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

It should be Legal to throw acid at women who are Feminists

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 80613
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing that acid attacks should be legal if carried out by a man whereby the target is a woman feminist, and hydrochloric acid is used. My opponent (Con) will provide reasons why such an act should be illegal.

Debate Structure

Round 1: acceptance WITH arguments
Round 2: arguments
Round 3: conclusion - no new arguments

The purpose of acid attacks, or the throwing of a corrosive substance onto the body of another is clearly to disfigure.

"The most common types of acid used in these attacks are sulfuric and nitric acid. Hydrochloric acid is sometimes used, but is much less damaging" - wikipedia

If sulfuric and nitric acid are illegal, people who throw acid will use hydrochloric acid meaning the victims will have a greater chance of surviving such attacks.

When throwing acid is completely illegal, less people who throw acid will do so in public. Burns will take longer to treat, therefore the victim will suffer severe damage, and will have a greater chance of dying!

Men who use acid to disfigure can face the death penalty or very long sentences. If there were no laws against throwing acid on someone more people would be alive. A man who carried out the attack would not be given a death sentence, and would be less likely to go on a killing spree, murdering as many people as possible before he is caught and killing himself.

Surely the lives of the many outweight the lives of the few?

Below is a graph showing acid attacks in Bangladesh from 1999 - 2013 [1]

It may appear that acid attacks have steadily declined since 2002 when two new acts – Acid Crime Control Act (ACCA) and the Acid Control Act (ACA) were introuduced. We must remember though that these kind of fgures are usually manipulated to look better. Stringent rules have been placed on the sale of acid which explains the decrease. So, if acid was as accessible as before, we would probably see a similar number of individuals attacked with acid.

Feminsts do not value men, this is why some let their legs, arms, underarms etc get hairy, over eat and become an unhealthy weight. They increase rape, suicides, murderers. They even make websites and youtube videos to spread lies such as "acid attacks are nearly entirely against women" when in most countries it is even, and overall women are just under two times as likely to be a victim. They don't care how male victims feel, or whether innocent people are punished, all they care about is feeling superior.

A lot of good will come from stopping feminism.

Making it legal for men to attack women who are feminsts with acid is the best way to tackle this problem.





I accept.

First, I will state a few arguments as to why throwing acid on people should be illegal, which apparently isn't common sense.

The reason we make laws is to protect people, so that if someone were to harm a person they can be held accountable. Obviously, throwing acid on a person is a clear, demonstrable harm and therefore a law should be placed against it. Just like murder, assault, or rape, causing harm to people is illegal.

Now for some rebuttals. They first start off by saying that this act should be made legal so that this act can be done in the open, so theoretically more people will survive. People are going to do it anyway, no matter if it is legal, so why stop it? This argument is one for lawlessness. Every law will be broken, no matter how heinous the crime is, and yet we still have laws. This is because threatening punishment for an act is an obvious deterrent, and if someone breaks these laws they can be punished and taken off the streets, unable to do it again.

Second, they talk about men who go on killing sprees before ending their life. They offer no examples of a person having done this, or that it happens often enough for it to be a consideration, but never mind that for now. Again, this seems to argue for lawlessness. Any crime can cause a person to conceivably go on a killing spree, and yet we still have laws. Not to mention this line of thinking removes all responsibility from the attacker. Why did they splash acid on this poor woman's face and murder a dozen people in cold blood? Well, because he would die otherwise, of course! He had to do it.

Then they offer a graph to show that laws against the handling and use of acids have reduced attacks, which is odd given that they just off handedly dismiss it. They say that these graphs are often manipulated, though this claim will also go with absolutely no evidence to support it. They also claim that the decrease is because of the strict handling of acid and not the rule itself. Okay? Like it was mentioned before, people will always break the law, no matter how heinous the crime. Murder is illegal and people still shoot each other. So, in combination with making the act illegal, reducing the means to commit the crime also helps.

