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

I post my negative case in the following google document. . https://docs.google.com... #Now, let's look to the affirmative case. There's a few things wrong with his framework:1. He advocates for a value of morality, but has no moral theory to justify his actions. It's like saying that we need to ensure a trial by jury system with no court system. It just fails entirely.2. Even if, my negative case clearly severs the link between affirming the resolution and morality. Since my opponent must prove that using lethal force is MORALLY permissible, this is a game-over blow. I won't contest his Websdale evidence, because all that talks about is how many women die because of domestic violence. This plays no part in justifying lethal force, it's just merely citing a statistic. However, his first contention I do have an issue with. First, let's look to his Hobbes card, where he says that people have certain rights that are given up to live in society, but there are rights that are never given up, such as the right to life. But then he says that the abuser forfeits their right to life by commiting the act of abuse, but this is highly problematic for a few reasons. First: This is simply not true. All humans are holders of rights, as per the basic definition of rights. Donnelly[1] explains Human rights are, literally, the rights that one has simply because one is a human being. Human rights are equal rights: one either is or is not a human being, and therefore has the same human rights as everyone else . They are also inalienable rights: one cannot stop being human, no matter how badly one behaves nor how barbarously one is treated. And they are universal rights, in the sense that today we consider all “human beings,” holders of human rights. Thus, the abuser will always retain their rights, no matter what they have done. This includes their right to life, which makes it morally impermissible to kill the abuser. Second: TURN: If people forfeit their right to life when attempting to kill others, then it would be permissible for the abuser to then kill the victim. Thus, we would then be able to justify the abuser turning around and killing the victim. This is going to outweigh because by affirming, we only put the victims in further jeopardy. [1]Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2003 Next, let's talk about the quoting of Thomas Aquinas to justify self-defense. There are a lot of issues with self-defense. 1. repeated” implies that the action has occurred before, therefore: a) The abuse is not deadly, since they survived the first round. Therefore the actor is not in imminent danger. b) The abuse is periodical, so they have chances to escape but have chosen not to in favor of revenge. 2. “deliberate” implies that the actor has contemplated their response before the actual confrontation, therefore it cannot have been based on the threat to the victim at the time since they would only have antecedently been aware of the magnitude of the risk to their life. 3. Even if self-defense justifies lethal force, it’s impossible to know whether self-defense was truly necessary or not in the situation. Since every situation is different, applying an overarching moral rule to it just fails entirely. 4. TURN: if self-defense is true, then the abuser is justified in killing the victim when the victim tries to kill the abuser. In other words, the abuser can then claim he was acting in self-defense and kill the abused person and get away with it. This will always outweigh because self-defense thus fails to protect the life of those who are abused. 5. If self-defense were true, then any murderer could claim he acted in self-defense and get away with it, relying on complex psychological analysis to prove whether or not they actually felt threatened – analysis that is in no way falsifiable. 6. Self-defense negates because deadly force fails to fall into the category of self-defense. Cathryn Rosen[1] explains 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. Since using deadly force deliberately to respond to domestic violence fails to meet these criteria, either a) you don’t buy self-defense and drop the argument or b) negate off of self-defense and drop the debator. These specifically take out his use of the Doctrine of Double Effect to justify using self-defense. [1] Rosen, Cathryn Jo. The Excuse of Self-Defense: Correcting a Historical Accident on Behalf of Battered Women Who Kill. The American University Law Review. 1986. My opponent's last subpoint basically broil down to the fact that our judicial system sucks at keeping abusers away. However, this isn't going to work for my opponent for quite a few reasons. First: This just isn’t true because if the abuse has been repeated, the abuser will face a much stronger sentencing, meaning that his sentencing will be more strongly enforced. Second: This doesn’t matter because even if protection orders fail, there are other avenues of solution to pursue. If the victim is so far out of the cycle to actually obtain a court order, then they can push for an arrest or stronger punishment. In essence, there is no warrant as to why this justifies deadly force. Third: TURN: if courts view the abuse as loose as the AC claims, then they are less likely to justify them using deadly force as a response to it. This means that either the resolution is conceptually negated, or that the victim is punished, which outweighs because it would cause more harm to the victim. Fourth: This just isn’t true. Courts are likely to take domestic violence cases more seriously because the evidence is all provided for them: the victim is right there for testifying, the evidence is all in the house, etc. Therefore, it is far easier to prosecute an abuser than a regular criminal. Fifth: Doesn’t matter because it doesn’t justify the use of deadly force. If it were, it would merely just equate justice with necessity, which isn’t true. Robbing a store for money may be necessary, but that doesn’t make it just. Sixth: TURN: if the laws clearly do suck, then it gives the government incentive to change the law to better protect the women. Killing the abuser doesn’t fix the problem, it only gets the victim in more trouble. We need to fix the system then, not further harm the victim. This outweighs because while killing the abuser only masks the problem, fixing the issues in the system will provide for a better solution in the long run. So the round breaks down like this:1. My opponent isn't showing how he actually achieves morality, making it a) impossible for him to achieve his value and b) actually affirm the resolution, since he must prove moral permissibility.2. My case sufficiently severs the link between affirming and morality, since morality is subjective.3. I'm showing you numerous reasons why self-defense fails or negates.4. I'm showing you reasons why the legal system is sufficient or is a better route to go through than killing the abuser.