The Instigator
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points
The Contender
Garbanza
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points

Hitting a girl is okay in self defense

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 12 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 10/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,184 times Debate No: 62543
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (171)
Votes (12)

 

Wylted

Con

Minimum debates needed to accept is 5 to help prevent forfeits.

There are idiots on this site who think it's okay for a guy to hit a girl in self defense. I'm under the impression that it's okay for a girl to hit a guy in self defense but not visa versa.

BOP should be shared for this type of debate. Pro is arguing that it's okay for a man to hit a woman in self defense. I will be arguing that it's not okay for a man to hit a woman in self defense.

The exception to this would be clear life or death circumstances. So let's keep lif or death circumstances or any situation that is obscure and unlikely to happen in real life or extremely rare out of it.

It's clear what I'm arguing here any attempt to troll or snipe the resolution in any way should result in a 7 point forfeit in accordance with the judge's discretion and common sense.
Garbanza

Pro

I think if a girl was coming at a guy with a chainsaw or a knife - not life or death but to cut off a leg or maybe stab him in the eye - and it was impracticable for him to move out of the way - then a light slap or push to the girl's arm to deflect the weapon would be okay.
Debate Round No. 1
Wylted

Con

In round 1 I posted this:

"So let's keep life or death circumstances or any situation that is obscure and unlikely to happen in real life or extremely rare out of it."

In response to this my opponent puts this:

"I think if a girl was coming at a guy with a chainsaw or a knife - not life or death but to cut off a leg or maybe stab him in the eye - and it was impractical for him to move out of the way"

Let's start with the fact that I specifically asked that unlikely or absurdly rare circumstances be left out of the debate. My opponent has ignored this and posted a scenario where somebody is trying to attack you with a chainsaw, and you somehow know they only intend to remove a limb. My opponent should lose conduct points for immediately ignoring my reasonable request. Beyond that situations where somebody is coming at you with a chainsaw, even if they intend or claim to only want to remove a limb are for all practical purposes life or death circumstances. Removing a limb with a chainsaw will often times result in enough blood loss to kill you. also in your struggle to get away the person with the chainsaw could miss your leg and chop off your head.

Now I'd appreciate if we can move on with the debate and actually argue the resolution as well as the agreed upon framework.

GIRLS HIT LIKE GIRLS

This should be obvious but girls hit like girls. Some guys hit like girls also but pretty close to 100% of girls hit like girls. A 1993 study comparing the strength of women compared to men showed that women were 50 percent as strong.[1] That is pathetically weak. Quite honestly if a girl punches you in the face you'll probably walk away with a bloody lip at worse. Punching them back will leave them unconscious laying on the floor. Another study in 1999 confirmed the earlier study's results. It showed that women had 40% less skeletal muscle mass.[2]

You might think that Elite female athletes are fair game but this isn't the case. Another study comparing the hand grip strength of female athletes compared to the average dude showed that the average dude is stronger.[3]So even though I may struggle to beat up Ronda Rousey, I'll probably easily beat the crap out of Serena Williams while her hits will not phase me.

The truth is my hits would probably significantly hurt Ronda Rousy more then hers would hurt me. I'm just being nice and giving her the benefit of the doubt. If you think muscle bound women would hit harder than some random dude think again. In 2002 a celebrity boxing match between a muscle bound Chyna and out of shape Joey Buttafuoco, Chyna got beat like a red headed step child.[4]If some out of shape dude can do that to a muscle bound professional female fighter imagine what an average guy can do to the average girl.

