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

I will go through and sum up each main point stated in this round and then discuss our respective values. P stands for pro C for con P1. This describes a personal account of domestic violence. But, it does not prove that domestic violence will repeat in EVERY case. It does not prove that in EVERY case the violence will progress from verbal to physical. Furthermore, as I have stated above, my opponent has not touched my statement that "my opponent now is arguing it is right to kill even in cases when the abuser is just saying something mean" because it fits the definition of domestic violence. Pro is arguing that murder is morally correct. This story is one isolated case and for that reason alone it is invalid when discussing societal morals. P2. This utilizes the Doctrine of Double Effects credited to Thomas Aquinas. But, while he does make a case for self-defense, Aquinas also states that "if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful." Meaning, as I have stated above, that if there are non-lethal means to defend yourself it is morally incorrect to use lethal means. Thomas Aquinas did not approve of killing when there are other possibilities. Above I stated (sub point 5,round 2) several non-lethal possibilities, which my opponent has not refuted. Since "you cannot completely isolate someone from society" it is immoral to use lethal means when there are other options. My opponents use of this doctrine goes completely against her argument. Since my opponent has not refuted this fact, my opponent accepts it. P3. In my opponents third contention, she compares victims of abuse to slaves and that to get out of slavery a person should use self-defense. She also lists several things that MAY, as in not definite, happen in an abusive relationship. My opponent has not refuted that getting out of slavery does not require self-defense and that it would be sinking to the level of their "master." Therefore, she accepts this as true, sinking her own argument in the process because she then believes that self-defense is not necessary and if it is not necessary to kill, why kill? My opponents premise for the debate, self-defense, is unjustified. In a recap, my opponents 4 core beliefs: 1. Murder is morally correct. 2. If there are other options, as there are, self-defense is not morally correct. 3. Self-defense is not necessary. 4. Self-defense is a perquisite to life, therefore, life is not necessary. Now onto my own arguments. C1. Everyone has the right to live. My opponent agrees with me here. Both the abuser and victim are equal in this regard. C2. Laws are based upon morality. My opponent dropped this in her final focus and therefore, agrees. C3. The government is the protector of rights. It is this contention that has brought the most debate. My opponent holds throughout the debate that the government cannot protect everyone. I hold that the women interacts with society, my opponent agree here by dropping this statement, and that she does not reach out and ask for help, my opponent also drops this statement in her final focus. Since the women does not reach out for help the government has no reason to intervene in her life and therefore, cannot help. C4. My opponent dropped this point in her final focus and therefore, agrees with me on this aspect. So I declare the resolution null and void. C5. Once again my opponent has not argued against this, even in here 3d and 4th paragraphs which address my 3d and 4th contentions, there are better options than killing. Therefore, according to the Doctrine of Double Effects, deadly force in this context is not moral. My core beliefs: 1. Everyone has the inalienable right of life. 2. The government is the protector of the inalienable right to life as they hold the right for our self-defense 3. Violence does not solve violence. 4. There are better, non-lethal, options than killing so it is immoral to kill. Now onto our values. My opponent values self-defense as a means of protection. I value inalienable rights according to natural law because the social contract explains society has been set up to value inalienable rights. Which is more important? What the society, that she and I live in, which has existed on this premise for thousands of years deems as being superior? Or what she herself on her sole word deems as being superior? Furthermore, without life...you cannot defend yourself. Life, for obvious reasons, is the prerequisite for everything, protection of ALL life no matter their actions therefore, supersedes everything.