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

This debate will be in LD format. I'm arguing this at a tournament Jan 6th, so I need the practice with this topic, and I need to edit my case and make blocks. Please accept this only if you can do LD format. First round is my NEG case and your crossex/your AFF case. Second round is my answers/crossex for you and your answers. Third round is rebuttals. Fourth round is conclusion. Also, if you want to see any of my evidence please post a comment and I'll give it to you. I just don't want to post every single source right now. Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. Here is my case: Deadly Force: Deadly force, according to the US Armed Forces, is force which a person knows is substantially likely to result in death. victims: someone or something which has been hurt, damaged or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or chance http://dictionary.cambridge.org... repeated domestic violence: "Domestic violence is a pattern of interaction that includes the use of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, isolation, and/or emotional, economic, or sexual abuse by one intimate partner to maintain power and control over the other intimate partner." http://heinonline.org...= I value morality, which is defined as "those qualities of mankind that concern their living together in peace and unity," by Thomas Hobbes. (1) My value criterion is respect for human life, by which morality is achieved because with respect for life comes peace and unity between humans, at least on the most basic level of not killing each other. Contention 1: Alternatives exist, therefore the victim would be violating the respect of human life to kill when alternatives exist. One alternative is to leave the attacker. Another is to use the law to your advantage. The police force exists to protect human life. This is the purpose of most laws, just as it is the purpose of domestic violence being illegal, as Carolyn Hoyle and Andrew Sanders explain, "another purpose is to enable the state to intervene, usually by prosecuting, in order to exact retribution, produce specific deterrence and, perhaps, 'treat' the offender, thereby reducing further offending in a more constructive way." (2) When alternatives exist, killing becomes a morally impermissible option. These options are practical and available to victims. These alternatives also respect human life, which achieves morality. Contention 2: While abusers may violate the social contract, they only violate it in a way that allows the victim to respond by violating the same rights that the abuser violated. Since the abuser has obviously not violated the victim's right to life, the victim does not have the right to kill the abuser. As Sarah Aiken explains, "Aristotle conceives of punishment in purely restorative terms, where just punishments take only the amount of good from the offending agent in proportion with the original good that agent took unfairly. Ideally, no agent is meant to be any worse off than he or she was prior to the unjust interaction once the system of justice has inflicted the appropriate punishment." (3) If the victim is to kill the perpetrator, then the perpetrator is then far worse off than before the exchange because the perpetrator is then dead. The victim cannot do any more harm than was done to them, and it still be considered morally permissible. This is also explained by Benjamin Yost in his redefining of Kant's views, "according to proportional retribution, punishment is just when the harm caused by the punishment is no less, and no more, severe than the harm caused by the crime." (4) The right to human life must be respected and this can only be done by proportional retribution. The respect of human life achieves morality, while using deadly, deliberate force against repeated domestic violence does not. This cannot be morally permissible under any circumstances because the victim would never be killed and be able to do the same to the aggressor. Contention 3: Murder can never be morally permissible. It can be excused, but not justified. There is an extreme difference. If we ever allow murder to be morally permissible, we violate the most basic right, the right to life. This results in a breakdown of the society, and it does not respect the human life, which does not achieve morality, and therefore cannot be acceptable. Justice Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court during Furman v. Georgia in 1972 states, "Death is today an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity. No other existing punishment is comparable to death in terms of physical and mental suffering." (5) Since death is the ultimate ending, it is not to be disrespected or unjustly delivered. Murder can never be moral. Therefore, it can never achieve morality because it is the ultimate disrespect of human life.