The problem with hitting a girl even to get her to stop hitting you is that there is a disproportionate amount of power behind your punch if you're a guy. You're doing way more damage to them than they are to you. Don't get me wrong it's wrong for them to hit you but a more fair response and one that isn't disproportionate to what has been or is being inflicted on you, would be to block her blows or grab her arms and restrain her from hitting or flailing at you. It's pretty simple even for an untrained man to simply pin a woman onto the floor or restrain her in some way. According to my studies you're at least twice her strength so pinning her down isn't a problem and if it is than once you push her away you can just run like hell and call the cops. Men typically run faster than women as well.[5]

CONCLUSION

The reason a guy shouldn't hit a girl even in non life threatening self defense is because the punishment doesn't fit the crime. There are also suitable alternatives that are available to prevent further damage being done to a man while being physically attacked.

sources

[1] http://link.springer.com...
[2] http://jap.physiology.org...
[3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[4] (https://www.youtube.com...)remove parentheses before copy and pasting into browser.
[5] http://www.runnersworld.com...
Garbanza

Pro

Life or death circumstances

In Round 1, Con wrote that

"The exception to this [it not being okay for a man to hit a woman in self-defense] would be clear life or death circumstances. So let's keep lif or death circumstances or any situation that is obscure and unlikely to happen in real life or extremely rare out of it."

Please note use of the word clear in "clear life or death circumstances" because of course any circumstance is potentially life or death. A woman could be trying to cut of a man's leg with a chainsaw and accidentally kill him; she could be playfullly punching him as a bet at a party and accidentally kill him (1); she could hit him with a shoe and accidentally kill him (2). Life is fragile.

By including the word "clear" however, I think Con is restricting the exclusion to situations which are more likely to result in death than not. In relation to the example with the power tool, it really depends on contextual factors whether it be considered a clear life or death circumstance. For instance, if the woman has a large number of pets and she has amputated a leg from each of them, but they are otherwise happy and well cared for, then her past behavior lends credence to the theory that she wants to do the same to her boyfriend, especially if she shouts "I want your leg off". Con will no doubt argue that such a circumstance would be covered by the "extremely rare" condition; I include it as an example only to demonstrate that context is vital in judging whether a situation be CLEAR life or death.


Self-defense and the strength differential

I agree with Con that large differences in strength and threat should be considered when judging the morality of hitting in self-defense. For example, in most circumstances, a three-year-old running at someone with a baseball bat shouting "die die die!" would not warrant self-defensive violence, but the same actions by a huge man could well do.

Some men are very weak, though. Some men are elderly, disabled or sick. Men who have grown up in very poor circumstances do not always gain the same kind of bulk and strength as people who have better nutrition in childhood (3).

Therefore, when considering strength difference, it should be based on the individuals concerned. A healthy 25-year-old female kickboxer could easily assault and harm a 75-year-old disabled man who is recovering from surgery.

Other circumstances that could affect the threat differental include the women having weapons or there could be several of them attacking a man at once. There could be situations that constrain a man's response - for example, he could be holding a baby or a little kitten, and his attempts to protect the vulnerable creature with his arms leave him more vulnerable to assault.

Hitting back

In my Round 1 example, a woman is using a weapon to attack a man who cannot get away. I say that it would be okay to hit her arm to deflect the weapon. That deflection may give him the opportunity to escape uninjured.

I suggest that it is not only okay for him to defend himself in that way, but that he is morally obliged to defend himself. Not only will that preserve his own body for future good works, but by escaping assault he protects the woman assailant from committing the crime of seriously injuring him.


(1) http://articles.chicagotribune.com...;
(2) http://www.cbsnews.com...;
(3) http://www.thelancet.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Wylted

Con

I stated in round 1 the BOP was shared in this debate. That's honestly how I believe the BOP should fall in this type of situation and my opponent hasn't contested that. It's not enough for him to find a few exceptions to the rule. If generally speaking it' wrong to hit a girl in self defense than I win. My opponent has to show that the majority of the time it's okay to hit a girl in self defense. It's obvious from how this debate played out that we're arguing whether a man generally speaking should hit a woman when being attacked.

Here is what I said in round 1 and that my opponent agreed to by accepting this debate;

"So let's keep life or death circumstances or any situation that is obscure and unlikely to happen in real life or extremely rare out of it."

