Choose :P

As this round is going to be typed up from my iPod, I ask judges to overlook spelling and grammatical flaws this round. Thank you in advance. My opponents first argument is that pessimism somehow refutes my case, but he never actually explains how. All he does is summarize what my case says, says pessimism refutes it, then re-summarizes an argument of mine. Pessimism wouldn't refute my case, only present it in a different light with the same meaning, warrants, and impacts. This assertion is the definition of a warrantless argument. He then says I'm not showing deadly force is morally impermissible, but that's exactly what my case does. It shows that because reducing suffering, what the affirmative must inherently do, ruins the value of life, it ought to be morally prohibited. This was the first way that I listed it functioned. So since my case still stands strong, you can sill turn my opponents syllogism and negate off of my case. From here, the voters have two independent reasons to negate: my case proving moral prohibition and his syllogism negating instead of affirming. But let's go to the points specifically. His argument for premise two is that they are psychologically unable to, since BWS has put them into this state of constant belief that they can't. The problem with this, though, is that he entirely dropped the argument that I made last round that says that just because I believe x, that doesn't make x automatically true or valid. Just because she sees no other option, that doesn't change the fact that other options exist an are available for her to pursue. So premise two is successfully refuted because now BWS doesn't justify a deadly response. This means his syllogism falls entirely, and you can negate on a risk of offense coming off of the negative case. My opponent then argues that the conditions for justified self-defense were subjective, but doesn't actually argue against the OBJECTIVE definitions I gave them. He's not doing the work necessary to prove his point. Drop the argument. Killing still wouldn't meet proportionality because a) I already showed how BWS doesn't justify a deadly response, but b) just because I believe I am in danger of death, that doesn't actually make me in danger of death. This argument was entirely dropped, so he fails to meet this condition. This makes killing automatically not self-defense, which means premise 3 is refuted, but I will continue on. Necessity utilizes the same BWS argument as before but, again, 1) I already showed how BWS doesn't justify a deadly response, and b) just because I believe x, that doesn't make x suddenly true. Thus, killing doesn't meet this condition, which means killing can't be self-defense, which means premise three falls. Imminence is the same thing as above, again. I see no need to repeat myself again. Imminence is still not met, which means that killing still isn't self-defense, and that premise three falls. Onto premise four, starting with his first criteria. If he wants to get down to a semantical-pointless level, I'll say that getting the weapon in the first place is a bad action, as there are other ways to escape the situation without violence. If not, then ignore the stupid "firing the bullet" argument and just extend my response. He then says that because it is self-defense that we can presume that the action is the good intent, because it's simply self-defense. But 1) this is circular logic. He's saying that self-defense is permissible because it's self-defense. This is clearly circular reasoning. But then 2) because of the word deliberate in the resolution, we can presume that she knew full well that she intended to kill her abuser, which would be the negative effect. His presumption that it's the good intent is false because of the resolution itself. His response to my turn on his third criteria is majorly flawed. 1) this presumes that killing is self-defense, which I've already shown to be false. 2) Saving yourself doesn't actually produce the death, but rather the other way around. You haven't saved yourself, under my opponents case, until your abuser is dead. Thus, saving yourself can't result in the death, as it requires the death to have already occurred. Thus, the death causes the saving. The turn still applies. His fourth point has not been defended. So, at the end of the day, the voting comes down really simply. There's three independent levels to this debate, and I'm winning all of them. 1. The Negative case is the first thing you as the voters look at. As I'm still successfully upholding it, this is a reason to negate since it proves a moral prohibition. But if you don't think I'm winning this level, you look to the second level. 2. The responses to the affirmative case. I'm sufficiently disproving three of his five premises. I only need to refute one to refute the entire syllogism. If I've refuted one, then you negate on a risk of offense, as I would be the only one with a standing case. But if you still think all his premises were upheld, there's one final level as the bottom line to negate. 3. The case turn provided in the Negative case is the bottom line of where to negate. This proves that even if you buy his case and don't buy mine, his case negates because he ruins the value of life, which is morally impermissible. He's barely breathed a word on this argument, and it's the final place negate. My opponent must be winning all three to win this debate. If I'm winning even one of the layers, even if he's winning the other two, you still negate. Since I'm winning all three, it's a really easy negative vote.