It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

Let's start on the framework level.Extend my first defense of my framework: other cases that don't use the traditional V/C format are ran all the time on the state and national level and they are evaluated/voted up all the time. His statement that I need one under "NFL rules" is just blatantly false. He's trying to argue that because it says "the resolution evaluated is a proposition of value" a) doesn't respond to the actual arguments within my case, meaning that I can meet that interpretation without actually having a cut-and-dry value/value-criterion and b) is just blatantly lying about what's on ballots. Since he said he was going to link you to an LD ballot and didn't, I'll do so instead (http://www.joyoftournaments.com...). There are tons of ballots for you to look at. See one that has that wording? Nope. And, prefer my link to the one he posted in the comments because a) we've been specifically asked not to argue in the comments, yet he put his source in there anyway. I'm the only one with a source in the debate to be judged, b) it comes from a nationally accredited website that hosts hundreds of TFA/NFL tournaments around the country, making it more indicative of the most commonly used ballots at tournaments and thus more indicative of truth, and c) these ballots are used by officially recognized NFL/TFA tournaments, meaning that it meets the guidelines of what the NFL has set forth for what an "official ballot" should look like, Moreover, he's (again) blatantly misinterpreting what I'm saying. My case isn't trying to negate the judge ballot. I'm actually affirming the resolution by appealing to narratives only instead of other forms of evidence (be they analytical or empirical). My entire case is talking about how we ought to value narratives to put us back into actually debating and how narratives are what gives the round actual value, which in no way "negates the ballot". Then, extend my third defense by saying that the logic behind his position kills interest in the event because it stifles growth outside of the standard format. This means that if we follow his logic people won't be even doing LD anymore, which absolutely prevents discussion of the resolution which is what he's wanting to do (interestingly enough that's what I was trying to do before he turned this into a "how to write an LD case 101" debate, but alas). He tries to respond to it by saying that it's not about creativity but doing what you're supposed to do but a) this doesn't respond to my actual argument. I'm saying that by saying there's a "official way" to write cases and anything outside of that being not allowed and auto-voted down will kill the event. His way of responding to it is by saying "too bad, there's an official way to do it so follow it!" which only bites into the turn harder. Then, extend my fifth defense saying that at best this "lack of a value" argument doesn't actually refute my arguments. Even if he's winning that I need a value to have a "proper LD case", that doesn't mean that we ought not only evaluate narratives for offense back to the resolution. His response to this was that it's a debate about the resolution, not about narratives, but LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Sorry, but jesus...I'm astonished by my opponent's just blatant idiocy. My entire framework is to set up for why we only evaluate narratives, which sets up my narrative that is HIGHLY SPECIFIC to the resolution, about domestic violence, and about using deadly force as a respose to it. It's a direct testamony of THE RESOLUTION IN ACTION. If talking about a case where someone used deadly force as a response to repeated domestic violence isn't the resolution, then I don't know what else to say. Like, we should just get Airmax to delete this debate if a story of someone killing their abuser isn't actually talking about the resolution. So that should settle that. It's silly and ignorant for him to assert that "I need a value and value-criterion with 2.5 contentions and at least two definitions of key words--blahdeblahdeblah, otherwise I lose the debate". And since he hasn't actually responded to any of the warrants coming off of my framework, you can extend out all the reasons why we should only be evaluating narratives in this debate. Since I'm the only one reading a narrative, that means I'm the only one with offense back to the resolution. This means I win the debate by default. It doesn't matter how many other cards or pieces of evidence he has or how macho he is with his value and value criterion, he doesn't have a narrative and he's conceded the framework arguments about how we should only evaluate narratives in favor of trying to say "I don't have a value so I lose". If he doesn't run a narrative, and he doesn't respond to why we ought only use narratives for debating, then he cannot win. It's as simple as that. Anyway, enough ranting about the framework. Let's move onto his.First, extend out the response that his definition of justice doesn't actually tell us what's just. His definiton of justice is that what's just is what's "morally right and fair" but he doesn't give us any kind of calculus or system on which to decide what's morally right and fair off of. This means that his definition only begs the question of what's morally right and fair, and thus can't ever tell us what's just. This means that it's impossible to actually determine what meets his framework, meaning that he can't actually turn any offense off of his framework. I'm the only one with a working framework, thus you have to default to mine.He tries to respond to this by saying that Dixie's action was equally unjust because killing someone can never be just by definition, but that doesn't respond to my argument that I'm making about how his definition doesn't actually define anything, but rather just beg the question of what's morally right in the first place. And, he tries to answer back for having a sh*tty definition by saying that he doesn't have to give a specific standard for what is just and unjust, but a) yeah he kinda does. If he's going to categorize actions as just and unjust actions, he needs to have some kind of standard for how and why he's categorizing them as such, otherwise there's no reason to believe in his categorizations, b) by this logic I don't need to explain why the judges should vote aff, only tell them that they should and just have them blindly check off aff won and go afk, and c) I don't need defintions of justice to critique your own. You're the one that's running justice, so why do I have to define it? If you have a crappy definition of what makes an action just and unjust, that's a flaw within your framework, thus something I can use to argue against your framework. But if you don't buy that, extend out that under his definition of justice and evil that Dixie Shanahan's response to her continuous domestic abuse would quality as just, since Scott's actions were 100% evil. Any and all attempts at fighting evil, under his framework, are just, thus making Dixie's response (i.e. lethal force) justified. So even in the absolutely dumbest circumstances that you disregard my framework because of his "I don't have a value argument", my narrative still links and fulfills his framework. This means that no matter who's framework you're evaluating the resolution under, mine or his, I can still link to it and have offense back to the resolution.Then, go to his first contention. Extend out my second response by saying that even if the justice system is a better option than killing, that doesn't make killing not permissible. All I need to do is show that killing is a permissible response, not the permissible response, since the resolution is only specific to lethal force being a permissible response. His only response to this point wasn't actually responsive (even if no one is dying in prisons, that doesn't mean killing isn't permissible, it just means that the courts might be better). This means that his first contention doesn't really matter.Then, extend my second turn that says that if the state response is really better than killing someone, then it should be permissible to kill your abusers since it would force the state to get involved and respond to the situation, which increases the liklihood that the woman will escape the situation she was in. His only response is that the state response is better, but that's exactly why my turn is valid. Killing will force the state to take action against domestic violence.Then, go to his second contention. Extend my first response that says that violence in the name of self-defense is justified by society. His only response is that "I'm a sh*tty sign-poster and that killing is never justified", but a) doesn't warrant this, and b) this doesn't actually respond to my objection. My argument is that violence (including killing) is justified by self-defense. He never responds to this.Then, extend my fourth response saying that by his logic the aff can never actually win the round if killing is never permissible. He just blanket asserts that the aff can win but I can't because I'm a sh*t debater, but never actually warrants how they can under this argument. Then to his third contention: Extend my first response that says that PTSD doesn't negate. He just says that looking to their long term health is better, but a) that still doesn't negate. All I have to do is show it's a permissible response, and b) we can still look to their long-term health by offering them rehabilitation from the PTSD so that they can go to living normal lives.This round is really simple:He hasn't responded to a single warrant on my framework.I'm showing that I don't need a value.Even if you don't like my case, my narrative-only argument still is unrefuted.Even if you don't like my framework, my narrative links to his framework.Even if you don't like my narrative, I'm extending offensive turns off of his case that he isn't respond to.