Despite making this extremely clear here is what my opponent mentioned in round 2 even after I mentioned that his round 1 arguments were inappropriate'

"she could be playfullly punching him as a bet at a party and accidentally kill him (1); she could hit him with a shoe and accidentally kill him (2). Life is fragile."

Most of the time when a girl is playfully hitting you it's not a life or death siuation. It's clear that balling up your fists and hitting her in this situation would be inappropriate nd probably get you jail time. This also falls into the unlikely and extremely rare scenario I urged pro not to use in round 1 and then again in round 2. He follows up this ridiculous nonsense with the following quote.

"if the woman has a large number of pets and she has amputated a leg from each of them, but they are otherwise happy and well cared for, then her past behavior lends credence to the theory that she wants to do the same to her boyfriend,"

Again not only is this argument absurd it violates the guidelines mentioned in round 1 and reemphasized in round 2. Besides that my opponent needs to make a case for why a man hitting a girl in self defense is generally okay, something he has not done. My opponent has approached this debate as if I have the full BOP and that jus isn't sufficient enough for him to win.

The following sentence is as good as a concession from my opponent;

"I agree with Con that large differences in strength and threat should be considered when judging the morality of hitting in self-defense"

This is a concession. I showed that generally speaking men are stronger than women and my opponent says that generally it should be taken into consideration. My opponent can only really point to some exceptions to the rules but since BOP is shared he has to show that generally speaking hitting a woman in self defense is okay.

"Therefore, when considering strength difference, it should be based on the individuals concerned. A healthy 25-year-old female kickboxer could easily assault and harm a 75-year-old disabled man who is recovering from surgery."

This is likely a life or death scenario and it is by far something that will rarely if ever happen.

"I say that it would be okay to hit her arm to deflect the weapon. That deflection may give him the opportunity to escape uninjured."

Now my opponent is actually trying to redefine hit. This is called smacking the arm away a hit actully involves striking somebody and in this context punching somebody.knocking a girl's arm out of the way doesn't qualify.

Conclusion

My opponent hasn't showed that generally speaking it's okay to hit a girl in self defense. He has failed to meet his BOP. Vote Con

"

Garbanza

Pro

In Self-Defense

This debate is about whether it's okay for a man to hit a woman in self-defense, not whether it's okay for a man to assault a woman in general. The words "in self-defense" describe a very specific set of circumstances. Although the exact legislative wording depends on the jurisdiction, the basic idea is always that a man is acting with violence to defend himself and for no other reason. In particular, the following conditions need to be true for it to be self-defense. (1,2)

1. The threat must be immanent.
If a woman beats up a man and then stops, climbs off him, gets her bag and starts looking for her car keys, and he takes the opportunity to punch her, then that's not self-defense, it's retaliation. Even though she hit him, because she'd stopped, there was no longer immanent threat and so it's plain assault. That kind of circumstance isn't covered by the resolution.

2. The man must reasonably believe he's under threat of harm
Con describes weak women who are incapable of injuring a man. If that is true, then there is no reasonable evidence of a threat and if a man hit a woman in those circumstances it would not be self-defense but plain assault, and of course it would not be okay.
The resolution only circumstances where the man is under threat of injury or sexual assault (or death, but that is excluded from this debate).

3. The response must be proportionate.
For it to be self-defense, the act of violence must be sufficient to remove the threat and no greater. In round 2, Con said,

Quite honestly if a girl punches you in the face you'll probably walk away with a bloody lip at worse. Punching them back will leave them unconscious laying on the floor.”

Such a response would be disproportionate. If a man was in immediate danger of getting a blood lip, it would be okay to defend himself - maybe by hitting her hands away - but not to the extent of knocking her unconscious. That would be disproportionate violence and therefore plain assault rather then self-defense.

