It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence

Unfortunately, my opponent is conceding far too much evidence of mine to be able to form a coherent case, as well as bringing things in to justify his case that weren't there to begin with. I'll go line-by-line with his refutations. Now lets start with the deontology link that his case supposedly references to. I'd like to point out that no where in his case was this mentioned. It's a missing internal link in his case. If he wanted to run deontology, he should've posted it in his case. But even if you buy it now that it's been mentioned in the 1AR, deontology commits the falacy of origin. He's claiming that because moral decisions come from human agency, we must value our ability to use human agency. But this is just like saying because we came from bacteria, we must value the preservation of bacteria or that because water comes from the sink, we must value the sink, both of which are entirely non-sensical. But then secondly, he's just not doing enough to refute the negative case that proves morality is subjective, but we'll get to that later. Next, he brings up four points to explain his Doctrine of Double effect, but all four are flawed:1: Action must be goodGood is a relative term to use. Good for who? Good for what? Good for how long until it goes bad? He offers no further clarification to this point, and it only lends credence to subjectivity. Also, you can look to the first Nietzsche card that was in my case, which went entirely conceded, that says the same exact thing that I just said above. 2. Good must be intendedIt is impossible to determine the true intent of a person. I'd like to ask my opponent: why did I issue this debate? The resolution has already ended competitively, so it cannot be to prepare for a tournament on this topic. To pass time? Maybe. To brush up on old skills? Maybe. My point is that we cannot determine the intent of another person, and thus I can just say I intended to save myself instead of that I intended to kill my abuser. Thus, we cannot judge whether an action was self-defense or not based off of intent.3: Good cannot come from evilTURN: If this is true, then we would never be able to kill someone in self-defense, or even fight back. By fighting back, we are causing an increase in suffering for the abuser, which is an evil effect. But the good effect came from it! So under his reasoning, the Doctrine of Double Effect REFUTES self-defense, not endorses it. 4: Must be proportionalRefer back to my Rosen evidence here, evidence that he did not touch in list last speech, as to how not all actions of self-defense are proportional. So at this point, this fails to support self-defense in two different areas. Next, I have a massive problem with his argument against my first point against self-defense, where he says that lethal force isn't always lethal. This is MASSIVELY abusive, and merits an entirely new argument explaining the proposed rule for this topic (point A), how my opponent violates this rule (point B), why this point makes for better debating (point C), and why he should lose for breaking it (point D). Follow the link below. . https://docs.google.com... #And while this is a new argument, allow me to make it because a) this was the first time he clarified that lethal didn't always mean lethal, b) it's an unfair argument and the abuse needs to be checked back and c) my opponent allowed me to use it in the comments section. He then references to statistics to prove that restraining orders don't work, but I'd like you to look to the SIX arguments I placed against this that went entirely conceded last round. They have easy ways to escape, but just choose not to, thus making self-defense not necessary. Now he reads an argument that the victims can't leave and/or leaving only harms them. However, this is wrong for a few reasons: First: This just isn’t true. A victim can always choose to simply walk out the door, psychological impacts aside. Instead of choosing to shoot the abuser in the head in the middle of the night, there is nothing preventing them from simply walking out the door. Second: TURN: killing the abuser leaves them in a worse place psychologically or economically. They could face retribution from the abuser’s family, wouldn’t be in a better economic situation, and would later regret taking a human life. Thus, affirming only leaves the victim in a worse spot than she was before. Third: TURN: there is no way to determine in fact whether or not a woman could’ve really left her situation. All domestic violence cases involve an element of “he said, she said”, and it would be incredibly easy for the woman to claim she had no other options, when she really did. So, thusly, leaving is a much more viable choice than staying, regardless of where they end up or if they have somewhere to go. Moreover, there are plenty of domestic abuse shelters for victims who can go there and be protected from their abusers that are nation-wide, so they will always have a place to go. Then my opponent tries to group two of my arguments together, but they don't actually say anything close to the same thing. The first one, the turn, applies specifically to domestic abuse where the victim would be killed by the abuser IN SELF-DEFENSE when the victim attempted to kill the abuser. Under the affirmative case, this would be entirely justified, since it was necessary for him to protect himself and his human agency, but yet he's claiming it suddenly doesn't work! This is a perfectly valid turn, so self-defense negates. And, again, he entirely dropped the Rosen evidence, which shows that lethal force doesn't ever fall under self-defense. He conceded this, so even if he's winning that self-defense is true and good, there's literally no link between it and using lethal force, so the argument is either a) dropped or b) voted in the negative's favor. My opponent then, against my case, probably makes his most fatal error by agreeing that morality is subjective and in his opinion it's permissible. Refer back to the Joyce evidence at the top of my case that says specifically if moral skepticism is true, then NOTHING CAN BE MORALLY PERMISSIBLE. This is the flat-out easiest place to vote con in this debate since he a) dropped the Joyce evidence and b) failed to actually refute the negative case. So as the debate starts to come to a close, there's a few different layers to the debate going on, and all of them are being won by the con:1. Topicality Shell: Since he's violating the topicality shell, refer to the reasons why the topicality rule is good for debate and why he should lose for breaking it. Even if he refutes this, this isn't sufficient for the pro to win off of.2. The Negative case: He basically conceded that skepticism was true, in which Joyce says that if skepticism is true, then nothing can be morally permissible. This means that the resolution is automatically negated. But even if he's winning off of this layer, it's still not sufficient for him to win off of.3. Turns to the AC: Look to the negative case where I define to negate as to deny the truth of. So as long as I'm disproving the pro case, that's sufficient for a con win. If I'm winning off of any layer of this debate, you vote con. My opponent MUST BE WINNING in every single layer of the debate in order to win this debate.