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

My case is in the below link, so that I may be able to respond to my opponent's arguments in this round. https://docs.google.com...#Now, group her entire case, since it literally only talks about self-defense. There is a plethora of things wrong with self-defense in the resolution.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 victimat 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. Rosen 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 be justified when it involves the lesser harm of two harmful choices. Ifcountering 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 involvingstill less societal harm are available. Indeed, in many cases it may have been possible to avoid unlawful conduct altogether. The same consideration underlies the imminency requirement. 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 debater. And since the entire thesis of my opponent's case is based off of the ideas of self-defense, it's safe to say I've refuted her case. But if not, then let's go through her case contention by contention.A2C1:This entire contention is based off of psychological issues meriting a violent reaction. There are a number of things wrong with this, though. First: Even if battered women’s syndrome or other abuse related psychological disorders are true, this doesn’t justify using deadly force. If a person commits a crime because they’re bipolar, it doesn’t make the crime just. It just means that the judge will take a bit off of their punishment. Second: TURN: if psychological trauma justifies killing, then other mental disorders (i.e. bipolarism or alcoholism) would then justify the use of abuse in the home, thus nullifying all aff impacts. Furthermore, under this the aff would conceptually negate. Third: There isn’t enough context in the resolution to suggest whether or not the victim it talks about is suffering from psychological trauma. Therefore, we can’t determine if psychological trauma is even in play here, making the argument, at best, really sketchy. Fourth: TURN: if deadly force is justified under psychological trauma, then this would set a bad example for the future i.e. are women then allowed to kill other members of their family because of psychological trauma? According to the psychological trauma, it would just, but this is clearly in contradiction with their standard. Fifth: Even if psychological trauma justifies killing, we have no way of determining whether her action was out of psychological trauma or other motivations, making it undeterminable under the resolution.A2C2:See responses to self-defense. Already refuted this.A2C3:Really, all this is is just a justification for why self-defense is warranted. So as long as I'm disproving self-defense, then this doesn't really matter. But even if she extends it out as an independent reason to vote pro, the victims simply aren't slaves because they can always choose to leave. She's going to try and stand up and stay that they can't leave, but: First: This just isn’t true. A victim can always choose to simply walk out the door, psychological impacts aside. Instead of choosing to shoot the abuser in the head in the middle of the night, there is nothing preventing them from simply walking out the door. Second: TURN: killing the abuser leaves them in a worse place psychologically or economically. They could face retribution from the abuser’s family, wouldn’t be in a better economic situation, and would later regret taking a human life. Thus, affirming only leaves the victim in a worse spot than she was before. Third: TURN: there is no way to determine in fact whether or not a woman could’ve really left her situation. All domestic violence cases involve an element of “he said, she said”, and it would be incredibly easy for the woman to claim she had no other options, when she really did. Thus, the women aren't slaves and can leave if they choose to. So to wrap up the round and explain what's going down:1. The K turns my opponent's case in two ways. One, the pro is advocating that we protect ourselves, but they commit massive violations of worth by replicating bare life. Second, Homo sacer allows exclusion which permits killing within ethics and thus they allow for more domestic violence by justifying exceptions to our traditional moral framework.2. My opponent literally has zero offense coming out of this round. All three of her contentions have been refuted, her value and criterion demolished. There's nothing left for her to leverage offense off of.3. Even at best, I'd like to point out one simple fact that my opponent appears to have missed. The resolution clearly states that "It is MORALLY PERMISSIBLE for victims to use lethal force to respond to repeated domestic violence". What my opponent is trying to prove is that it's LEGALLY permissible, not morally permissible. Even if she's winning the entirety of her case, refute all of the arguments I placed against her case, beat back and refute the aff, it's impossible for her to win since she's not proving why it's morally permissible. Until she proves that, she literally cannot affirm the resolution.Thusly, I urge a con vote. Good luck to my esteemed opponent!