The Instigator
Equalizer99
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
frankdavie2
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is it wrong for a man to hit a woman after she has been hitting him?

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 2 votes the winner is...
frankdavie2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/29/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 807 times Debate No: 69113
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Equalizer99

Pro

Hello and Good luck!

Yes, I think a man has the right to hit a woman after he has been hit many times. I believe men are not invincible. Even though scientifically men are stronger, there is only a certain amount that a man can take. I also do not believe it is right for the woman to have an attitude that she can just hit him without remorse and he will not retaliate. I feel if a woman is man enough to hit like a man, she deserves to be treated like a man. On the flip side It is not right for a man to abuse a woman for absurd reasons.
frankdavie2

Con

I accept this debate and wish pro luck in his altercations.

I strongly believe that it is immoral for a man to a hit a woman in any circumstance due to the stature of man in comparison to the physique of the average woman.

However, this does not necessarily signify that a man can not retaliate effectively in the event of being hit by a hostile woman. There are many equally as formidable methods that can be utilised for a man to subdue being hit by a woman, and these should be used in alternation to hitting a woman who may or may not deserve it.
Debate Round No. 1
Equalizer99

Pro

If it is wrong for a man to hit a woman, why is it right for a woman to hit a man? In the event that a woman does hit a man, what effective methods should be used? I think women should know that physically, based on testosterone, they are not equal to men. I believe if a woman has the courage to hit a man she should be able to take it back. Women need to get out of the mindset that women can just punk a man around. I personally think that if a relationship is abusive, it should not be anymore. But, if they do stick it out, I think that this is what should happen
frankdavie2

Con

Before I begin, I'd just like to point that any form of violence from one human being to another is fundamentally wrong. So, whether it be a man hitting a woman or vice versa, it is still irrefutably wrong. We do not live in an 'eye for an eye' society, we use other (more effective) methods of dealing with those that step out of line.

However, on the basis that con believes that a man using violence against a woman (whether she deserves it or not) is a condonation of violence as a whole and that strikes a major flaw in con's argument.

Even if violence in the domestic man vs. woman situation was acceptable, the core concept of a man hitting a woman is still radically erroneous. A man on average, is physically stronger than the average woman, and is therefore heavily advantaged when it comes to physical contact. According to reliable sources, men are said to have 50% more brute strength than woman (1). Do bear in mind that this is still irrelevant due to the fact that the whole concept of using violence in the domestic area is still wrong, even if it is in retaliation of something such as infidelity. However, for the sake of the argument, men are still advantageously stronger and more muscularly developed than woman and that on top of the fact that violence along is wrong, makes a man striking a woman a completely immoral thing to do.

In the event of a woman striking a man (which is equally as wrong), a man usually possess the strength to subdue the attacks made by the woman and therefore has the opportunity to either settle the conflict man to woman, or summon the police and charge the woman for assault. Either way, these are credible options for effectively dealing with said situation without resorting to physical abuse.

(1) See number eight: http://drjamesdobson.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Equalizer99

Pro

I would encourage you to read this article below. It states the average police times when emergency services are called. If the average time is a little over 9 minutes, what is a man supposed to do in the time being? If the police are called and if the hitting continues, is a man supposed to just take it?

http://www.metro.us...

Stronger or not, a man or any human being has the right to defend theirselves. If a woman feels the need to hit a man, why is that acceptable? Why does society make a such big deal about a man hitting a woman. A woman might be weaker but there still is strength.
frankdavie2

Con

Calling the police is just one of a cascade of options available to anyone that's receiving physical abuse . A man, usually being the stronger one of the two, should be more than capable of either forcefully leaving the home, locking himself into a room or subduing the abuse by physically defending himself without the use of punches, kicks or any other form of harmful contact. The idea that a man has the right to hit back because the woman has hit him first is fundamentally wrong. We live in a modern society that is based upon the core principal of justice and that does not adhere to the 'eye for an eye' concept. Any woman than wrongly abuses a man will be dealt with under fair circumstances by the full force of the law and shouldn't be dealt with on the spot by the more physically dominant gender through further violence. Defense is a totally different kettle of fish to that of attack, and the man has a right to defend himself, but not through a means of hostility towards the woman.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
Equalizer99frankdavie2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did an excellent job of rebutting Pro's arguments an successfully argued that hitting back is unacceptable, especially for the stronger individual.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Equalizer99frankdavie2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So, yeah, it would have been nice for Pro and Con to be on the right sides here. Pro is answering no to the topic question, and Con is answering yes, which confused me at first. Aside from that, this debate is pretty much all one note by both sides. Pro tells me that it's not a problem because men should be able to retaliate to protect themselves, and Con tells me that there are other, better means of protection than retaliation. I would have liked to have heard more than just "things used to subdue someone" as examples from Con, but as Pro never contests it, I'm forced to accept that as an alternative. Both sides acknowledge that, on average, men are stronger than women, which means retaliation is inherently likely to cause more harm than is being caused to them. Con's subduing option doesn't apparently cause any damage, though it still takes advantage of that strength. So I see a wrongness in Pro's case that is absent in Con's, ergo I vote Con.