It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

Ontology precludes the AC since we must understand what it means to exist before we can value existence. We exist in relation to the Other, which makes ethics relevant only in terms of how we exist amongst each-other. Butler: Judith Butler, PhD, Yale, Maxine Elliot Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, “Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?”, Verso, 2009, “we are, from the start, interrupted by alterity and not fully recoverable to ourselves, [so]… we are … ethically implicated in the lives of others.…the self must be narrated …[so] we cannot survive with an unconscious.… In the language which articulates the opposition to a non-narrativizable beginning resides the fear that the absence of narrative will spell a … threat … to life, and will pose the risk … of … the death of a subject who cannot … fully recuperate the conditions of its own emergence.” The face-to-face encounter with the Other requires a prohibition on violence, no matter what they have done. Butler 2: “I cannot disavow my relation to the Other, regardless of what the Other does … ethics is … a matter of … making use of an unwilled susceptibility as a resource for becoming responsive to the Other. Whatever the Other has done, the Other still makes an ethical demand upon me … I am … precluded from revenge by virtue of a relation I never chose. … [so] the primary … relation to the Other demands that we desist from … violence …” Thus the standard is not committing violence. I contend that the aff is an instance of deadly force, which requires the victim to use violence in the face of the Other. No turns – a state of affairs is irrelevant since individuals exist only in relation to other individuals, so any external view fails to comprehend the subjectivity of our relations. Then, go to his argument where he's saying that we should do self-defense.First, Even though the rights of the victim have been violated, we still assume that the batterer has rights. For example, we don’t allow the slaughter of murder suspects by the families of their victims. Even if these rights are limited or somewhat diminished by their crimes, they don’t abdicate their rights.Second, Doesn’t Matter: Even if self-defense does justify the use of deadly force, we can’t ascertain whether or not self-defense was necessary in this situation. Since every situation is distinct, prescribing a generic moral rule is unacceptable. Thus, the argument is at best a wash without specific context.Third, TURN: If this principle is truee, then the batterer would be justified in killing his victim when she tries to kill him. In other words, the batterer could also claim self-defense against the victim and kill that victim. This outweighs because it fails to protect the lives of those who are actually being abused.Fourth, Not True: Self-defense can’t justify the use of deadly force because then every murderer could claim that they acted out of self-defense, relying on complex psychological analysis as to whether or not they actually felt threatened—analysis that is in no way falsifiable.Fifth, There is a difference between utilizing self-defense as a justification and using it as an excuse. Rosen:Rosen, Cathryn Jo. The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill. American University Law Review. Fall, 1986. “Justified conduct is … tolerated … . In contrast, excuse focuses on [intent] … Unlike a justified act, the excused act did not avoid a greater societal harm or further a greater societal interest. The actor is excused … because, … she was not morally blameworthy. Under the circumstances in which the harmful act was committed, the actor did not have a fair opportunity to choose meaningfully whether to inflict the harm.” Sixth, the affirmative in this resolution doesn't even meet the standards of self-defense. Rosen 2:“The amount of force employed by the defender must be proportionate to the threatened aggressive force. If deadly force is used to defend against nondeadly force, the harm inflicted by the actor (death or serious bodily harm) will be greater than the harm avoided (less than serious bodily harm). Even if deadly force is proportionate, its use must be necessary. Otherwise, unlawful conduct will only bejustified when it involves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. If countering with nondeadly force or with no force at all avoids the threatened harm, defensive use of deadly force is no longer the lesser evil of only two choices. Alternatives involving … less societal harm are available. … in many cases it may have been possible to avoid unlawful conduct altogether. The same consideration underlies the imminency requirement.” Therefore, the aff is not disproving all other alternatives—there is always another thing victims can do that does not result in deadly violence.Then, go to his argument where he's saying that victims can't leave.First, there's a multitude of alternatives to deadly force. Non-deadly force, calling the police, leaving in the night are among the many. Second, Even if, because of psychological impacts, a victim can’t leave an abusive situation, we can never determine what the psychological impacts are or how they function to prevent an abuser from leaving. All of this information is completely unfalsifiable.Third, TURN: If victims can’t leave abusive situations for economic reasons, or fear, then killing won’t help. They might still feel retribution from the family, would be economically worse, and would feel regret for their crime. Thus, killing their abuser does not do anything to empower the victim, but rather leaves them in the same psychological situation.Fourth, Doesn’t Matter: Even if the victim can’t leave their situation, it doesn’t justify the use of deadly force, because morality is not necessarily equated with running out of necessary options.Fifth, TURN: This is a dangerous precedent to set because we never can know if the victim actually could or couldn’t leave, so they could always justify their crimes by saying that they had no other options when, in fact, they might have. Domestic violence cases always involve an element of “he said, she said” because there are rarely direct witnesses. Thus, there is not actual way to determine whether they could have escaped.Then, go to where he says the police system fails.First, Not True: The police system functions based on mandatory arrests, meaning that even if they don’t have direct evidence of the abuse, they can still make arrests until the criminals get lawyers and can be released. If, however, there is credible evidence concerning the abuse, the criminal can be held.Second, Doesn’t Matter: Even if there are flaws in the police system, it doesn’t justify the use of deadly force because the victim can still find ways for their batterer to be arrested. Clearly, abusers are arrested frequently, so obviously the flaws in the police system are not that influential.Third, TURN: If the police system is truly flawed, then it might mistake a victim’s use of deadly force for something it isn’t, which would put both the victim at risk and their freedom. In other words, it is comparatively better for the victim to simply report the abuse and, even if the response might not be totally adequate, it will be better than possibly getting arrested for murder.Fourth, TURN: The failures in the police system just give the state an incentive to clean up both the police and legal system, or risk protest from battered women. This outweighs on a level of masking because it actually works to solve the problem at its root. Conclusion:The NC is showing that killing in any case for any reason is wrong because it denies our shared experience with the Other. Violating this shared experience is wrong, regardless of what the Other has done, which makes deadly force as a response always impermissible.Moreover, I'm refuting and turning every argument he has advanced in this round. He literally has no offense to work off of here.