Then there is a tirade about women, no, sorry, I mean feminists. Because Pro obviously isn't a misogynist, right? Pro seems to be a bit upset that women don't do everything in their power to give him a b*ner so obviously they should be given a nice splash of acid. I mean, a person doing something for themselves and not for the sake of another is so odd. Women don't grow their hair out or be a bit more relaxed with their diet because they want to; no, it is to upset the incredibly "Not Misogynist" Pro. Somehow, feminists have increased rape (even though 9 out of ten victims of rape were women, check source 1), murders (even though he doesn't list a source and I can't find one that says either sex is murdered more), and suicides (while men are more successful at suicide, usually because they use firearms and other highly successful means, women attempt suicide more often. Source 2). Does Pro have any sources? He claims that acid attacks don't happen more often to women, even though he admits later that nearly 2x as many women are attacked with acid. Apparently feminists don't care how male victims feel, even though I often hear male rape addressed by feminists on sites like tumblr. They also don't care if innocent men are punished. Are we still talking about acid attacks, or something else?

Apparently the feminist hoards can be staved off by throwing acid on them. I'm sure this wouldn't just blow up in your face as millions of people protest this obvious human rights violation. But yeah, big smart man really has this one figured out.

Just a question, though. How will you determine that the victim is a feminist? Will we put like a pink star on their clothing? Because, yeah, I don't think I have to finish that analogy.

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent seems to think he is debating with more than one person, he often says "they" despite having a debate with just me. I'm not sure why he says this exactly, as I have not recieved any help from anyone on this topic. Also not sure why he very rudely thinks I am upset that women don't give me a boner and why he thinks I want to splash acid on women for this, this couldn't be further from the truth. Misogonists hate women. I'd desribe myself as anti-feminist, not anti-women.

The goverments solution to every problem is to make problems otherthan feminsim illegal, even if innocent people are punished in the process. This approach is crazy. It has been proven that people respond better to positive reinforement rather than negative reinforcement. And the prison system does not work.

"In theory, having a criminal record in Britain should not prevent a person from doing much, unless it is for violent or sexual offences. But in practice, the legal obligation to disclose a record, and the discrimination that follows, restricts access to everything from jobs to insurance, loans and travel. That has a huge impact on former prisoners—contributing, some argue, to Britain’s exceptionally high re-offending rate." {1}

"Every law will be broken, no matter how heinous the crime is, and yet we still have laws."

I agree with this statement. However he then says laws act as an obvious deterrent, this may be true for some crimes but laws against rape and throwing acid have certainly not made any impact. If you look back at the graph I showed, if the law truly deterred people from throwing acid on somebody the number (notice it's not percentage) of victims would be much lower than that shown after 2002 when you consider offenders are taken off the streets for a long time ~ 10 years, or given a death sentence. The population has been growing by only 1.25% by my approximation, see link below for exact figures, this is not sufficient to explain what you see. The true picture is not made clear, they just want to show a graph showing a decline since the law was introduced.

Acid attacks still occur at similar rates if not greater despite it being illegal to throw acid on someone, the only thing that can make a difference is making acid harder to obtain by having stricter regulations on the sale of acid, and encouraging the use of a weaker acid to better serve the purpose of someone wanting to throw acid on someone. Acid throwers don't intend to kill people; there are far more effective ways to kill a person, their aim is oviously to disfigure. However Nitric and Sulphuric acid can dissolve bone, and can easily cause an unintentional death especially if it is not thoroughly washed off or neutralised quickly. Doesn't it make sense to deter people using stronger acids? It's impossible to stop acid getting into the hands of people who want to throw it on someone because acid has so many uses e.g. Nitric can be bought from jewelry shops since polishers generally use it to purify gold and metals. Hydrochloric acid is used to make soy sauce, traditional medicine and cosmetics.

Some scholars have warned that stringent regulations on the sale of acid may result in black market trading of acids - wikipedia Therefore regulating the sale of acid is not the only thing that needs to be done! Throwing hydrochloric acid at feminists should be made legal to prevent more serious injuries and deaths.

People like Elliot Rodgers who are often desribed as jealous, see link below, are actually victms of feminism, and it is important to consider such people when the chance of being attacked by acid is also small i.e. 1500/6 billion = 0.00000025% each year [2]

If it were legal to throw hydrochloric acid less women would die by gunshot wounds, because acid would probably be used instead, and the victims wouldn't be random. There aren'tmany people who want to throw acid on someone - about 1500 per year worldwide, and yes they do need to take responsibility because there would have to be evidence to show the victim is a feminist.

I have chosen to show statistics for Bangladesh as most acid attacks occur in south asia, but they are on the increase worldwide, including the U.K. where they have doubled over the last 10 years, affecting more men than women [3] in fact it is twice as many men than women yet feminists completely ignore this fact and just talk about countries elsewhere like Bangladesh to degrade men

Finally i'd like my opponent to look at this link, showing ways that graphs can be manipulated:

Misleading graphs misrepresent data and result in an incorrect conclusion, graphs may be excessively complex or poorly constructed either intentionally or accidentally. Even when constructed to accurately display the characteristics of their data, graphs can be subject to different interpretation.



