YES, It is right

1. I'd like to start with the definition of "deliberate" as premeditated. This is completely false. "Deliberate" means that the actor has intention or purpose behind the action itself. Because of this, self-defense could qualify as a deliberate response, while satisfying the imminence requirement. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS -----> Agrees self-defense is applicable. 2. "The threat must be imminent". This is true (if we were discussing LEGAL permissibility, but we are discussing MORAL peermissibility). Thus, anyone who says this is wrong because the threat must be imminent, please prove WHY the threat must be imminent because we cannot believe it as a valid LEGAL point. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS -----> If we look to accepted social norms for this topic, then yes moral permissibility is based on adherence to law, but we're looking at individuals and their actions, meaning that we cannot look to laws, especially when law has failed in its duty to protect the individual from harm (Social Contract Theory). Something can be moral while being illegal, i.e. vigiliantism (when the law fails in its duty), thus that is not a valid statement. 3. Alternatives have been exhausted through the inclusion of the word "repeated" in the resolution. It implies there has been no change in the nature of the domestic violence (which means physical abuse, does NOT include verbal abuse) because it has occurred several times. As such, either (1) others have failed in their duties to protect the victim from violence (through the social contract) or (2) alternatives have been non-existent. Anyone who truly believes the victim can simply leave is naive. Victims ought to be treated as people under coercive control because they are under the control of the abuser. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS -----> A) Of course repeated applies to domestic violence in saying that it has occurred several times. It is because of this reason that we can understand that alternatives are non-existent or the law has failed in its duty to protect individuals. Many court cases prove the latter. Even if alternatives did exist, as stated above, "Anyone who truly believes the victim can simply leave is naive. Victims ought to be treated as people under coercive control because they are under the control of the abuser." No response to this statement. B) In (1) the negative stated "It can be pre meditated action or self defense, either is applicable." Now they state that self-defense does not apply. There is a contradiction present. C) Self-Defense is NOT against the law. D) Social Contract is not a law, so if the negative wants to use laws to determine morality, then you can't judge on the social contract because it's not a "law", hence the term "social" contract, not "legal" contract. Even if you want to accept the Social Contract Theory, it also applies to the affirmative. Once the state fails in its duty to prevent violence (as is with REPEATED domestic violence), Social Contract Theory says the state shall be dissolved and individuals provide their own protection, thus supporting the affirmative. 4. Apply the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you would wish to be treated." This is enough justification alone because it is a moral ideal which can be applied to EVERYONE. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS -----> The Golden Rule can still be applied because we have to look to individual actions, which allows the application of the Golden Rule, and not social norms. Moreover, it is not a "loop" argument. It is based on initial actions not those in response to another's initial actions, thus still being applicable. The Golden Rule applies to individual actions, not societies!