The Instigator
Nehul
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Khaos_Mage
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Laws against Domestic Violence

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 5 votes the winner is...
Khaos_Mage
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,693 times Debate No: 33681
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (5)

 

Nehul

Pro

Domestic Violence Should be abolished. It is simply a due violation on the right to life of the victim. Especially women is targeted on the grounds of dowry , inequality , disparity and lots more. Domestic violence is caused due to the power asserted by the men on the women in our society. There is an utmost need to change the mindsets of the people in our society and furthermore help out the hapless victims. It may be happening even in your society and you must be unknown of this fact. It is an alarming topic and the need of the hour is to debate upon it and find out solutions to cease this important issue which is a major loophole in our society.
Khaos_Mage

Con

I am guessing that you are not a native English speaker, nor are you from the USA. Therefore, I don't know if you are referring to a specific country that doesn't have these laws and should.
So, in this debate, I will try to make my arguments as Country-neutral as possible.

There are plenty of good reasons why a husband should not beat up his wife. However, there are three good reasons why laws that prohibit domestic violence should not be allowed.

1. My home is my castle. What goes on there should be between me and my family and of little concern to the law. However, in the court of public opinion, let my neighbors know that I beat my wife and shun me, while trying to get the wife out of the abusive relationship. This applies whether or not there is a law, as even if there is a law against violence that applies in my home, and whether or not there is an additional law applied to violence against my wife, if it is not reported or my wife does not complain to the police, nothing is done legally. So, the fact that a law exists can fail, while my neighbors spreading rumors about me can protect the wife by others threatening/shunning me.

2. The typical scenario is a husband beating his wife. However, this typical scenario has no witnesses; it is only he-said-she-said, and very prejudicial to the one who was either hurt more, or the weaker spouse. Could it be self-defense? It's hard to say with no witnesses, and hard to believe in a one-sided fight.

Furthermore, this could be an issue of buyer's remorse. Like rough sex, (legitimate) boxing/sparring practice, or even an angry spouse itching for a divorce.

3. There are laws already in place in nearly every country that prohibits violence. Why should there be an additional law, with harsher penalties, simply because the two individuals are "domestic". In America, this domestic relationship can be between a doctor and patient, teacher and student, father and son (both being adults). It is unnecessary as these people are already protected by the law.

As you can see, there is no need for laws specifically prohibiting domestic violence, since laws against violence are already on the books, and they are just as useful as any new law specifically written to protect a wife, and are difficult to prove anyway.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Nehul

Pro

I can comprehend your views on Domestic Violence , but i have points to make that would object your views. Firstly , as you mentioned 'Home is a Castle' and the people should not be binded with laws at least in their homes. But this doesn't imply that you will torture or assert your power on women. You cannot violate the right to life , which is granted to each and every citizen of the country.Your actions should be well in your control and of course it is rightly said "Your Behaviour Is Your Responsibility". The grieve impacts that domestic violence leaves on women , cannot be overcomed. It affects the physiological , psychological and the mental state of the women. It leads to mental traumas and grieve disorders and even physical injury which would make a liability for the society.

I mean what pleasure do you get by creating / doing violence? I am sure it is not a necessity without which a person can't live his life dutifully and enjoy it. Indulging in such violence is regarded as a "crime against humanity".

Even if the laws against abolition of Domestic Violence are there , it's poor implementation has had serious effects on our society. It leads to more and more crimes against humanity and thereby the gender inequality comes into place. Men feel it's their right to downgrade women in their society stand up to it , without even giving a single thought for a moment to what will happen to the victim who will suffer. It is just bizarre to torture people living in our society. If you realize even , they have a life to live and if you stiill encourage domestic violence then please "GO GET A LIFE".
Khaos_Mage

Con

Pro makes a good enough point against my Castle argument, which was weak and I only had it there because I like having lists of at least three. However, none of your points address my other two points. So, I will restate them.

1. Why should there be a special law against domestic violence? There are not laws for domestic rape, domestic murder, or domestic theft. If a husband beats his wife, he should get a harsher sentence than a drunk who punches another drunk in a bar. That is why there is no set penalty for crimes; the more heinous a crime's circumstance is the harsher the sentence is. So, a bar fighter may only get a slap on the wrist, while the abusive husband who broke his wife's jaw serves a year in prison. There is no need for a separate law. Why must there be two charges for the same crime, assault and domestic assault?

