury agreed with the defense: It is legally permissible (and we have already agreed that legality is at least one measure of morality) to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. My opponent seeks to include in the scope of the resolution "every" case of repeated domestic violence because he knows the criteria of proof in "every" instance is impossible to meet, while giving examples applicable to the resolution is a simple task. Now, because we are speaking on what is morally permissible, how do we do so adequately with something like domestic violence? Will my opponent's degree of acceptable domestic violence be different from my own? What of that of the judges? Is there an acceptable degree of domestic violence that meets my opponent's value of justice, or value criterion of proportional punishment? Or do his value and value criteria only apply to the offender, and not the victim? What can we weigh these questions against? What constitutes a crime. Is there a situation where repeated acts of domestic violence constituting a crime would not merit a response using deadly force? And against whom? Is forcing me to defend even extreme examples of the resolution not the slippery slope fallacy? I would also like to point out that if it is my burden to prove my case with 100% application, should not the burden be the same for my opponent? After all, he has made arguments implying deadly force is not morally permissible in ANY case of repeated domestic violence. My opponent failed to contradict my statements regarding the value of justice. When discussing justice, legal precedent, or anything that must be rationally considered it is only rational to evaluate each situation independently. Even if it was my burden to prove every situation, my opponent makes claims he does not support. He says there are more cases where deadly force is not justified than not, but presents not one case to support his claim. In fact, he says I should present those cases myself! He also continues to make the false argument that I advocate killing of domestic abusers, but he himself has admitted that the use of deadly force =/= killing. In fact, pointing a deadly weapon at someone is using deadly force. Punching someone in the temple is using deadly force. Shooting "at" somebody is using deadly force. Holding someone in a choke hold without choking them is using deadly force. None of these cases, and many more which can be considered deadly force, are the equivalent to killing someone, or leveling capital punishment on someone as my opponent repeatedly implies. My opponent attempts to defend against my value criterion by giving you his interpretation of the resolution. Obviously the resolution can be interpreted differently as can all cases of morality, and/or legality. That is why examples are given, and opinions, observations, and statements are weighed against facts. The resolution does not imply premeditation- my opponent does because he thinks it is in his benefit. Even in cases of premeditation, though, I have already shown (as in the case of Barbara Sheehan) that a jury found the actions of the victim to be morally permissible. In reality, however, the resolution simply implies deadly force is being used as a response to repeated domestic violence. The resolution does not imply "who" is the victim, neither "who" is using the deadly force, nor at what point in the act of domestic violence (before, after, during) the response is occurring. The resolution DOES imply the domestic violence is repeated, and it also implies the victim (or someone defending the victim) is convinced the domestic violence warrants a response with deadly force. It is, apparently, impossible for my opponent to conceive of a case where a child is being repeatedly raped and beaten, and someone (if not the child) rationally responding with morally permissible deadly force. My opponent here, again, reiterates that he believes the use of deadly force is NEVER morally permissible. He invokes the example of "sleeping murder," but does not show examples of how even those cases are not morally permissible- he simply says they're not. The case of Barbara Sheehan clearly shows a woman who planned her husband's murder some time before she actually committed it. I am not saying every case contradicts his point, but he is making affirmative empirical statements in his defense which I have already proven not empirical. My opponent, rather than responding to my arguments, continues simply by complaining about my arguments. He says I am being unfair, and not allowing the negative to breathe. But then he implies the resolution refers to a universal punishment against domestic violence when it does not. It does not even imply punishment. My opponent is attempting to manipulate the readers' interpretation of the resolution rather than arguing against my points. Even if we ignore the fact that I am saying "some" cases, we can't ignore the fact that he is arguing that NO cases of domestic violence merit deadly force. This is contradictory to his affirmation, then, that my arguments and interpretation make for an unfair debate. Surely, if he believes NO cases of domestic violence should be met with deadly force, and I say some should, we have a debate with clear sides and points to be made. If he were arguing that deadly force is not a proportional response in "all" cases of repeated domestic violence, that would be different. However, that is NOT what my opponent is arguing. My opponent, again, moves the goal post on what is "morally permissible." Either we can look to the laws to judge what society has deemed morally permissible, or we look to what my opponent thinks one's back should be patted for to determine what is morally permissible. My opponent doesn't seem to understand his definition of deadly force. He doesn't understand the difference between "potenial" and "actual". I'm pretty sure the readers understand the use of deadly force =/= killing, and doesn't even require injury. Again- pulling a gun on an abuser and telling him to lay down on the ground until the police arrive constitutes the use of deadly force. In fact- throwing an orange at a moving vehicle is the felonious crime of "throwing a deadly missile into a vehicle occupied," which is often prosecuted as attempted murder, but does not necessarily show the intent to cause death- only the slim possibility. Killing cannot be debated. Dead is dead. My opponent ends his argument with more attempted manipulation- he claims this debate is not about the victim's response, rather punishment. He believes a victim's response to being beaten is punishing the attacker- not defending themselves. He has made this clear. He is trying to say I have misunderstood the topic because I am not a LD debater. That is an ad-hominem that has nothing to do with the debate itself. So in conclusion: My opponent cannot prove deadly force is morally impermissible in every case of domestic violence. If that is his con, and my Pro is "some" cases, we have a debate. A moral argument where only extremes can be supported is a slippery slope fallacy.