First of all, I used they because it is a gender neutral term and does not necessarily mean multiple people. I don't know why this was worth mentioning in this debate but I guess Pro just needs something to whine about. My paragraph about the boner was in response to your very, very anti-women, not anti-feminist, paragraph talking about how they let their hair grow out and gain weight. Oh, and I think you'd be very surprised to learn that anti-feminist and misogynists have a lot in common. Especially those that are in favor of terrorist attacks (ie, acid throwing).

The next paragraph they (not multiple people you paranoid trash bag) they're upset that a nonviolent, nonproblem like feminism isn't illegal, but something like rape is. I'm sorry? And they also assert that innocent people are arrested too, seemingly enough where this has to be of consideration. Then Pro quotes somebody talking about the failings of the British legal system. Of course, nowhere in there does the quote say that we should get rid of the legal system, or even that these crimes should go unpunished. A very simple, easy reform would be that nonviolent offences or minor offences don't need to be reported when going for a job. Boom.

Then they say that laws against rape (WHICH ISN'T PART OF THIS DISCUSSION???) and acid attacks don't make an impact. Of course, they admit that the graph shows a trend of less victims after 2002, but apparently if the law actually worked we would see immediate, drastic decline. Why? Because obviously every single offender would have been arrested immediately following the passing of the law. So what we have here is a graph that shows the number of acid attacks have dropped since a law was passed, and Con's refutation is a conspiracy theory.

So Pro goes on to say that the number of acid attacks still occur at similar rates. Where'd he get this? F*ck off and let him speak. Apparently a law against throwing acid on people wouldn't work, but a law against selling these acids would work. Huh. Okay. Oh, and the government should tell the people to do these acid attacks, just with Baby's First Act of Misogynistic Terrorism acid. Honestly, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to deter people from making any sort of attack. Almost... almost like a... law, maybe?

So I'm just going to take a little break from my rebuttals to bring up this. The debate is over the legality of throwing acid on feminists. It is not a debate about the effectiveness of the law, whether or not we should have punishment for crimes, or even that the law on acid throwing should be abolished. You have set up a debate to show that it should be legal to throw acid on feminists and feminists only. Therefore, arguing about the effectiveness of the law, or whether it serves as a good deterrent isn't what we are here to talk about. You need to show that there is something about feminists that means we should attack them in ways that would, according to you, be for the purpose of disfiguring them.

I would think that in the society you are describing, where feminists deserve to these attacks and it is beneficial to society to do them, I wouldn't say that caring for them afterwards would be of that much importance to people. Why would the police respond to a dirty feminist? Who would even call the police? The attacker?

Elliot Rodgers isn't a victim. Elliot Rodgers is a misogynist with a death wish, who felt that he was entitled to women's body by the mere existence of his penis so I guess why his story would matter to you. Oh, and you still give them responsibility because they have to prove that the innocent person that they tried to horribly disfigure was your political opponent. Also my opponent is a psychic because he knows that guns wouldn't be used, acid would be. And I guess not having random victims means... something?

So 60% of attacks in Britain are done by males. This is an obvious problem and I don't think that any feminist would shrug their shoulders at it. World Wide, 80% of the victims are female though, which is obviously why they are given more attention. Should more attenton be put towards the problem in Britain? Of course. Frankly, I don't want any person to be attacked with acid, which I thought was just a common decency thing but I guess not.

Never did I say that graphs aren't manipulated, but this is a graph that you have given us and when it suits you, you take it as true. Why are the numbers going down? Because acid is regulated! Well who said the numbers are going down? Obviously that graph is manipulated!

What Pro Hasn't Told Us
Why feminists deserve this punishment
--If negative reinforcement doesn't solve the problem, how would it stop feminists?
--If acid attacks are made legal, and these acids are apparently used for many things, what is to stop the use of stronger acids?
--How will we identify feminists for future terrorist attacks?
Debate Round No. 2


I quickly looked this up, and found much to my surprise that using "he", "his", or "him" in a sentence is often considered sexist. This is probably why my opponent tries to use gender-neutral language, it may even help explain his apparent hatred towards me. Only feminists would say such words are sexist because they search for reasons to hate men in order to feel superior which though non-violent has consequences.

