The Instigator
SGM_iz_SekC
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
inthenameofjustice
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman in self-defense.

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...
SGM_iz_SekC
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 526 times Debate No: 55934
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

1st round is for acceptance only.
inthenameofjustice

Con

of course it is, the common "men can't hit women" society thing is that men can't hit women out of rage, there must be reason such as self defense.
Debate Round No. 1
SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

I will excuse the way my opponent is acting, as I said first round is for acceptance only, which means no arguments or statements.
I will explain my point thoroughly in this debate.
If a man hits a man, it is acceptable for the other man to act in self-defense. Same goes if a man hits a woman. I know men are stronger and more physically able than women ON AVERAGE. It is not this that makes it acceptable, it is the fact that a woman can have the same if not stronger intent to harm than the man. The intent to harm is what allows self-defense.
inthenameofjustice

Con

I will excuse my opponents actions as well, my opponent said that the first round is for acceptance only, what I thought my opponent meant was that he just wanted to hear an opinion in the direction of pro, not only had he not stated his opinion in the first round, but he did the same in the second round, he went further to state a neutral fact, no argument.

Now as I am on the con side, I will argue for con.

For a man to hit a woman, out of self-defense, even if it is not really necessary, is un-acceptable, it is only alright if the woman is threatening the man's life, not reputation.
Debate Round No. 2
SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

If a man hits a man, it is acceptable for the other man to act in self-defense. Same goes if a man hits a woman. I know men are stronger and more physically able than women ON AVERAGE. It is not this that makes it acceptable, it is the fact that a woman can have the same if not stronger intent to harm than the man. The intent to harm is what allows self-defense.

The intent to harm, not the damage done, is what makes self defense moral.

Con has stated no arguements. Only stated their opinion. In the second round I stated an argument of why it is acceptable.

Women wanted equal rights and I'm tired of them abusing that. They want if equal but in thier favor. If the only difference between a male and female candidate is gender they'd want the female. No matter the job. They wanna be in the army, yet they want safer and easier jobs. They want to say whatever they want and do whatever they want including cheat and abandon and neglect partners and children with no real consequence. They want to hit, and not get hit back. Women now think they are superior to men and only because morons raise this issue. I'm not saying you should be a cowardly SOB and just do it to make ya feel tough or whatever, nor at the first bat of an argument, but if a woman just keeps saying horrible things I'll walk away a few times and ask them not to say that again. Eventually I'll get sick of it cropping up and yeah one short swift backhand or something is bad but acceptable. It's just a shame it couldn't be sorted any other way. But tbh I honestly hand to god believe the only language women understand is violent. I think it explains all the culture of the past. I would never put a woman down. Do any job, do my thing you like but live your lives as good and respectfully as you want us too, don't speak to us like crap fret us like crap or assault us and you should be treated the same, or face the very subject of this debate just like we should vice versa.
inthenameofjustice

Con

I no longer wish to continue this debate due to the way my opponent is acting
Debate Round No. 3
SGM_iz_SekC

Pro

What way am I acting con? What I have said about you not stating arguments is true.
If a man hits a man, it is acceptable for the other man to act in self-defense. Same goes if a man hits a woman. I know men are stronger and more physically able than women ON AVERAGE. It is not this that makes it acceptable, it is the fact that a woman can have the same if not stronger intent to harm than the man. The intent to harm is what allows self-defense.

The intent to harm, not the damage done, is what makes self defense moral.

Con has stated no arguements. Only stated their opinion. In the second round I stated an argument of why it is acceptable.

Women wanted equal rights and I'm tired of them abusing that. They want if equal but in thier favor. If the only difference between a male and female candidate is gender they'd want the female. No matter the job. They wanna be in the army, yet they want safer and easier jobs. They want to say whatever they want and do whatever they want including cheat and abandon and neglect partners and children with no real consequence. They want to hit, and not get hit back. Women now think they are superior to men and only because morons raise this issue. I'm not saying you should be a cowardly SOB and just do it to make ya feel tough or whatever, nor at the first bat of an argument, but if a woman just keeps saying horrible things I'll walk away a few times and ask them not to say that again. Eventually I'll get sick of it cropping up and yeah one short swift backhand or something is bad but acceptable. It's just a shame it couldn't be sorted any other way. But tbh I honestly hand to god believe the only language women understand is violent. I think it explains all the culture of the past. I would never put a woman down. Do any job, do my thing you like but live your lives as good and respectfully as you want us too, don't speak to us like crap fret us like crap or assault us and you should be treated the same, or face the very subject of this debate just like we should vice versa.
inthenameofjustice

Con

inthenameofjustice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
inthenameofjustice

Con

inthenameofjustice forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SGM_iz_SekC 2 years ago
SGM_iz_SekC
how am I acting? -_-
Posted by discomfiting 2 years ago
discomfiting
"it is only alright if the woman is threatening the man's life, not reputation." - Con

Reputation is not self-defense (and vise versus) as the question is topic is "It is acceptable for a man to hit a woman in self-defense."

Con just said that it is okay to hit a woman in self-defense; how is he the "con" then? >_>
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Interesting. I would like to see this. Favorited.

(I'm with Pro, btw)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Cold-Mind
SGM_iz_SekCinthenameofjusticeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was rude. Of course he will get response like the one Con gave when topic includes "acceptable". However, since it is not a serious offense, I will award him conduct points (For Con forfeiting).