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

It seems my opponent has forfeited round 2. I'll just rebut what he's saying then create my own case. My opponent just presents this paragraph so I'll do a line by line refutation. So the first thing he presents to Negate is that the victim is only stooping to their level. There are many issues with that argument because 1st It isn't stooping to the abusers level because the abuser has committed these acts simply to intentionally harm you. When the abuse victim reacts by intentionally killing the abuser it isn't solely done to harm them. The main motive behind the resolved is to become free of the abuse as well as escaping the cycle of violence. Deadly Force doesn't necessarily entail death. Deadly Force, defined by the U.S Armed Forces, is force which one knows is substantially likely to result in death. Substantially likely doesn't mean it will definitely result in death. The point of Morality is to guide action, making something Morally Permissible encourages that action. Affirming encourages one to fight back against abuse, and doesn't oblige them to kill themselves. At the point where Morality doesn't provide any other Moral Options out of Domestic Abuse then we have to Affirm in order to preserve Morality. Now he tries to say that when we affirm we value the victims life over the abusers life and its extremely contradictory to do so. Its true when we Affirm we will be valuing the victims life over the life of the Abusers but its not at all contradictory. The issue is whose life do we value ? The Abusers ? Or the Victims ? Many would obviously say the victims because the victim hasn't committed any wrongful acts and are being abused. If I hear a rapist was murdered I obviously wouldn't have too much sympathy for them because they were a rapist, if I hear a person who was raped was murdered and didn't do anything wrong, I would feel a lot of sympathy for said person because they were the victims of some kind of abuse and were killed. When it comes to situations like these we need to value the life of the victim not the aggressors especially if killing the aggressor is the only way out of the abuse. Now he tries to bring in issues of law. We're debating it is Morally permissible not Legally permissible. We need to focus on what is Moral not Legal. In this debate Morality trumps Legality. He may try to say Legality is Morality but there are some laws that don't gain Morality nor have they done so in the past such as Segregation Laws. Now onto my own case Contention 1: We must affirm on the sole fact that this is the only Moral Option of out domestic Violence Domestic violence is 2 to 4 times more common in police families than in the general population. In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families. In a nationwide survey of 123 police departments, 45% had no specific policy for dealing with officer-involved domestic violence. In that same survey, the most common discipline imposed for a sustained allegation of domestic violence was counseling. Only 19% of departments indicated that officers would be terminated after a second sustained allegation of domestic violence. In San Diego, a national model in domestic violence prosecution, the City Attorney typically prosecutes 92% of referred domestic violence cases, but only 42% of cases where the batterer is a cop. Her batterer always has a gun (often many guns and other weapons) and is trained to use it. He knows how to inflict pain and leave no marks or bruises. He's trained to intimidate by his presence alone, and to use his body as a weapon. He lets her know he has the power to harm or kill her and get away with it, or have others do it for him. How can she call the police? He is the police! He tells her that if she does call police, the officers (his colleagues and friends) will believe him and not her ... and he's right. He often threatens that if she reports to police he'll lose his job, and if that happens, she's dead. He has access to surveillance tools like phone taps, police scanners, vehicle tracking devices, and audio and video recording equipment to stalk or monitor the victim's activities. The batterer or his fellow officers will often "patrol" the victim's house, work place, children's school or daycare center. Friends, family and service providers are afraid of the batterer and thus afraid to get involved. Domestic violence advocates may share her information with the police. (Other than Purple Berets and Women's Justice Center, all domestic violence advocates in Sonoma County work for either the police or district attorney's office.) He knows the location of battered women's shelters. He knows the court system, often testifies in court, and knows district attorneys, judges and bailiffs personally. Jurors assume police officers would not lie in court. At the point where your Alternatives are the ones creating the most abuse we can't look to them as Moral Options anymore and therefore the only two options left are 1. Kill yourself (Which isn't Moral at all) and 2. Kill your abuser (Which is Moral seeing that he's beaten you) The Moral Permissibility is coming from this being the ONLY MORAL option the abuse victim may take. Thus I urge an Affirmative/Pro Ballad