It takes literally 1 second to find out whether I am a man or a woman, if this is too time consuming you can just use "he or she" or "s/he". By using "they" where "he" should be used voters can be mislead. I simply feel that voters should not be mislead. When you use non gender distinquishing words like "they" or "their" it's often a good idea to refer back to a singular noun to avoid confusion e.g.

"If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website."

"A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings."

Anyway back to the debate, I'll just try to make my position clear. I am anti-feminist, not anti-women. I think I have a better idea of what I am. If you read closely you will find I was talking about feminists growing hairy legs, and putting on weight, not women in general. I have no problem with women who who want to grow hairy arms and legs, or who want to put on weight. The only people who have a problem with such people are misogynists who my opponent confuses with anti-feminists.

You should already know Feminism is a movement supporting equal rights for women, and women only! Thus feminists do not care about equality, their goal is solely to feel superior to men. So they don't strive to be happy; they seek comfort which is a low goal. Feminists will have you believe that anti-feminists are misogynists because they obviously want to believe they are better. Very few people are actually misognists, these people agree with fat shaming etc and will tend to be anti-feminists, whereas anti-feminists just oppose feminism, so will be against things like racial and gender quotas in employment.

Let me explain why I mentioned hairy and fat women, if a woman is fat or hairy and makes no effort she probably isn't bothered about attracting men, men who find her unnattractive will just walk past and approach women who they do find attractive. They won't hate the woman. Feminists ask women to let their body hair grow in the name of feminism and go on catwalks and participate in campaigns to send out the message that hairy women are sexy, and fat is sexy etc. However if I go along to a woman and tell her what she should find attractive, she'd think I was arrogant, because that is what it is. Feminists make men feel ashamed of finding a healthy woman attractive. When a man sees a hairy and/or fat woman, due to feminism, he might naturally think she is a feminist, and might not simply walk past her, but choose to insult her. Feminism produces misogynists, that is the intention of feminists because the only thing they care about is feeling superior. Sorry about not explaining this earlier.

I have listed various problems including killing sprees. I could have gone into more detail about why feminism is a problem but it would be too timely. Clearly the purpose of making it legal to throw acid at feminists is not to change feminists, they still won't value men even if acid is poured on them which is why you'd have to hate women to do something like that. Some problems asscoiated with femimism will be reduced if it is legal to throw hydrochloric acid at feminists, however the main purpose of making this legal is to decrease acid attacks and their severity.

I believe it should be legal to throw hydrochloric acid at women who are feminists (not women simply because they're hairy or fat), and I do not think "the government should tell the people to do these acid attacks".

If you look at the graph I showed in round one, acid attacks have remained at the same level or higher before laws were introduced in Bangladesh, and I've also provided evidence showing that acid attacks are increasing worldwide despite the fact there are laws against acid attacks. In the U.K. they have doubled in a 10 year period. These facts do not change my opponents belief that the law deters acid attackers.

More should be done to stop acid attacks, regulating the sale of acids is not enough. We need a law which actually protects people, not comforts people by letting them know someone will be punished. If my suggestion is implemented people will be punished if they throw lethal acids like nitric, and suphuric, or anything other than hydrochloric, and if a misogynist (the type who throws acid) does not target a feminist he will be severely punished.



No, I wouldn't say to use male pronouns is sexist. Where the hell did that come from? Your a$$? Because I think you pulled that from your a$$. I choose to use gender neutral pronouns when I don't know for sure the other person's gender, and also because I just like them. Yes, I, a male, need to find reasons to hate men so that I can feel superior to... myself?

Oh my god Pro is so god damned annoyed that I didn't presume his gender that he has devoted three paragraphs towards showing I have some conspiracy to confuse the voters. Now, just to annoy Pro, I will ONLY refer to him as 'they'.

Now that they are done with their hissy fit, they say that they're not anti-women. They are against rape and acid attack laws, crimes that affect primarily women, and he thinks that women should be thin, hairless barbie dolls with a dick receptor, but they're not misogynists. Oh wait, they've backpedaled, I mean, clarified, that it is only feminists who grow hair and gain weight that they have a problem with. Why? F*ck off and let them speak.