2. The crime itself must be reported. Why does a woman allow her man to beat her? Perhaps she gets something out of the relationship that is worth the abuse. Perhaps she got married knowing full well her husband-to-be was abusive. Perhaps she thinks she can change him. Perhaps she prefers his wealth or the gifts after the beatings. Or maybe she enjoys the attention from concerned strangers.

Who are we to judge (in a court of law) if there is no complaining witness? If there is no witness, there is no crime. Regardless if there is a law against domestic violence, it must be reported. The law does no good if no one uses it, and since there are laws against assault, there is no need for another one.

Pro says they have a life to live, and if they choose badly and don't want help, isn't that their choice?

If society allows women to be beat, and women to accept their being beat, that is a problem with society and/or the individuals involved. However, there is no need for duplicate laws to address this. What needs to happen is women need to be treated/viewed with respect from society/husbands. No law will change this.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
Nehul

Pro

Firstly, I would love to tell the Con that 'the society we prosper in is ours and if all of us become selfish , just think about us and not work for the society' would be completely absurd and mean. Domestic violence has become a critical issue and it's high time we make stronger laws and improve the implementation of the existing laws. Also , all these laws against rape , assaults etc. together with the law against domestic violence contributes to the overall security and safety of the women. We have to safeguard every vulnerable possibility that can be easily targeted. It is us , who can work for the benefit of the society and not others. And it is rightly said by Mahatma Gandhi 'Be the change you want to see'.

When women involve in an relationship , she doesn't know how the man is completely and what are his views on the social issues. He can easily fake it and later the WOMEN face the harsh repercussions. Isn't it the man's fault anywhere?

Women face the crime with lots of difficulties and there is just a 'miserable' life left for the women to live. Most women are still not aware about how to fight domestic violence and hence this unawareness in our society is fatal .Women don't report the crime as they feel ashamed to go up and tell the police. They don't trust our own society as if the matter leaks to the public , then she would have to face more harassment from her very own society. She just doesn't have the guts to lead up in front and fight 'Domestic Violence'. We have to set up an initiative such as organizing protests , making the women of the society aware of the serious repercussions of domestic violence and how to fight it , giving them assurity that their information would not be disclosed to the public and hence making them comfortable enough, thus encouraging them to report the crime. If we ourselves won't lead the change in the society then who will? We , together as a country have to create a more sensible and understanding environment for all of us.
Khaos_Mage

Con

Pro has made good arguments for why domestic violence is bad, and why wives ought not be beaten by their husbands. Women, in fact, do have rights to life and fairness.

However, Pro has yet to offer any argument that addresses the redundancy of having a separate law.

As such, I believe I have proven my claim that there should be no laws against domestic violence, since there are already laws against assault, rape, violence, etc., and the relationship between the victim and the aggressor should be an aggravating factor come sentence to increase the punishment.

The notion that something needs to be done about domestic violence is true; I do not dispute this.
Society needs to respect woman as people/citizens having rights. If this involves legislative acts, so be it. But this does not necessitate having a separate law for domestic assault when the current assault charge will suffice.

Women also need to report their abuse. Again, having a separate law will not fix anything, if women still fail to report the abuse. Shelters, advocates, and protections (restraining orders) need to be offered and honored.

Do men need to not beat up their women? Of course. And they should seek counseling or anger management or whatever. But, a separate law is not needed, nor the answer.

In summary, there is no need for a redundant law.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sparks 3 years ago
sparks
Is it sexist to assume the victim of domestic violence is always a woman and the perpetrator is always a man?
Posted by Khaos_Mage 3 years ago
Khaos_Mage
Thank you for your advice voters. I haven't debated in a while, so I was a bit sloppy.

Nehul, you did pretty good for a first timer, especially if you're not a native english speaker. The only reason I won this debate is because of your resolution's wording and your not responding to my arguments. If your resolution was worded differently, I wouldn't have been able to make those same arguments.

For example, if the resolution was "Violence against spouses should be illegal", but that was not what I was arguing.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
It's not clear who has the burden of proof in this debate. We have to guess that the resolution is "There should be laws against domestic violence." That's the status quo in most of the world, even in places where the laws are not enforced. If so, then con must prove that domestic violence laws should be abolished. Pro didn't argue the case for domestic violence laws very well.