Therefore, if a man is hitting in self-defense, it means by definition that a milder response could not be reasonably expected to protect him. For instance, if he could avoid injury easily by holding a woman's wrist, and instead he hit her, then that would not be acting in self-defense because the response is disproportionate.

Difference in Strength

Because this debate is about self-defense, Con's arguments about women tending to be weaker than men are simply irrelevant. Being weaker just means being less likely to present a threat, which means that the circumstances of self-defense are less likely to apply, or if they do apply, the proportionate response required is likely to be milder - such as hitting or pushing someone away rather than knocking them unconscious, for example.

However, sometimes men can be weak - they might be sick, injured, or frail. Women could be armed and the man could be unarmed, or there could be other circumstances that put the man at a disadvantage and he might find himself in imminent danger of being harmed by a woman. On such an occasion, it's okay for him to act to protect himself, and that may mean hitting back.

As I said last round, it's not only okay to protect himself, but I think a man should protect himself to avoid injury.

Hitting, smacking, striking, slapping

Con argues that hitting someone's arm to deflect a weapon doesn't really count as "hitting".

"Hit" means to come into contact forcefully with something or to strike (3). That covers hitting someone's arm away when they are trying to stab you.

In any case, because of the rule about proportionate response, to hit in self-defense only includes situations were it is proportionate to the threat.

(1) http://www.shouselaw.com...
(2) http://criminal.findlaw.com...;
(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
Wylted

Con

My statement from round 1;
"It's clear what I'm arguing here any attempt to troll or snipe the resolution in any way should result in a 7 point forfeit"
This attempt my my opponent to use the legal definition of the term self defense is precisely an attempt to snipe the resolution. This should be considered a forfeit and I should be awarded all points. Not to menion it's a new argument not mentioned until the final round.
The debate is not about the legality of hitting a girl in self defense. It is about the ehics of doing so.
Here is the definition from Merriam Webster;
Self Defense:
"1
: a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide
2
: the act of defending oneself, one's property, or a close relative "

Some definitions include to defend a self interest. These definitions are actually looser than the ones me and my opponent have been arguing. Under the set of defiitions I've provided my opponent would have to show how punching a girl is okay to do even when she is merely stealing a candy bar you own.
It is clear this debate is about punching a girl when she is physically attacking you. This theme has been repeatedly brought up, and no smacking an arm away doesn't count as a hit. We're clearly referring to the layman's usage of the term hit. When you discuss hitting somebody in self defense a slapping of the hands away doesn't come to mind.
This debate was spurred from an earlier conversation, so it's extremely clear to my opponent what's supposed to be being debated here. It should be clear despite that anyway.
What I've shown is that generally speaking if a man is being attacked by a girl he should run or restrain he until she is no longer a threat. My end of the resolution is met and my opponent even makes a partial concession that generally speaking a man shouldn't hit a woman in self defense. My opponent has only shown a few rare exceptions to this rule and he needs to do more than that to uphold his ind of the BOP. Vote me.
Garbanza

Pro

Summary

This debate was about whether it's okay for a man to hit a woman in self defense. Of course it's okay for a man to defend himself from any kind of attack, whether it be by another man or by a woman. His defense must be reasonable and proportionate, though.

Con argued that women can't hit as powerfully as men and so hitting a woman in self defense is never okay. I disagree with this statement for two reasons:

1. Sometimes a woman can be a threat to a man, for instance, she could be armed or the man could be weak, sick, elderly, or disabled in some way.

2. Self-defensive violence must be proportionate, so if a woman does not pose a real threat to a man, punching her would not be "in self defense". Only those cases where hitting would be necessary to defend himself should be considered.

In the final round, Con introduced the idea of defending property. He argued that it would not be okay for a man to punch a woman for trying to steal his candy bar. Of course, the same considerations related to reasonable threat and proportionate response still apply. Punching someone unconscious - man or woman - for trying to steal your candy bar would be considered disproportionate in most circumstances to most reasonable people and therefore wouldn't be "in self defense" but rather plain assault.


