It's morally permissible to kill domestic abusers

I'm going to start by defending my case before refuting his.Onto the framework level:His entire problem with my case is that I don't use the traditional value/value-criterion framework that makes up the basic run-of-the-mill case in LD. He also misquotes me on two different occasions (ironically he only quoted me two times), but I'll get to those in a bit. Let's first respond to this general idea of how I need to have a V/C:First, this is flat-out untrue. Other styles of cases are ran all the time on the state and national level, such as disads, theory, kritiks, plans/counterplans, etc. And even though they aren't the traditional "LD-esque" case structure, they're all accepted as valid cases. Just saying that I need a V/C in order to have a valid case in LD denies me extensive amount of case ground which breeds unfairness.Second, there's literally zero warrant behind his argument here. He says I have to have a V/C just because, then moves on to misquoting me. Third, TURN: This mindset is harmful to LD debate as a whole. The lack of ability to be creative with your cases and come up with different structures and frameworks to evaluate different kinds of arguments under is stiffling to growth of the event. If there's no growth to an event, people will eventually stop competing in that event and move on to other, more exciting things. Look at the decline in popularity of Policy/CX debate and the rise of PF debate as proof. This means that if we follow his mindset, sooner or later there won't BE any LD debate to be had. Fourth, even if I'm not allowed to run any kind of LD case that doesn't have a V/C in it, that doesn't mean I lose. I can still link my contentional offsense (i.e. the narrative of Dixie Shanahan) into his framework, which gives me offense toward a V/C, which would be sufficient for his reasoning.Fifth, and arguably the most important, is that even if you're buying that I need to be running an LD case, that doesn't actually refute my arguments. Just saying I'm not consistent with traditional LD format doesn't respond to my arguments as to why we ought to be evaluating solely narrative arguments. In fact he even concedes to my framework being right ("I agree to some extent with what my opponent stated in his three justifications on the grounds that narratives are important."). This means that, at best, you chalk me up to being a n00b at LD and evaluate my case normally. This isn't a reason to drop my case.And, since his arguments inherently and outright concede my framework, you can extend out the three justifications I give for why we ought to be evaluating only narrative arguments. Since I'm the only one providing ANY kind of narrative, you affirm the resolution right here since under my framework, I'm the only one with offense back to the resolution. To summarize my case: My framework explains how using empirics and stuff is harmful to debate as a whole because it places us as spectators to a sport we ought to be participating in, and marginalizes real-world catastrophes, which neglects the suffering of those who are affected. The only way to solve back for this is to personalize ourselves with who the resolution is talking about, to understand their stories, and their suffering. The only way to save debate is to solely evaluate narrative arguments. This means that his quoting of me saying "My burden is that my positive discourse is a reason to endorse my advocacy." isn't ridiculous. What it essentially means is that if I'm winning on my framework, you as the judge ought to vote for the most compelling narrative. His second misquote was just a blatant misquote: the "Any denial of this framework would make judging the round nonsensical" was talking specifically about how the role of the ballot is to reward the debater with the best benefit to constructive activity (i.e. the "better debater"). It wasn't specific to my framework as a whole. With that being said, extend out the narrative of Dixie Shanahan. You can affirm off of this because we cannot allow the abuse that she suffered to go on. All of her options for recourse were stripped away: she couldn't leave, she couldn't call out, her friends kept pushing her back into his abusive, open arms, and the abuse was constant and unrelenting. When he came at her for the final time, she feared for her life and reacted in self-defense, shooting him and killing him. We must let women know that there is a way out of the dark times that domestic abuse brings.With that, let's hop over to the negative. Start on his framework:First, I meet his definition of justice. What happened to Dixie Shanahan was in no way, shape, or form just. If anything the horrible acts that her husband, Scott, inflicted upon her were the definition of "evil" acts. Validating her story and her final response meets this definition. This means that even if you don't buy my framework, my narrative still links into his framework, giving it a V/C to link to.Second, he defines justice as "what is morally right and fair", but gives us no standard with which to base what is right and fair off of. This means we're left begging the question of what is "morally right and fair" instead of having an actual, cohesive framework. This means that his framework is impossible to generate offense off of, because he just leaves us begging questions, meaning you have to default to mine in order to even evaluate the round. Then, to his first contention saying that the justice system is better. First, Not True: The legal system is only effective if a). individuals can access it and b). it’s actually going to do something about the problem of domestic abuse. Thus, the negative has to fulfill these burdens to show that this is a viable alternative. I would argue that the legal system is often unwilling to get involved in private affairs, which discourages individuals from going to it in the first place and second, that protection orders are only effective if enforced, which they’re often not. This nullifies any beneficial impacts that the system could potentially have. Second, Doesn’t Matte: Even if the legal system is a BETTER option, it doesn’t mean that it’s a MORE JUST option or, even if it is a more just option, that deadly force is by extension unjust. There’s absolutely no analysis linking better to more just or linking something being more justice to the absence of justice in another action. Third, TURN: If we want to show potential abusers that abuse is truly morally wrong, the best way to do it is by deadly force, because otherwise abusers can always get away scotch free, setting the example that abuse will go unpunished. It’s better to air on the side of absolute punishment, which we know will be effective, rather than punishment that may not be.Fourth, TURN: If the state response is good, then that just gives the victim more incentive to use deadly force because this will get the state more directly involved. Obviously, the state has failed to intervene beforehand, but murder will force the state to get involved, increasing the likelihood that the woman will get help, etc. Fifth, TURN: If the state response is just, then we should do things that would increase the efficacy and likelihood of the state’s response. Deadly force will help the state to realize that they need to tighten domestic abuse laws and intervene more readily in domestically violent situations, which would ultimately protect more women. Sixth, even if he's right, that doesn't negate. Since the resolution is talking about a permissible response, not the permissible response, deadly force can still be justified even if the courts are a good option to go as well. Driving a car to work being the best method of travel doesn't make riding a bike an immoral travesty.Then to his second contention that violence is never permissible. First, Not True: It’s commonly accepted that violence in the name of self-defense is justified. While these may not be the exact same situation because the deadly force is premeditated, it does mean that violence is, at times, absolutely justified. Punching a rapist as he is about to rape you is clearly justified. Second, Doesn’t Matter: Even if violence is purportedly not a just response, the unique situation of domestic violence may change these warrants. Thus, even if violence is not normally a just response, the fact that domestic violence is so harmful, hard to solve, etc. changes this norm. Third, TURN: If violence is not just, then abusers shouldn’t be using it against victims. Thus, because the abusers are committing such an egregious act, this argument concedes that they have to be punished in some sense, and the affirmative case explains why the best way is through deadly force. Fourth, This argument means that no affirmatives can ever win rounds; I would argue instead that the resolution assumes that violence can occasionally be a just response, and asks us to determine whether or not this particular situation can be justified. And, to his final contention saying that killing gives PTSD to the victim which sucks:First, this isn't a reason to negate. Even if killing gives the victim PTSD, that doesn't mean the killing wasn't permissible.Second, killing doesn't inherently give everyone PTSD. Soldiers kill people all the time and not all of them get PTSD. Officers have to kill suspects occasionally and not all of them get PTSD. Just saying that if the victim shoots their abuser they guaranteed get PTSD is a blatant falshood. Third, even if they DO, get PTSD, this is a) still preferable to the treatment that they're going to be receiving under domestic violence, and b) something that can be solved back for via therapy and medication. Fourth, TURN: if they are getting PTSD after killing their abuser, this will only bring more light and attention to the issue of domestic violence, meaning that it will encourage the state to take better and more effective precautions, meaning less domestic abuse in the long run.