'defense of others' is too limited in practice, bob the serial killer should be killed in this hypo

It is almost as if Pro ignored the entirety of my argument, or at least oversimplified it in a manner that evinces lack of a full grasp on the points I was making. 1. Morality as CategoricalOn the first point, Pro offers no rebuttal. I state that there is no moral difference between killing Bob and Bob killing his victims. Pro has not refuted this in a warranted manner, merely asserting that this is "not true at all". "If it's okay to kill in self-defense or defense of others" is the only premise that warrants Pro's assertions, yet there is no reason to believe that this premise is true. My later points should be taken as arguments against the notion that killing Bob is ok even if it is not morally impermissible to kill altogether. I will now advance the point, as well, that the act of killing in and of itself is worse morally than letting another die. Frances Kamm analyzes this in her work Intricate Ethics rather extensively. I no longer have that book, but I'll advance a simplified version of the argument. When letting die, you merely refuse to act, introducing no new danger to the situation. When killing, you introduce the cause of death that would have otherwise been absent sans your presence. This is important as well even if killing Bob, as you should only reserve the right to kill when your own life is at stake, if at all, because otherwise we are left with the killing/letting die quandary. If Pro cannot form a theory of the ontology of inherent value in human life that argues in favor of victims have greater value than perpetrators, I win this point. However, take my point about killing being categorically wrong before you jump to this point, as the earlier point must be refuted first. Pro advances an ad populum fallacy as argument when asserting that I am an outlier in my beliefs. No work is done to refute my argument, only a reference to me as an "outlier". This is poor argumentative practice.2. Weighing Moral PrinciplesPro offers an argument suggesting one of two things regarding my uncertainty challenges. Either (a.) we are quite certain in this case or (b.) the hypothetical isn't about certainty. In either case, Pro should lose the debate.(a.) Once again, no matter how certain you think you are, you do not know both that Bob is the killer and that this is Bob in the park. This is information added post facto to make Pro's case seem stronger, but this sort of certainty should have been assured before the debate in round 1, not in the middle after Con has made a challenge. This style of debating is abusive and Pro is at fault for not anticipating such a challenge before the debate began. (b.) The hypothetical doesn't include this information initially. It is added post facto that we are certain in this case of all these relevant factors. Either certainty is impossible, which grants us reasonable doubt and no moral footing for murder, or the hypothetical has been altered, which is rather abusive and unsportsmanlike. Pro tackles none of my arguments, as if they weren't even read. Pro defaults to probability of being right, but ignores my entire subpoint about morality NOT being a game of probability. Then Pro asserts that society would see it as ok too. Not only is this second point unsubstantiated, but it is also totally irrelevant. Ad populum is a fallacious appeal to majority, not an argument. Morality isn't democratic. A near-concession on my point about going for the legs. Not sure that a defense is offered of the original resolution here, that Bob should be killed by the actor. If shooting in the legs is viable, then the phrase "Bob should be killed" is nullified and Con wins on that alone.Now for dropped points. Pro does no work to show that the right of everyone in a western liberal democracy (especially ours) to a fair trial before retribution is null in this scenario. I stated that we all have the right to be tried in front of a jury/judge rather than being judged by a park-going vigilante, and that this right to trial is foundational to our democracy. No response from Pro on this. Security and general knowledge of such security is foundational in our democracy, and it would be immoral to strip others of the knowledge that, no matter what they are accused of, they will see their day in court. But according to Pro, even if you aren't in the process of committing a crime, we should view your death as moral. This destroys a foundational facet of security in our state. I then go into why immanency is the superior principle. Morality, as I stated, isn't a game of probabilities. Our roles as citizens isn't to assess situations and calculate the highest possible utility of each of our actions. Our role is to respect the negative rights of others and only encroach upon these rights to defend our own when we can clearly see that our rights are in imminent danger in a sensory manner. This mean you see a gun being pointed at you, or you are being beaten to a pulp by a mugger. Extrapolation based upon past actions is no way to judge a guy you see in the park and arrive at the conclusion that he is worthy of death. If we have imperfect information we cannot even begin to conceive of a situation which warrants murder as more valuable than all others options.No response to the thought experiment either, where I increased certainty and timespan to show that murdering a child isn't justified by another murder decades in advance. I state that it is borderline thought crime in this situation, to punish proportional to possible future actions. But at least with dystopian thought crimes you know what the convicted is thinking. Death is infinite, which is why we must set standards of certainty and immanency far higher than seeing a probable future killer in the park. Political morality does not permit past actions and mental states to have a bearing on what rights you have in the future.Without addressing these points about the roots of a principle of immanency and its justification, Pro cannot hope to salvage this debate.3. Obligation to Obey the LawThis point goes mostly unresponded to. The ONLY thing Pro offers is "but the govt. won't stop him, so you should". This is a rather perfunctory rebuttal. My point is not that the government will be successful in this case, but that it is, in principle, the only institution with the power to arbitrate regarding your rights without a clear and present danger to one's own right to life (which, as Hobbes argues, is the only right you can't give up in a social contract).Every person has an inherent right to life and various liberties. Is it right for Bob to take that from others? Of course not. But is it rights for you to strip Bob's liberties because of a speculative threat to the lives of others who aren't even present at the time? Of course not. This is my point. Because we concede certain rights when gaining the protection of the government, we gain certain securities and more powerful defenses of other rights. This is why vigilantism is almost always immoral and why the state should have a monopoly on coercive force. Nothing is done to tackle my quote about the morality of obeying the law. Pro may view the action as moral sans a government, but the mere notion that a law is present gives credence to the idea that this may be immoral. Our security is primarily grounded in the notion that others will respect our negative rights by carrying out their correlative duties. We are weighing here a speculative right to life of potential victims that you most likely don't even know and the definitive, tangible right to both life and a fair trial of Bob. As Dworkin argues in Taking Rights Seriously we must default to rights that are imminently threatened when examining practices and laws rather than assessing what rights might conceivably be harmed if we don't. Even if you haven't quite bought my argument about which rights prevail, default to your moral obligation to obey the law, which goes unchallenged.