Pro argues that there is no difference between domestic violence and and any other type of assault already treated by law. The difference is that in domestic abuse there is a psychology of abuse that inhibits testifying against the abusing spouse. What domestic violence laws allow is for the state to initiate the complaint, investigate, and file charges without the cooperation of the abused spouse.

Pro argues that there is usually no evidence, so he-said she-said cases are pointless. If there is no evidence, a conviction cannot be obtained under any type of law against assault, domestic or otherwise. The evidence usually includes medical evidence of injury and medical attribution of the injury to personal violence rather than accident. Additional evidence may be from neighbors hearing a commotion or from the situation observed by the police called to the scene.

Pro provided no substantial refutation of two points, although Con conceded the home-is-a-castle argument. The question is then whether Con's arguments were prima facie or whether they were so weak as to not require rebuttal. I think they were prima facie, so failure to refute loses the debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@Nehul:

Raising awareness on domestic violence has nothing to do with the resolution, which is specifically about the laws against domestic violence.
Posted by Nehul 3 years ago
Nehul
People against domestic violence have to raise their voices. Vote Pro if you think that this is the most undiscussed issue in our society and is emerging as a national threat.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1) CON: "There are laws already in place in nearly every country that prohibits violence. Why should there be an additional law, with harsher penalties, simply because the two individuals are "domestic". "

This will be my primary focus as well. PRO will have to adequately answer this to meet BoP.

2) PRO: "Even if the laws against abolition of Domestic Violence are there , it's poor implementation has had serious effects on our society."

PRO kind of concedes the case here. Laws against domestic violence are ineffectual, so why create them?

3) CON: "Pro makes a good enough point against my Castle argument, which was weak and I only had it there because I like having lists of at least three. " lol, I was wondering the same thing.

4) CON: "What needs to happen is women need to be treated/viewed with respect from society/husbands. No law will change this." A well-reasoned position.

5) After reading PRO's round #3, which was nothing more than an emotional appeal, I knew how I would vote. I did not read CON's concluding remarks.

---

CONCLUSION

PRO is correct that domestic violence is bad and should be prevented. However, CON rightly points out that there are already laws that aim to prevent violence, that domestic violence specifically has special circumstances that make reporting and substantiating a case difficult, that laws specifically attempting to address domestic violence would be ineffectual, and that societal solutions involving respecting women would be far more effective.

PRO also concedes that laws against domestic violence are ineffectual, and offers no alternative that would affirm the resolution. This is a concession here.

Arguments CON, well argued after the weak round #2. Constructive criticism: against a stronger opponent, that weak opening may have been a huge liability. Openings tend to set the tone for the rest of the debate. I thought about S&G to CON, as his arguments were much more readable, but will leave it neutra
Posted by Nehul 3 years ago
Nehul
Please do vote for Pro or Con genuinely and feel free to comment any further thereby sharing your keen ideas.
Posted by Nehul 3 years ago
Nehul
Every body has their own opinions about this issue. @ all
@ katrilenyah - Well , if we can't abolish domestic violence at least we can try to cease it to a few extent maybe in our local niche. I am in favour of encouraging laws that deploys such crime against humanity and demand it's proper implementation.
Posted by katrilenyah 3 years ago
katrilenyah
You can't exactly abolish domestic violence no matter how much we want it to go away, domestic violence occurs through an emotional reaction caused by a series of events that effects a change in hormones and chemicals in a part of you brain, and that part you sadly can't change.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
High BoP on pro, finding ways to abolish domestic violence... Anyway, good luck on your first debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Naysayer 3 years ago
Naysayer
NehulKhaos_MageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I appreciate that this was kept to a civil debate, difficult at times given the subject. Pro used way too many hypotheticals that just didn't make good argument. He also never touched Con's stance. Con stuck to the facts and made a solid case.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
Nyx999
NehulKhaos_MageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, everybody hates domestic violence, but why would we need more laws if we already have laws prohibiting normal violence? And Pro, you are sexist! Women beat up their husbands all the time. Oh and Con, after every round don't say vote con. People will vote con if they think you deserve the vote, and pushing for them to vote for you is just obnoxious.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
NehulKhaos_MageTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: See comments for RFD.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
NehulKhaos_MageTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - I will award conduct to PRO for a nice first try; welcome to this website.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
NehulKhaos_MageTied
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 pointed out that violence in general is prohibited. Pro failed to make a compelling case for an additional law. I'd give S&G, too, but I think Con's right about Pro's non-nativity, so Arguments alone it is.