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

I'm getting the feeling that my opponent is more familiar with PF debate than LD debate. The vast majority of his arguments are incoherent and, frankly, make as much sense as his argument that I said heck. So let's go through them. "My opponent has stated that i "Provide no weighing mechanism to weigh the round under". This is where I draw the vast majority of my suspicion that he is not all too familiar with LD debate. His case consists of one observation, and then straight into contention level arguments, with no framework in between. Without a framework of some sort, i. e. a value/criterion, a burden system, etc. , we have no way of actually being able to tell how his arguments interract with the resolution (absent arbitrary judge intervention). As my case provides the only weighing mechanisms (a burden system), you're going to prefer my case and my framework because of it. Whoever is best promoting the value of life is going to be winning this debate. As he is reducing the amount of suffering in the world, he is fundamentally ruining the value of life, and thus is the reason to negate. "HE in fact has not NEGATED"False. I'm explicitly proving in my case why it is MORALLY impermissible to use deadly force to respond to domestic violence, as it ruins the value of life. This 'philosophy' you waive off as pointless is the exact reason why I'm actually negating the resolution and you're not even adressing the actual point of the resolution. All your case does is argue that it is LEGALLY permissible, when the resolution clearly states that you need to prove it is MORALLY permissible. Because you aren't doing that, you aren't actually affirming the resolution, but rather a twisted, distorted version of it, while I'm the only one arguing it. This is the second place to negate. "My opponent actually AGREES with me. .. "Let's go over the points I conceded to you:1. Domestic violence is widespread. No offense here.2. Domestic violence is used as a last resort (even though I said that it doesn't really justify anything, which is something you never really respond to). Even still, no offense here. Yeah. .. . "There is no ALL included in that statement. "Yet you continue on to argue that even the mildest forms of abuse (i. e. a simple slap) can be deadly, hence implying that all domestic violence is deadly. Incoherency at it's best. But even if you're correct in saying that not all domestic violence is deadly, this is only a reason to negate because then using deadly force to respond to it would be unreciprocal. For example, if I flick you and you hit me in the head with a baseball bat, that would be an unreciprocal response. This is the same as if an abuser were cussing out his wife, and her, fearing for her life, takes a gun and shoots him. Verbal abuse does not merit a deadly response. So, in some cases, domestic violence would be impermissible, and thus we can negate. "first of all the wording is out of place. "Because this totally makes sense. /sarcasm"there just may not be another way for a victim to arreste[sic] said batterer! "By arguing that the police response is insufficient, you concede that the police can and has been contacted by the abused. Otherwise, we wouldn't know if the response is adequete or not. By arguing that it isn't, you then concede that we can contact the police. "what does this outweigh? "Calling the police, even if the response isn't fully adequete, would outweigh killing the abuser, as killing the abuser would only put them in a worse spot. "is DEATH better than prison? "Not all domestic violence is deadly, thus death isn't always the result of domestic violence. You even argue this in your last round. So would taking a few harsh words be better than prison? Yes. "its not as simple as JUST walking out the door. "How is it not? Nothing is preventing the victim from just getting up and leaving in the middle of the night when the abuser is asleep. It is just that simple. The victim can always leave, if they choose to. "i say that there is no way to prove otherwise. ". .. .Is this a concession to the point? My argument is that there is no way to prove that the woman couldn't have left or not, which he, from the looks of it, agrees with. This means that we should always presume that there is some way out of the situation that doesn't involve killing. "The fact that it is a last resort. .. proves that the victim had a right to use it. "Again, this is entirely false. Refer back to my analogy of going to nuclear war with Russia. Moreover, as Yoda might say, warrants for this argument you lack. "Could my opponent elaborate as to how ontoloy coexists with morality? ". .. . *facepalm*Ontology is the study of being, how we come into hypothetical existence. In this sense, ontology is a field of moral study. "But i say to the voter, that i value my life greatly, with or without suffering. "So who's word do we take? A random kid on a debating website, or a handful of professional philosophers who study and think about this for a living? Moreover, he never actually responds to or attacks the warrants coming out of the Long or Strauss analysis. In this sense, he inevitably concedes the entirety of the negative case. This is the game-over issue for my opponent, as he concedes the only case that actually talks about the resolution. "The word MORAL apears[sic] within the defenition[sic] of justice. "Wow, a wikipedia source. How surprising. Besides the fact that wikipedia has about as much credibility as an infant in a debate, laws and morals are not the same. To say so commits the is/ought fallacy, as I explained already. This analysis was conceded, hence turning his entire case as inable to fulfill the inherent resolution burden of proving moral permissibility. "he continues on to say "heck". Heck is informal. .. "Because DDO is totally black tie. .. /sarcasm"Morals come from the rights claims we agree upon when we form the social contract. "Excuse me for a moment. You have got to be sh! tting me. .. Way to put a totally brand new argument in the last round, in a spot where I would have less than 2000 characters to try to respond to it. I ask the voters not even look at this argument when weighing the resolution, due to the extreme absurdity and unfairness of it. Regardless, I will attack one key link in it: that the abuser forfeits their rights by attacking the victim. This is false because, as the laws he holds in such high regards state, the right to life is an inalienable right i. e. we can never lose it, regardless of what we do. Because of this, the abuser cannot lose their right to life, which makes it permissible for them to defend themselves when the abused tries to fight back. Thus, if we affirm under the social contract, we allow the abuser to kill the victim in self-defense and get away with it. So at the end of the day, the round ends really simply for you as a voter:1. My opponent is not meeting the inherent resolutional burden of proving MORAL permissibility. I've disproven this in multiple ways. As I'm the only one arguing for morality, you negate here.2. I've refuted the entire affirmative case. As per the definition of negate, meaning to deny the truth of, I'm meeting the inherent resolutional burden of disproving the affirmative. You can negate here.3. I'm winning sufficient offense off of the NC, which proves that using deadly force should be morally prohibited. You can negate here. S/G - Goes to me, as my opponent made numerous spelling errors. Conduct - Could go either way. I was highly sarcastic this round, but my opponent's new argument in the last round could merit it to me. Sources - Frankly, I'm the only one providing independent citations from authors. My opponent's sources were wikipedia and a biased link. So, frankly, the vote is extremely simple.