Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed
Debate Rounds (4)
It is unethical to demean a victim of bullying, yet we are allowing Oxford dictionary and Google to do so. How could we do such a thing. We need to take a stand. Why would one want to call a victim "weaker" than a bully. We are all flawed in one way or another, that doesn't make somebody weaker.
A more appropriate term would be "perceived to be weaker by the bully" rather than "weaker". If one agrees that someone is weaker than the one bullying them then they are stating that they side with the bully. We as a society are agreeing that the bully is correct, the victim is indeed weaker, which is not true. Our country spends millions on anti-bullying campaigns, but it is hypocritical to do that and later call the victim "weaker" than the bully. It is important that we change the definition.
Picture the outrage on the faces of bullied children's parents when they see that Google is calling their child "weaker" than the bully. We need to take a stand that the bully is the one picking the fight do that makes the bully weaker than the innocent victim whom is perceived as weaker not "is weaker."
If you feel strongly about this please visit changethemeaning.wordpress.com for more information
Also, going to and adult or someone with authority is a very effective way to stand up for yourself. If you attack the bully physically or mentally you can "get even" through petty revenge but if you tell an adult or someone with authority they ave the ability to either punish him through school or take the bully to court to to the fact that the victim vigorously reported to someone of the occurrences. What good will telling a bully to "knock it off" if they thrive off of your response. The sensible thing to do is receive justice in a way that can be documented.
Therefore, when a victim tells somebody it makes them stronger not weaker. There is a 25 year old girl from London suing the kids who bullied her for 25 million dollars. Do you think that happened from her confronting a bully and saying "knock it off".
It is also unfair to state that a victim is weaker based on something as foolish as they decided to stick up for themselves in a different way. If you of to an adult things are resolved a lot quicker and it allows for documentation that can be taken to a civil court or even criminal. If you go to an adult there is no question whatsoever that the bully was picking on you unprovoked and a defense attorney for the bully cannot change the order of events.(ex. it could go from bully pushes victim and victim says knock it off and push bully back to victim pushes bully an bully is now the victim)
Even children who put up with the bully are stronger than the bully. Him/her have a stronger will and them siting back will eventually make the bully ignore him/her and will eventually leave them alone. It is obvious to see that the definition is an old definition that should be fixed because it is offensive to those who have been bullied.
Now back to the topic. You should not be able to define a victim as weaker than a bully. The bully is the insecure one, so how can you define the guy doing stupid things as stronger than a victim. In many cases people are bullied due to "mental power and political strength". I have been bullied for both those reasons. I was bullied for sticking up for myself. It is disgusting and primitive that one would want to define a victim as "weaker", which is exactly what Oxford Dictionaries and Google are doing, and my opponent is justifying. My opponent has been bullied according to his last comment so I would respectfully request to ask if you see yourself as weaker in all or most aspects in comparison to the individual who has harassed you and committed crimes upon you.
May I remind my opponent that you cannot compare bullying to a war. Wars are a way of resolving conflict when diplomatic relations are no longer possible between two nations. Bullying however is a conflict in which one person provokes another person to bring themselves up because they lack esteem and/or mental stability. Though people die as a result of bullying and wars you cannot and should not compare the two.
In response to my opponents statement that things can be resolved by a "swift kick to the groin'(which I would highly recommend he retracts) I will state what I have previously stated. If you physically harass a bully back then you are just as bad as the bully and events can be switched up by the bully and eyewitnesses(whom are likely his friends) to make it seem as if the bully is innocent when in actuality you are. Just because everybody doesn't feel like committing aggravated battery upon the bully doesn't mean that they are weaker because they stick up for themselves in other ways. My opponent states that they are weaker because most individuals want a diplomatic resolution that doesn't involve injured groins.
In conclusion, a bully is weaker than the victim because he or she lacks esteem and/or mental stability resulting in poor choices by the individual. It is senseless to blame the victim because they choose a different method that will be far more effective than kicking someone in the groin. Yet again more reasoning I am correct and my opponent centimes to be wrong, and another example of petty revenge that won't result in a long term solution.
I strongly encourage you to agree with me and visit changethemeaning.wordpress.com/home.
We are not talking about a good way to solve bullying. We are debating about whether the bully is weaker than the victim or not. As it is, the bully is not weaker than the victim. This can be proved by looking at the characteristics that each the bully and victim encompass. The victim encompasses strength to put up with the bully and the ability to stick up for themselves in various ways(whether it be going to a teacher or "a swift kick to the groin"). Generally, a bully encompasses insecurity, which results in bullying. From seeing the differences it is obvious to tell that the victim is indeed stronger than the bully. My opponent could not even have a straight response when I asked him if he viewed himself as weaker than the bully. His response was as follows ", I accept your request and yes, my bully is stronger than myself in the aspects he/she takes advantage of." In his response he stated that the bully was stronger in the places that he took advantage of, but only in the places he took advantage of. He declines to respond to if the bully is stronger than him in all or most aspects. Due to the fact that in common cases the bully is not stronger in all or most aspects it is clear that the victim is indeed stronger than the bully. Some of these examples include intelligence, political strength, and financial strength can be why the bully instigates upon the victim.
Furthermore, my opponent compares bullying to world wars, but reiterates that civil justice has "no business" in bullying cases. These individuals are criminals that should be held accountable, they are indeed weaker, which is the point I am attempting to get across. People have no right to stereotype the victim as weaker. All victims are stronger or equal to the bully. It should be obvious to my opponent that victims are stronger.
My opponent also states that as a group we can take down the bully without a legal team, but I have tried with my group of friends to take down a bully in two instances. In both instances we needed to resort to action from a principle. It rarely occurs that a group of friends can take down the bully. It is not because the victims are weaker, but because the bully is relentless. His goal is to bring you down. He/she will drive you to the brink of insanity. The victim can persevere, the bully cannot.
My closing argument is that the bully is not stronger than the victim. Through reading the strong evidence shown to you I know that you will agree. For my closing argument I will quote David Baldacci ", As a lawyer, as a private citizen, you see a lot of injustice. You see a lot of people who should have been punished and are not, and people who were punished wrongfully are not vindicated. Fiction is sort of a way to set the record straight, and let people at least believe that justice can be achieved and the right outcomes can occur." This quote must tell you if you want bullies to be held accountable you must pursue justice and accountability otherwise they won't be punished. At least my opponent believes that they are already punished. Civil resolution is the only way, and accountability starts with the definition.
NO ONE GIVES CARES ABOUT CHANGING THE DEFFINITHION OF BULLYING!!! This "history lesson" was actually completely on topic i was trying to see if you could comprehend bullying on a national scale. Germany (and the central powers) bullied the rest of the world and only when everyone else fought back (not with legal action but with force ie "a swift kick to the groin") were they able to defeat hitler. Also you cannot say that legal action would have worked because that is what they did in WWI it obviously did not work or there would have been no WWII. Anyway the bully is stronger in one or more aspect or it would just be some kid who calls people names but no one Really cares. Might I ask what did you do to this bully? Based off how much I have learned about you over the past few days I feel sure that you politely asked him to stop and attempted to give him a olive branch by asking him to tea. Now I'm going to quote Confucius "Life is really simple but we insist on making it complicated" it is people like you who make life like this. Not being able to understand the basic consteps of life and making something out of nothing.
Now vote con
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.