Somehow they have described feminism as a goal for equal rights for women, but also that feminists want to be superior. Their source for this? I'm going to guess their a$$ again, since it holds such a wealth of knowledge. Apparently feminists tell men that they should find overweight and hairy women sexy, though with no evidence this happens. I think what they are referring to is when feminists speak out against beauty standards, but if so, the critique is that a woman shouldn't have to fit these standards to be worth something. It is saying that a woman's worth isn't dependent upon her ability to meet a check list, which I guess creates misogynists for some stupid reason. Apparently, if a man saw a fat/hairy women, he could assume that she is a feminist, which, presumably, means he could throw acid on her. Whoops. Nowhere in this paragraph do they say why they brought up fat and hairy feminists, but it must be pretty hard to backpedal and create some BS out of thin air so maybe we should give them a break?

Yes, they have said that killing sprees are a problem. No, they haven't explained or shown why this is a problem, or even that it happens often. It seems that they have no reason for wanting feminists to be the victims of these attacks, except for the vague and unexplained "it'll fix some problems." Will it change or deter feminists? Nope. So why feminists? Check the bank vault of information that is their a$$.

If you mean the graph showed that the number of attacks have remained constant? Then no. In fact, the graph showed a decrease. I mean, murders still happen man. Should we make murder legal too? Why is a law necessarily harmful? Should we designate a certain political party as free reign when it comes to murder?

/Whoa whoa whoa, man. You can't severely punish a man who attacks a non feminist. They'll just go on a killing spree, and you know that laws aren't a deterrent for anything. Also, we shouldn't even regulate the acid. It'll just be on the black market anyway, which all people have access to, because, you know, I say so./(sarcasm).

Things They Failed At
--Showing that feminists create misogynists
--Showing that feminists hate men or need to feel superior to them
--Showing that mass killing sprees are likely to occur
--Showing that feminists are worthy of being targeted
--Showing that this will stop whatever bad thing feminism does
--Showing that a lack of law will help anybody but the attackers
--Showing how we identify feminists for attack, besides being fat and hairy (though, admittedly, there are non feminist overweight and hairy women)
--Stating that a law will be used to deter attacks against non feminists even though they say that laws aren't effective deterrents
--Showing how they will keep fatal acids out of the hands of attackers besides the broad term regulation, and has stated that regulating isn't enough and will lead to black market sales of these acids
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
I haven't clarified my position? Are you talking about my comment about conduct? That's a joke. Just like when I called you they for the last round. Chill.
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
shouldn't you follow your own advice then?
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Generally speaking you don't have to clarify your position AFTER a debate is over.
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
nope, I just responded to your comment about conduct and arguments, and thought I'd clear up the lies
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Did you literally post a RFD for your own debate which you can't vote on?
Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago

Con doesn't care whether his use of the word "they" misleads voters into thinking this is an unfair debate, and attempts to use the word to annoy me. He is rude throughout and repeatedly calls me a misogynist despite telling him I am not, and am instead an anti-feminist. This should be clear by the fact I am sharing an "idea" to reduce acid attacks and their severity, not to increase the number of feminists who are attacked with acid. I don't hate women.


Con calls me a misogynist which is another way to call someone thick - this is not a great way to win a debate, though I admit it did work to some degree as I didn't bother to put my best effort into this. Despite this my arguments are still more convincing because they are not made up like Con's who didn't take this debate seriously, and thinks the law deters acid attackers, which it doesn't, and thinks nothing should change. Acid attacks are increasing, although restricting access to acid can help, a black market means people can still get their hands on it. The only way to deter people buying acids which can kill people, is to make them illegal, hydrochloric acid better serves their intentions - to disfigure, not kill. Why would someone buy something illegal which does the same job, and which they know will get them caught if they are found with it or ever use it?

There is no reason why people wouldn't care about women who are victims - very few people are misogynists. If you look back before laws were introduced did people not care about the victims? Why would attacks increase? The only people capable of doing such a horrible thing to another person are feminists and misogynists, basically people filled with hate, and I believe my idea would reduce them, along with acid attacks.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
YaHey, look at Pro's debates. I think he might be a troll.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Some may say that I should lose conduct points for my sarcasm and lack of formality. However, I would say the disdain I showed is about equal to the disdain Pro has for human rights, so I think it should balance out.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
Oh yeah, most logical, more like most retarded.
Posted by DATXDUDE 2 years ago
I don't support feminism, but god damn, how does Pro think anything good can come of legalizing acid attacks...
No votes have been placed for this debate.