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

So is the ordering of the rounds?1. Pro Construct, Con Construct/CX2. Pro Response, CX and Rebuttal, Con Response/Rebuttal3. Pro Conclusion, Neg ConclusionNow for the definitions.1. Morally Permissible-accepted2. Victim-accepted3. Deliberate Response-accept4. Deadly Force-I cannot agree with this definition because deadly force is force that in all situations would be deadly, it's an action with the intent to cause death.5. Repeated-accepted6. Domestic Violence-accept the definitionNow onto my arguments.I value a persons natural, human, inalienable rights according to natural law.Inalienable Rights are defined as a right which according to natural law cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred. Inalienable fundamental are the rights stated by the United Nations especially the ones of Article 3. (http://www.un.org...)Natural Law is defined as "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society."Ethics are defined as "a system of moral principles."My value criterion is the social contract according to John Locke and Robert Grant, they state that all people have inalienable human rights. John Locke theorized that all people have inalienable rights which cannot be changed. Robert Grant came to the exact same conclusion a couple hundred years later ("these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged"). These "social contracts" hold that a persons natural rights are inalienable and can never be taken away in any circumstance.The Social Contract is defined as such: a political theory trying to explain the relationship between individuals and the government. This theory asserts that individuals unite into political societies, by mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules. Political philosophers use this definition and the starting point of political order, in other words, before society formed every person acted as judge, jury and executioner, called the "state of nature". Using this starting point political philosophers then go on to attempt to explain why man would give up natural freedoms in order to form a ordered society a.k.a. set up a government. Thoughts about the social contract are only theories explaining why people come together to create a government. A government is legitimate since the people delegate to the government their right of self-preservation, thus, allowing the government to act as an impartial agent of self-preservation rather then all persons acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The government preserves people through laws. The two parties involved in the contract are the people and the government.Contention 1: Everybody has the basic right to live; no matter their actions.In 1948, the United Nations wrote a document, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 3, of this document, is as follows, "[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." These rights are universal, limitless and applied to everybody, whether the person is murderer, or the victim; a wife beater, or the wife. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." There is no compromising in this regard. So here is question presented, is it morally permissible for one person to take away an inalienable right of another person? No it is not. Furthermore, Robert Grant asserts that, "these rights are unalienable--that is, they cannot be taken away or even abridged." No person can morally take away another person's inalienable rights which includes the right to life. A person cannot morally take away a person's right to live.Contention 2. Laws are based upon morality.Society is nothing more than a community of shared ideas. "without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist" if there is no agreement on what is good and evil society WILL collapse. Laws are nothing more than the consensus of what is good and evil. It is evil to kill. It is evil to cause abuse. Society is not physically held together it is held together by "invisible bonds of common thought...a common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is a price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price (The Philosophy of a Law R.M. Dworkin)." The government is the one empowered to create laws which are morale. There are laws preventing men from beating their wives, let society deal with those who transgress these laws. But, natural rights and natural law supersedes those made by man.Contention 3: The government is the protector of rights.According to the Social Contract theorized upon by Robert Grant, a person is "entitled to the enforcement of these rights by the government against offending members of that society." What Mr. Grant says here is clear, a society's government is the protector of natural rights. Not individuals. In this case, the women is taking societies laws and ethics into her own hands and killing her husband. This is why there are laws within society, to protect people from abuse. Therefore, it cannot be morally permissible to kill in any circumstance.Contention 4: Using violence to stop violence logically does not make sense.This entire resolution is based upon using violence to solve violence. This resolution uses the single thing which it wants to prevent to try and prevent what it wants to prevent. This is circular reasoning, therefore it is null and void. All morale law must abide to the laws of logic. If logically the resolution is null, then morally it must be null to.Contention 5. There are better options then death.The women does not have to kill her husband. She can first, let society deal with the problem of abuse. Second, she could use a non-lethal method of self-defense. Furthermore, if society does not have the laws meant to protect the women from domestic abuse (I cannot think of a country which does not) then it is not morally permissible for her to kill as by being in that society she is accepting societies beliefs of right and wrong. Since this is true, she is accepting societies morale beliefs therefore, it is morally wrong to kill her husband who is both protected by the absence of such man made law and natural law.Cross-ex1. Are wife beaters people? If you answer yes to this question, then they have the right to life and therefore, it is morally unacceptable to kill them. If you answer no, then what other species are they? 2. Do members of society have a moral obligation to kill a killer? If yes, then how can the Catholic Church morally oppose the death penalty?3. Can unalienable rights be taken away? If so how are they unalienable? If not then women cannot morally kill their abusive spouse.4. Is the world just?5. What psychological implications result from a women killing her husband? (If we are discussing the morality of it the after affects are just as important because what happens to the women is just as important as what happens to the man.)6. How should a women kill her husband? If you provide no plan then the resolution is irrelevant because they would not be able to act.