If someone puts their hand son you should you be able to hit them back?
Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to open by thanking Pro for debating me.
Argument #1 - Pro's opening case is improperly defined
The most glaring problem with Pro's stance is the way that she has worded her argument: "If someone puts their hands on you..." This leaves the sort of physical contact made by the aggressor completely open to the interpreter. One could argue that because the second part of the statement contains the words "you should be able to hit them back" that she means it is acceptable to return a punch for a punch.
However, her statement could also be read as, "If anyone makes any physical contact with you then you have the right to react violently." This would not be an unfair reading of the statement, either, as there are people who value bodily autonomy highly enough (or have enough of a temper) to react in such a manner to an innocent touch. In almost all cases, such behavior is irrational and unacceptable to society.
Argument #2 - Returning blow for blow can result in great harm to those who don't deserve it
My opponent made the broad statement that if someone puts their hands on you they are ceding their rights to protection from bodily harm. Let us consider the sort of the implications this could have.
Pro placed no limits upon what sort of violence could be done in return for violence (except, arguably, that the violence must be perpetrated using only one's fists). Suppose that Mr. and Mrs. Brown are having a heated exchange of words. If, in the heat of the moment, Mrs. Brown decides to give Mr. Brown a shove or to slap him, is he then justified in beating her senseless? Of course not.
But even if self-control is exercised to some degree, Pro's theory of resolution for interpersonal conflict can only lead to abuse. Suppose that a mentally challenged boy hits his caretaker. Is she then justified in hitting him even once? Or how about a mother whose toddler throws a tantrum and hits her with his small fists? Once again, of course not.
Argument #3 - Violence is not a solution to violence
Theophilus of Antioch once said, "Say to those that hate and curse you, you are our brothers!"(1) If I am swinging my fist at someone, how can I say that I am loving him as our common humanity demands of us? Time has shown that there are peaceful solutions to most conflicts, if not all of them, even as high up as the international level. Can it really be necessary, then, to use violence as a solution on the interpersonal level?
Soulja_n forfeited this round.
Pro forfeited R2. My arguments stand.
Con and I obviously had different analogies in mind!
Con:Returning blow for blow can result in great harm to those who don't deserve it.
What about the people who do deserve a blow!
When con used his analogy about Mr. and Mrs. Brown he said: is he then justified by beating her senseless?
I never said to "beat senseless", I said to hit back. Hitting and beating are two different things. I never said to beat!
If a girl and a boy are playing together and get into an argument, and the boy hits the girl because of something he believes is unfair, will the girl be wrong by hitting him back?
No!! The girl will basically just be declaring without words that if you hit me I am going to hit you back. Maybe then the boy will think twice before he hits her again!
Hitting- To bring ones hand into contact with someone or something quickly and forcefully
Beating- A punishment or assault in which the victim is hit repeatedly
Con:Pro placed no limits upon what sort of violence could be done in return for violence
I did place a limit! I said you could hit! To hit would be the limit. Notice that when I said hit it is not plural it is singular which means once. Beating is plural!!
Con:Violence is not a solution to violence
Under circumstances violence is the solution to violence!
If a woman was walking down the street and a man comes up behind her and tries to take her purse, she cannot call the police then and there she has to use VIOLENCE to try to get her and her purse away from the man.
Thank you for clarifying your position, Pro. It will be up to the voters to decide if such clarification (which can actually be seen as a changing of the original resolution) is valid at this point in the debate. I will not protest it.
I will now point out the three major problems I see in Pro's R3 rebuttal.
Problem #1 - Abuse of the innocent
My opponent asks, "What about the people who do deserve a blow!" What of them? While they may arguably exist, this does nothing to change the fact that there are people who do not deserve such treatment. This fact alone negates my opponent's absolutist resolution.
I ask again, what of the parent who is struck by a toddler? Or the caretaker who is struck by their mentally ill patient? Do these "victims" have the right to exact vengeance?
Problem #2 - Violence is not always the solution to violence
For the sake of the argument, let us say that, as Pro argues, violence is sometimes the solution to violence. Does it then follow that violence is always a solution to violence? Of course not. And yet my opponent's resolution would have you believe that you are always justified in exacting vengeance.
Problem #3 - My opponent did not refute my contention that, because of our common humanity, humans do not have the moral right to harm each other
Technically speaking no you are not supposed to hit a child or a mentally ill person, but con only seems to be thinking about the people whodon't know what they're doing when they hit someone.Their state of mind and/or conditions don't know right from wrong. What about the people who know right from wrong andare in their right mind? Do we treat them as though they are children or mentally ill? No, you have to give respect to get it back. If you just let someone disrespect you with no consequences they are just going to keep treating you that way!
Con: Violence is not always the solution to violence
Con stated "And yet my opponent's resolution would have you to believe that you are always justified in exacting vengeance."But I stated clearly before my analogy that under circumstances violence is the solution to violence, like in cases with children and mentally ill people, no you do not use violence back. How would that lead you to think that I was saying you are always justified in exacting vengeance?
Con: My opponent did not refute my contention that, because of our common humanity, humans do not have the moral right to harm each other.
Under conditions humans do have the right to harm each other. If someone breaks into your home you can shoot at them, is that not a form of harming someone?If someone is attacking or harming you, you have the right to defend yourself in a harming matter! I rest my case.
I also want to say thank you for debating me!!!
In this final round, I will be pointing out some major flaws in my opponent's last speech and presenting some voting points.
Problem #1 - Abuse of the innocent
As I said, in my R3 speech, "My opponent asks, 'What about the people who do deserve a blow!' What of them? While they may arguably exist, this does nothing to change the fact that there are people who do not deserve such treatment. This fact alone negates my opponent's absolutist resolution." I am highly disappointed that Pro's only attempt to respond to this problem was to reword her original argument.
Problem #2 - Nonviolence does not engender disrespect
In her response to my Problem #1, Pro said "If you just let someone disrespect you with no consequences they are just going to keep treating you that way!" This is blatantly false. I have far greater admiration for someone who is able to remain calm and collected when they are disrespected than I do for someone who loses their temper and lashes out when they are disrespected. The former has demonstrated an admirable mastery of their will and moral strength.
Problem #3 - Violence is not the solution to violence
Once again, my opponent attempts to nuance her absolutist resolution.
Problem #4 - My opponent did not refute my contention that, because of our common humanity, humans do not have the moral right to harm each other.
"Under conditions humans do have the right to harm each other." Stating the opposite of what I said is not the same as refuting it.
I shall now present several voting points, or things that the voters should keep in mind while making their decision.
1. Pro did not stand by her absolutist resolution.
2. Pro did not properly refute any of the three points I made in R3.
3. At no point did Pro state that hitting back at the helpless or those weaker than us is wrong. The farthest she went in this direction was to say that "technically" we "are not supposed to."
Thank you for debating me, Pro. Please vote for Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct points go to Con, as Pro forfeited. Con had more convincing arguments, as Con actually tried to get the debate understood as Pro's initial premise made no sense. Cons arguments were also easier and more logical to follow. Con deserves grammar points as Pro made a spelling mistake in the title of the debate, as well as other grammatical errors in the arguments. Source points also go to Con,as sources were cited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.