The Instigator
liberal_moron
Pro (for)
The Contender
smithn421
Con (against)

Is it morally acceptable to hit a woman if she hits you first

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
liberal_moron has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 409 times Debate No: 101747
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

liberal_moron

Pro

As we debate we are assuming that it is acceptable for a man to hit another man back if he hits you first.





Ok so, a week ago I was at school and a guy and a girl were arguing about some break-up and the girl slapped the guy in the face. If I was in his position I would have taken a swing upwards but after confronting the guy afterward he said he didn't react because "she is a girl". This is honestly stupid. Yes, I am aware that men are the majority of the time stronger than girls, not being sexist but it is just that men are built that way, with testosterone. But if women want equal rights then they should be able to accept the fact that it is not morally acceptable to hit a man without him hitting her back and if he does, she does not have the right to complain about it.
smithn421

Con

First of all, I believe that a man should not assault a woman, no matter what. I define assault as any physical violence towards another human being. Why is there a point to do so? Imagine a fight between two people. (Their genders are irrelivant for the moment). The instigator of the fight will be referred to as the attacker, while the person who was originally attacked will be referred to as the defender. In this situation, a verbal argument escalates into a physical fight, and the attacker attempts to punch the defender. In this situation, the defender has five options.

He/she can
A) fight back, attempting to punch the attacker
B) attempt to neutralize the attacker's punch
C) if possible, flee
D) call for help
E) allow the attack to land, without fighting back

Going back to the situation where a woman is the attacker. In any situation, unless the attacker is substantially stronger, options B and E are perfectly reasonable. As my opponent stated, "men are the majority of time stronger than [women]". Therefore, either of these options become more reasonable since the defender is commonly the stronger in a situation. However, one might assert that since the woman attacked first, the man is justified in fighting back. Yet this reasoning is only valid if the defender is in danger of being seriously injured.

Evidence supporting this can be found in the civil rights movement. African Americans had tried for decades to achieve equality through violence, and it simply never worked. Even though they were the ones being oppressed, their viewpoints were ignored because, as the attackers, they were in the wrong. And that's where it relates to the debate at hand.

In a fight situation, there is not always someone in the right. If the defender decides to fight back, they will be seen as in the wrong, as well as the attacker, due to the fact that they did not remain levelheaded enough to asses the situation and determine whether fighting back was necessary. However, if one were to either neutralize or simply accept the attacker's blows, they recieve respect. They knew that fighting back was not worth it, and instead used their refusal to fight as a message to their attacker. The easiest way to quell one's anger is by either accepting their anger, and/or responding with love. By doing this, the attacker is left with no anger from their opponent to fuel their own. Without a mutual response, anger quickly dies because the rationalle is allowed time to process the situation and realize how stupid it is.

So if a woman attacks a man, they do not deserve the same treatment back. This simply fuels the situation. Instead, the man should show his levelheadedness and simply wait for the anger to die down. It is the simplest and most effective way to quell a fight.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by slapmyhand12 7 months ago
slapmyhand12
I hate the argument that "men can do more damage" because no it is wrong. We can both do extreme amounts of damage. Let me explain A good (guy) friend of mine was recently rendered sterile because she kicked him in the testicles. His left testicle is reminiscent of mush and his right cracked like an egg. The saddest part about this is the school took it to court and she won the case the reason "she's a female". My friend cannot have children now because of her and the reason for her outburst and I quote "he said we should just be friends" How is this assault justified. Please someone explain how he could do more damage as her? Please do not say strength alone you can kill someone by lightly poking there carotid artery.
Posted by slapmyhand12 7 months ago
slapmyhand12
I hate the argument that "men can do more damage" because no it is wrong. We can both do extreme amounts of damage. Let me explain A good (guy) friend of mine was recently rendered sterile because she kicked him in the testicles. His left testicle is reminiscent of mush and his right cracked like an egg. The saddest part about this is the school took it to court and she won the case the reason "she's a female". My friend cannot have children now because of her and the reason for her outburst and I quote "he said we should just be friends" How is this assault justified. Please someone explain how he could do more damage as her? Please do not say strength alone you can kill someone by lightly poking there carotid artery.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
You are asking a moral question and the only fact is, anyone hitting anyone else is a crime? Equality legally means, get hit by a woman equals scream fire, put your hand to your head and fall down as if you are dead.

It that was to dramatic, do nothing, if nothing is not working, leave. If a person is being attacked by a woman and woman do nothing, if people do nothing, the moral issue is being missed.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
What50
It's called self defense.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.