Con wrote:
"This debate was spurred from an earlier conversation, so it's extremely clear to my opponent what's supposed to be being debated here. It should be clear despite that anyway."

This is beyond absurd. This debate was open to be accepted by any challenger, the earlier conversation he is referring to is not one that I'm aware of, and may not even be one on this site for all I know.

Con wrote: "This attempt my my opponent to use the legal definition of the term self defense is precisely an attempt to snipe the resolution. This should be considered a forfeit and I should be awarded all points. Not to menion it's a new argument not mentioned until the final round."

The phrases "in self-defense" and "hit" were not defined in Round 1, which means that standard, or common sense definitions should be used. "In self defense," would normally be interpreted as meaning to defend oneself from attack or harm, and "hit" would mean to strike someone with force, usually with a hand or fist. Con's first two rounds seemed consistent with this understanding, and it was only in Round 3, that his intepretations deviated from this standard usage.

In particular, he took my comment that strength difference should be considered in assessing the morality of the self-defensive action as "a concession". It was not, of course, and that is why I needed to explain to him the concepts of immanent threat, and proportionate response. If a woman is too weak to pose a threat, then hitting her would not be "in self defense", because in that case a man would not be defending himself by doing so. Another example of this was the toddler with the baseball bat - reacting violently to harm the toddler would not be considered self-defense because the threat is not significant enough. It would just be plain assault.

Con also wrote that I was "actually trying to redefine hit. This is called smacking the arm away a hit actully involves striking somebody and in this context punching somebody.knocking a girl's arm out of the way doesn't qualify." This statement is hard to understand. Smacking, striking, punching, hitting are fairly synonymous. In any case, even if smacking the arm didn't count as hitting, it is easy to substitute an example of a man hitting a woman's arm, which is what would matter for this debate.

Anyway, THIS is the final round, and so my opponent's complaint that I introduced arguments last round wouldn't hold up even if it were true.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
171 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Garbanza 2 years ago
Garbanza
Remember the cookie jar parable, wylted. These excuses are so drab.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'll do my research to see if I can prove IQ without an IQ test. If I find a way, I will accept. Just give me time to research this.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
I'm sure if you took an IQ test your score would be under or around 80. However that isn't a BOP I can overcome. How about we debate a fair topic or better yet we both take some form of an official IQ test together and the loser kills themself. I'd kill myself if I scored lower anyway but why not turn it into a contest.

All you'd have to do to win that debate is refuse to take an IQ test an I'm not really comfortable with that.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
lol, choose the judges and debate me.

Actually you'd never do that because you'd end up embarrassed but the offer is on the table.
Posted by Garbanza 2 years ago
Garbanza
Here's some style advice for you. If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you should say, "I'm in the mood for a cookie. Can I pass you one? " rather than "I'm trying to dust inside the jar" or "it wasn't me. "

TN05's rfd was terrible. You can't argue it was a "good" vote unless you mean nothing more than in your favor. 9spaceking did vote for you and his rfd makes no sense. I doubt that khaos_mage has voted against you, because he votes so seldom, but I can't be bothered checking.

Just admit to it. You begged your friends to vote for you because you were losing and you wanted to win. They got you over the line and you won. No doubt you do this all the time when you're in danger of losing, and you do the same for them.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
No I specifically requested only the friends who have high ELOs to vote. I could of asked XLAV, 9space, Esocial etc. and they would've voted but I restricted it to people who my request wouldn't bias. Everyone I requested had voted against me not once but several times in the past.

There was a ton of bad votes on this debate so good ones were needed.
Posted by Garbanza 2 years ago
Garbanza
Wylted: "I can't believe you'd sit there and tell me I violated the TOS for telling Garbanza she sux at debating (a fact),... "

Well then, you lost to someone who sux at debating - or you would have done if you hadn't made that desperate move of begging all your friends to vote for you at the last minute.

