The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

If we are attacked should we then attack the attacker?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,153 times Debate No: 23413
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




So the rule of if you hit me then I should hit you back. Do you agree with this ideal? I don't. Thus I will be arguing against this resolution.


attack- to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with:

Debate Round No. 1


In this debate will will consider this resolution in the situations of countries, domestic violence, and situations involving parents.

1. Following this philosophy will create unnecessary war.

Lets really take the time to think about this. If south Korea was attacked by the united states following this resolution then south Korea should attack back. We all know that south Korea would get wiped off the map. Most likely if his was to happen in real life Korea would not follow the philosophy of this resolution. Why? because it will create a war that south Korea could not win. So we cannot say that all nations should attack the attacker if they get attacked. Countries need to take in to consideration if they can win first. Going to war without first strategizing is fatal. So if countries followed this ideal then we would still be fighting each other impulsively like in the past. North Korea has "Hit" south Korea numerous times. But should the south hit the north back? The north could easily take the south. Witch is why they shouldn't hit them back. So following this resolution if we follow this resolution if a states followed this ideal then wars and extinctions that could have been avoided would be inevitable. If an ally hit us should we hit them back? No we need to talk to them and find out why first. Maybe it was an accident. If we just rush in and declare war I would have all been for nothing.

2. Domestic violence

So if I being a man is hit by a woman should I then hit her back? Absolutely not. I should be the bigger person and walk away. I could bruise a woman much easier than she could bruise me. Neither parties shouldn't put their hand on each other especially if there in a relationship. If a couple truly loves each other , then neither should have the intention of inflicting harm to one another. Lets rewind time for this situation and say Hitler was gay and was dating a Jew.( just stay with me here) if Hitler hit the guy should that guy hit him back? absolutely not. He would have been gased or shot immediently.

3. Parental situations

So, lets say you live in the ghetto and you stole 50 dollars of your moms money. At the time your 10 years old and 70 pounds. Mom on the other hand is about 160 and is a female bodybuilder. She hits you. Should you hit her back? You just stole her last bit of money to pay the light bill. Why should you hit her back? Are you justified in hitting her back even though you didnt consider the repercussions of your actions? Say were at grandmas and she hits you just because. Should you hit her back? As we know old people are fragile. Following this resolution then we should hit grandma. Though we didnt mean to you hitting her caused her to have a heart attack. because you follow the philosophy of this resolution, because you hit me that justifies that I should hit you back. absolutely not.

Though in some cases if someone hits you, you are justified in defending yourself witch could include running, not in all cases should you hit the attacker back. In order for pro to solidly prove the success of this resolution He/she needs to prove that this resolution is justifiable in every situation and not just one situation. Thus all of my points needs to be successfully countered.

I personally see no justification for the point presented by the con of this debate witch solidifies the fact that this resolution needs to be rejected for the sake of thinking before one acts. So for these reasons I believe con should win this debate.


I AM NOT GAY. BTW UR GAY AND I AM NOT. This sentence is just here because i cannot type in all caps.

Debate Round No. 2


Since my opponent posts no counter claims all of my contentions prove to be factual and still stand.

My opponent seems to accept the fact that right and wrong is a perception and that even if right and wrong was objectivve moraility still involes perception.

To comment on my opponents claims he cannot prove that i am gay nor can he prove that i am a flaming homosexual.


AUnhappyTroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


AUnhappyTroll forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
wo0w that was the fastest i ever got an
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Troll