Choose :P

Alrighty, here I go. My opponent's case, in a nutshell, is "our suffering and confrontation with death is where we as beings find ontological value in life, and removing that suffering or ending that confrontation with death is morally wrong." My answer to my opponent's case has been pessimism, (as defined in the previous round) "daily life is suffering." My opponent's case says suffering is the way to find value in life. I say, all men are already suffering and are already facing death. By definition, that is pessimism. Since my opponent has not shown pessimism to be wrong, the reader must consider pessimism to be a logical and valid outlook on the world. As such, pessimism ultimately refutes my opponent's case. The "natural flow" of the world, is suffering and death. As such, adding more suffering to the world is a deviation from the natural flow and remember, in my opponents own words, "any deviation from the original level of suffering (i.e. the natural flow), would case a change or loss in the value of life." My opponent forgets the terms of the resolution; we are arguing the moral permissibility of the utilization of lethal force on an abuser. In other words, I am arguing removing suffering is moral because of X, Y, and Z while my opponent is arguing the flip side, removing suffering is immoral, because of X, Y, and Z. If my opponent is not arguing the moral impermissibility, of lethal force, then they are not arguing against the resolution and as such my argument is the only one which can be weighed in terms of the resolution. Defense: BPS My opponent's entire attack, on this premise (despite all the rhetoric), is summed up in a single sentence "There's, literally, nothing stopping the victim from getting up and leaving in the middle of the night when the abuser is asleep." I had predicted this would come up, and as I already explained, "psychologically they cannot do so." The victim's own psyche, literally, prevents her from leaving. Your look on the situation is much different than the victim's outlook. She cannot leave because of her outlook. The victim's truth is different from your truth. Defense: Killing = self-defense All three of these criteria are subjective. What one person finds proportional may not apply to another person. What one person finds necessary or imminent may not apply to another person. 1: Proportionality By definition of Battered Person's Syndrome, the victim has "a constant fear for their life and[…]a belief they cannot escape the abuse except through their death or their abusers death." As such, it is proportional, in the victim's mind, it is their life or their abusers life. Saving their life because they believe their life is in danger is proportional. 2: Necessity "If running or talking the abuser out of killing you would stop the absue, even if it be just temporarily, that option becomes the morally permissible option, and killing would be considered impermissible. Nothing is stopping the victim from just running for it in the middle of the night, and the victim can always just talk the abuser down and try to calm him down in order to stop his abuse." There are no other courses of action. I refer you to the above definition of Battered Person's Syndrome. The victim has "a belief they cannot escape the abuse except through their death or their abusers death." 3: Imminence By definition of their psychological disorder, they are being imminently threatened. They have a constant fear for their life. They believe at any moment they may die. As such, they are being threatened. Defense: Double Effects 1) the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent As explained, the act of saving yourself from danger is not morally wrong. The act of firing a bullet is not morally wrong. The death is the consequence of firing the bullet or saving yourself. 2) that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended Since self-defense must meet those 4 above criteria, we can safely say the intent was to save themselves, thus the term SELF-DEFENSE. You are defending yourself. 3) The good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect Saving yourself from danger produces the death. Through the act of defending yourself you are killing a person. Death does not lead to self-defense but, self-defense leads to death. 4) Grave Reason I have successfully defended this point.