It wasn't a strawman. He wasn't talking about your position.

And using the rule of law cultures can determining what is right and wrong, and there are situations where it is not wrong to terminate a life. In what way doors the rule of law always say killing is wrong?

I never said that you supported the death penalty. I said that laws may, and since the rule of law literally means rule according to or under the law this invalidates your claim. Your interpretation of what constitutes the law goes against the common conception of law as a set of rules made by people or governments of people, and seems instead to refer to some form of higher law which is another concept altogether. Given that you cannot prove the existence of this higher law, let alone that it holds life as an absolute right, any more than you can your original claim you are effectively just restating your original claim which is begging the question.

With regards to your allegations of others being off topic, that started with your own tangential non-response to my counterclaim (which I pointed out repeatedly). Also, your concession that the right to life does not categorically trump other rights (e.g. right to self-defense) is a concession to my earlier argument. You have not only been unable to validate your claims but have conceded critical points which sway the debate against you. Unless you actually proffer some evidence or rationale for your view along with substantive rebuttal of points raised to which you have conceded, I have no intention of responding further.