Wylted: "...while you ignore her implying I cheated ( a blatant lie),"

I only accused you of cheating if you think that begging your friends to vote at the last minute is cheating. But if you do think that, then you do think you cheated, so how is it a lie?

Wylted: "Why are people coming to this debate all of a sudden anyway? Was this mentioned in a thread somewhere?"

Not as far as I know.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
" Again I ask for a common sense interpretation of the word rare."

You shouldn't have to "ask" anyone. You should be "presenting" the interpretation that we would be using. We would then have to take your interpretation as you stated it, which is exactly what I did, regardless of how absurd equating "rare" to "a total of 3 times in human history" may be.
Posted by wrichcirw 2 years ago
wrichcirw
"If an opponent wants to take something literal like a jerk instead of taking the meaning I intended and implied, I'll just point out the context clues and and show how they're twisting what I'm saying to game the debate."

You need to make clear EXACTLY what your intentions are in your opening. If they are not clear, they are subject to interpretation, and your opponent would be right in concocting all manners of situations that fit whatever you presented in your opening.

If you attempt to clarify later, you run the risk of being rightfully charged of materially changing the parameters of the debate, meaning that you're no longer debating what was stated in your opening.

---

"The gun to the leg thing would be a rare thing while a woman punching a man wouldn't."

So someone pointing a gun at someone's leg has happened (your words) "a total of 3 times in human history"? I'm sorry, I find that exceptionally difficult to believe.

You may think this is a semantics game, but I am quoting you verbatim, and you are probably going to say "that's not what I meant". That's a problem.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. If his wasn't an all or nothing vote, Con would also get conduct. I think Pro really could have brought up the definition analysis before R3.
Vote Placed by TN05 2 years ago
TN05
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro violated debate rules and had no real arguments outside of them.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: pro breaks the rules with his exceptions with strange unusual situations. He also breaks the "no semantics" rule by bringing up legal definitions. With shared BoP, pro does not fulfill his burden and thus losses.
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument that women are weaker on average than men, and thus do not need to be hit in self-defense, is conceded by Pro. Pro's 2 attempted arguments both fail due to the parameters set for the debate. First Pro tries to use exceptions, often completely absurd exceptions, that are negated by the shared BoP and the requirement that absurd situations be kept out of the debate. The other attempt is by using legal definitions of self-defense to void Pro's arguments. That is negated by the no semantics or resolution sniping parameter. I'm surprised Con isn't winning this with unanimous voter support.
Vote Placed by Khaos_Mage 2 years ago
Khaos_Mage
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not stay within the parameters of the debate. Con stated self-defense is more broad than life and death, and Pro's response was it's not self defense, then.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
SeventhProfessor
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It was Con's until R3. Pro's argument that, by definition, self defense has to be a proportionate response won him the debate. Frankly, Con trying to say that the legal definition meant Pro was only arguing for legality was ridiculous. The legal definition is the most objective and important one, so should obviously be the one used for the debate.
Vote Placed by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Tied. RFD will be left in comments.
Vote Placed by Impact94 2 years ago
Impact94
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to have a better understanding of self defense in this debate; Con seemed to picture it more two dimensionally.
Vote Placed by QTAY21 2 years ago
QTAY21
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It just seems like a man has every right to defend himself, even if a girl is coming at him. That's the point pro gave, and I agree. It's perfectly reasonable to hit someone who is seriously trying to hurt you. On top of that, there is nothing wrong with contesting the rules if you disagree with them. They have to be reasonable rules, and if one does not think they are reasonable, then why wouldn't they be able to challenge that?
Vote Placed by mdc32 2 years ago
mdc32
WyltedGarbanza
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct points for R1, as he violated Con's rules. S&G are tied, however, but Pro's argument in R3 was well-written and more accurate than Con's arguments. Sources are tied, so overall Pro wins this debate for me mainly off of arguments.