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

Answers to your questions during cross ex: 1.This question is irrelevant, I haven't stated anything about "wife beaters" in my case. For me to come up with an answer to this would be a waste of our time. 2.You asked if members of society have a moral obligation to kill a killer. I will say people have a moral obligation to protect their personal interests which should be an interest to live. And in order to do this you must value self defense under certain circumstances. 3.You asked about unalienable rights. There is a right for the victim to want to survive and fulfill their self interest of living, they may have to use self defense. 4.You asked if the world is just. This is irrelevant to our debate so I am not going to waste your time by answering this. 5.You asked what psychological implications result from a women killing her husband. If you are trying to get at the victim will go to jail this is my reply to that question: "There is another bill that is being enacted into the legislature called the "Stand Your Ground" bill. This was brought into Florida in 2005 and is also being considered by 21 other states also. This allows people who are in public to meet force with force in order to defend themselves. This conduct will protect victims against prosecution. As long as the person is defending themselves they will not go to jail. " according to www.yourgreatestprotection.com 6.Your question about how will a victim kill the abuser is irrelevant. You stated that if I cannot answer this then the resolution is irrelevant, although, the resolution is not irrelevant unless you are trying to do something with the resolution which is simply what we are debating about. We aren't trying to prove the resolution wrong we are trying to go with or against this resolution. Do you understand what I am trying to say? My questions to you: 1.You value peoples rights correct? Do you value their right to defend themselves? If you state no, then, you must not value peoples right to live. 2.You stated in contention 1 that everyone has the right to life no matter their actions? Well, in this case, does the victim not have the right to survive? Because, it is likely the victim could die. 3.in your second and third contention you stated basically that it is the governments job to defend people. But, as I stated in my third contention the victim can be compared to a slave, well, in this case is it not likely that a person wouldn't have the chance to tell anyone. Should the victim allow the abuser to continuously abuse them and possibly kill them if they don't do anything about it? 4.Your fourth contention states using violence to stop violence isn't logical. So, if someone hits you multiple times in a row your going to simply allow them to beat you up? 5.In your fifth contention you stated that there are better options than death. Isn't this why a victim would use deadly force on an abuser because their personal interest is living? Affirmative Rebuttal. I would like to first begin with my opponents value, I would like to state simply that you can not have unalienable rights without life therefore self defense is a higher value than my opponents. Now, I would like to move onto my opponents value criterion. I would like to state that in this debate we aren't talking about peoples relationship with the government, we are talking about if it morally permissible for a victim to repeatedly take abuse from an abuser or if they should simply sit there and take the abuse. Therefore, my opponents value criterion is incorrect. Moving onto my opponents first contention, which is "basic right to live no matter the actions" the victim has the right to live also, not just the abuser. The abuser was immoral in the beginning for the abuse of the victim. My opponents second contention, states "laws preventing men from beating their wives, let society deal with those who transgress these laws." The main problem with this statement is simply that in this debate we are not talking about the government. We are talking about if it is morally permissible for a person to use deadly force against their abuser. This resolution states nothing about the government. Also in my opponents second contention they state "but natural rights and natural law supersedes these made by man" and, my opponent gives no definition of the term "supersedes" therefore, I will go with the definition of "takes place of" , although, by my opponent stating this he defeats his whole purpose of his first two contentions. Moving onto my opponents third contention, which is "The government is the protector of rights." Although, obviously if the government hasn't done anything about a persons rights to the point that it becomes as it states in the resolution "repeated" then most likely they won't. my opponent also states in his third contention that "it is under no circumstance morally permissible to kill." But, the problem in this is for instance, the abuser attempts to kill the victim. Then the victim would die. Continuing to my opponents fourth contention, my opponent states "the resolution is null". Although, my opponent didn't give a definition of null so I'm going with "incorrect" as the definition to this. My opponent obviously does not understand the rules in Lincoln Douglas debate. You can't simply say that the resolution is incorrect. That is the whole point in debating about it. My opponent also states that using violence to stop violence is not logical. Well, obviously by my opponent stating this my opponent believes life isn't logical. Because, under certain circumstances you have to use self defense to survive. And having life should be in a persons interest. If not then a person obviously doesn't value their life or any aspect of their life. My opponents fifth contention states "better options than death", this is exactly why it is morally permissible for a victim of domestic violence to use deadly force as a deliberate response. So they can continue living. Also, my opponent states that he cannot think of any countries in which do not have laws against domestic violence. But, again we are not debating about the government. Or laws we are debating about morality and values. What people ought to do not what is already being done. With all of this being stated I would like to move on to say that in my opponents constructive speech he didn't touch my case or any of my arguments. So, I at this point my opponent agrees with all of my points and my value.