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

This debate will be in LD format. I'm arguing this at a tournament Jan 6th, so I need the practice with this topic, and I need to edit my case and make blocks. Please accept this only if you can do LD format. First round is my AFF case and your crossex/your con case. Second round is my answers/crossex for you and your answers. Third round is rebuttals. Fourth round is conclusion. Also, if you want to see any of my evidence please post a comment and I'll give it to you, which is how it's done in LD debate at tournaments anyways. Thanks! Here is my case: Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Deadly Force: Deadly force, according to the US Armed Forces, is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death. victims: someone or something which has been hurt, damaged or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or chance http://dictionary.cambridge.org... repeated domestic violence: "Domestic violence is a pattern of interaction that includes the use of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, isolation, and/or emotional, economic, or sexual abuse by one intimate partner to maintain power and control over the other intimate partner." http://heinonline.org...= I value justice, which is each being given their due. My value criterion is respect for the social contract, which gives each person a reason to morally respect each other, which creates an interest in human rights, as explained by Robert Grant, "Human rights are the benefits negotiated by reasonable persons and received by each of them as a result of their agreement to accept the natural duties imposed by the social contract. Human rights are the consideration for the obligations assumed under that fundamental agreement. Recall that when parties enter into a contract each becomes obligated to the other and each reciprocally acquires a right to what is promised by the other." The social contract, thus, creates justice because it gives each their due under the social contract. However, when the social contract is violated, there is no longer any obligation to abide by it. This leaves the victim able to protect their own interest, without having to deal with the perpetrator's basic rights because they are now null and void. This lack of respect for the social contract creates a necessary need for justice by individual force. Contention 1: By violating the social contract through means of domestic violence, the attacker no longer has basic human rights. Under this topic and under basic rights, the right to life is the number one basic right. With domestic violence, this right is sacrificed because of the harm done to the other person, which violates their basic right to bodily integrity. This allows for the victim to use deliberate, deadly force to achieve justice. A.) Since women account for 95% of abuse victims, most evidence will focus on their defense. Women cannot defend themselves without deadly force in situations because they are at a disadvantage against a man. As Elisabeth Ayyildiz explains, "Deadly force on the part of the battered woman [is] justified in several ways. First, death [is] necessary because lesser degrees of force may be insufficient. The battered woman may not be able to confront the batterer without a deadly weapon because of disparities in size, strength and emotional control. The lower degree of force a woman typically exerts upon a man may have little or no impact on a physically stronger abuser. Indeed, a woman's lesser degree of force may only incite a vicious retaliation by the abuser." In the case of domestic violence, failure to harm or kill is not an option because that would only increase the violence. If the victim attacks the perpetrator and fails, the violence is only going to get worse. Death, as said by Ayyildiz, is the only option. Because the aggressor has failed to respect the social contract, the victim has the right to toss out any moral obligations to the aggressor. Thus, morally allowing for deadly force, which achieves justice. B.) Victims cannot simply leave their abusive environments for multiple reasons. Ayyildiz explains that "battered women are apt to feel psychologically paralyzed, as if resistance is hopeless and they have no place to go." Psychologically paralyzed means that they cannot think past the violence. Battered women are constantly waiting for the next attack. Jane Campbell explains, "The law of self-defense arises from longstanding principles governing behavior between those involved in aggression, but developed apart from the relationship between spouses....The law needs to recognize that batterers are different than others who make threats. Not only do batterers share a home with the victim—unlike most people involved in disputes—but they operate much like the way terrorists do by instilling fear that an attack is forthcoming, and thus, creating constant anxiety and fear in their victims. The uncertainty about precisely when or how the attack is coming creates dread, hyper vigilance, and fear in the victim...The sustained trauma created by an abusive relationship differs from other [situations] in which self-defense is used." Therefore, domestic violence must be evaluated under different terms from other violence and the victims cannot be evaluated in the same way that other victims are. Psychologically, these victims differ because they live in this constant state of fear. This creates the inability to leave or even to predict attacks. As shown by Dehart, "A survivor's ability to trust and to form emotional attachments is severely impacted by domestic violence." This creates an impossibility of leaving because the victim has no where to go. The victim can't trust, leave, or fight back without deliberate, deadly force. This complete violation of the social contract allows for the victim to use deadly force as a moral reaction to repeated domestic violence, which achieves justice because each person is getting their fair due. For these reasons, I urge for an affirmative vote.