The Instigator
Spectacular
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Benshapiro
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should a man hit a woman back?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 4/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,064 times Debate No: 52395
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Spectacular

Pro

The common theme is that it isn't "manly" or "masculine" to hit a female back. I would argue that this is invalid and as a human you should expect consequences after every physical action no matter your gender. I would argue that it is a feminist ideology to advocate tolerance when hit by a woman, and would propose to you that it is natural to defend yourself even if your opponent happens to be weaker than you.

To justify homosexuality, some refer to the animal kingdom. I'm going to refer to that too and suggest, with undeniable evidence, that it is natural to defend yourself.

The argument that women are "weak and petite" is a common feminists argument, but only when it suits them. For example, when a woman hits a man, that argument is brought up. But when a woman doesn't want to rely on the man, that argument is rejected and even argued against. Some feminists claim that women "can do everything men can do" on one hand, but "cannot be hit due to their fragility" on the other.

Round 1 - Introduction
Round 2 - Main Arguments
Round 3 - Arguments
Round 4 - Arguments
Round 5 - Rebuttals
Benshapiro

Con

I will be arguing that a man should not hit a woman back.

In the real world, whether a man should defend himself against a woman hitting him (by hitting back) is not a black and white issue. To help simplify this, my opponent argues that the default position should allow men to hit women if they hit him first, and I am arguing that the default position is for a man to not hit a woman even if she hits him first.

I accept that there may be exceptions to this where a man should be allowed to hit a woman in specific cases and I'll elaborate if necessary. The title of the debate didn't say "should a man ever hit a woman back" but rather "should a man hit a woman back." Again, my focus is on the default position which does not allow for a man to hit a woman back.
Debate Round No. 1
Spectacular

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate, Con.

Surprisingly, you haven't made any stereotypical remarks to justify your claim that it is wrong to carry out self defense no matter the gender you're defending yourself from [i.e. "men are naturally stronger than women" or "women are weak and cannot handle a hit"].

The only part of your argument that you excluded was the part that convinces me that it's wrong to hit a woman back. In some cases, women can be bigger, taller and physically stronger than men. You haven't really established whether or not such a scenario would be justifiable given the conditions, but regardless of the fighting competence of the woman, I would argue that it is absolutely justified to hit her back.

If the woman in such a situation is not mentally challenged and is not suffering from any health issues that could have been the cause of such aggression, there can be no logical justification for her instigating a fight between a generally stronger opponent, and then further instant protection because society feels that it is only wrong when a man hits a woman back.

In a word, it is almost like Con is suggesting that females are superior to males as they should not expect consequences after attacking a male, based on the gender roles in such an instance.

(1 )In 2008, an experiment was conducted in an attempt to see societies approach to abuse from either gender. The results weren't surprising in the least. When the man was barely abusing the woman, multiple people confronted him and warned him to stop. When it was the woman abusing the man, not one person bothered to confront her.

"So according to most of the women here he should just take the abuse. But women should never have to take any kind of abuse or rather what they consider abuse whether it really is or not. This is further proof that they [i.e feminists] do not seek equality. They seek benefits for women. If a woman were to treat me that way she would get hit back. I am sure the femmies are going to call me a woman beater now even though I have never hit a woman in my life.

But after being married to a woman who hit me, I learned that if you just sit and take it they just abuse more often. So plain and simple - since women are equal to men - if a woman hits me I will defend myself and if that means hitting her back, so be it. She placed herself in that situation and will be treated the same as a man who hits me. "

"]I find it funny however that so many women here claim to be equal to a man yet think that women should get away with abusing men because of strength differences."

(2) I came across a very interesting article that you should probably skim over in your spare time. It tackles the idea that it is never okay for a man to hit a woman and is somewhat relevant to this current debate - if you believe that it isn't ever okay to hit a woman - which isn't very clear based on your previous argument.

(3) A bit of snooping around lead me to a poll here on debate.org. Its question was "Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit a woman". The majority of the people that left feedback were against it, but what's interesting is why.

"Some of you are talking about self defense, are you serious or is joke ? YOu men know perfectly than you could prevent a woman from moving and hurting you since you are phyically superior ! Using self defense is beeing a coward !"

Clearly a stereotypical approach and a major logical fallacy suggesting that self defense is "being a coward". The person who wrote this clearly didn't think it through, as self defense has always been thought of something heroic and has always been something that has been applauded.

"I have read all of the blogs, I'm a 30 year old female, I don't agree that it is acceptable for men to hit women, if a man were to hit a woman the power ratio is very unequal. Many of you mentioned that there are women weighing 200 pounds plus. There are trials that prove no matter how much a woman weighs it has no relevance on her strength. If a man hits a woman (no matter her size) it is the equivalent of a woman hitting a 10 year old child."

I'm not even going to bother breaking this one down. I'll leave that to you.

To conclude, I can't really say that Con has made any convincing arguments thus far, and I hope to see a stronger approach in the next round.

(1)https://www.youtube.com...
(2)http://www.returnofkings.com...
(3)http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro

Con

In the first round you've provided a structure for the debate: the first round being the round for "Introduction."

In the first round I've provided clarification for my case. I am stating that the default or automatic reaction that a man should have when he is hit by a woman is to not hit her back.

I've stated that there can be specific exceptions to this. If a 300lb masculine woman is beating the crap out of some skinny, scrawny little man and he is in fear for his life he has every right to retaliate by reciprocating the physical violence being perpetrated on him by this woman. In cases of self defense where the man needs to defend himself through physical blows, a man should hit a woman back. This is a very unique and extremely uncommon case where hitting a woman would be justified because it is in self-defense.

It seems that you have a personal vendetta against feminism which is reallly irrelevant to this debate. Whether or not "feminists" in particular have absurd views doesn't determine whether or not the action of hitting a woman is justifiable.

It's rather obvious that men are stronger, bigger, and more athletic than women on average because men have more testosterone than women. More testosterone results in these physically superior attributes. You are arguing that a man should hit a woman back if he is hit by her. The force of a man hitting a woman, on average, is not proportionate to the force that a woman would hit a man with because she is weaker, smaller, and less athletic. There are other ways to subdue unruly women without reciprocating physical violence in the form of "hitting." One such way is to wrestle the woman to the ground without giving her a black eye or to tie her arms with any kind of physical restraint. It's just simply not necessary or justified to hit a woman back for the sake of vengeance. It is justified in the very unlikely case that the man is in fear for his life and must do so in self-defense.
Debate Round No. 2
Spectacular

Pro

We're not talking about women and men fighting with each other. We're talking about a simple hit. And I find it hilarious how your exception depicts that the woman is a thousand times stronger than the man. You even go on to suggest that the "scrawny little man" in this case should only retaliate if he's in fear of his life. Lets use your logic in reverse. A little skinny man slaps the same woman you mention in your argument - would it then be okay for her to hit him back?

If you read over my previous argument once more, you'll notice that I only mentioned the word "feminist" once.

"It's rather obvious that men are stronger, bigger, and more athletic than women on average because men have more testosterone than women. More testosterone results in these physically superior attributes. You are arguing that a man should hit a woman back if he is hit by her. The force of a man hitting a woman, on average, is not proportionate to the force that a woman would hit a man with because she is weaker, smaller, and less athletic. There are other ways to subdue unruly women without reciprocating physical violence in the form of "hitting." One such way is to wrestle the woman to the ground without giving her a black eye or to tie her arms with any kind of physical restraint. It's just simply not necessary or justified to hit a woman back for the sake of vengeance. It is justified in the very unlikely case that the man is in fear for his life and must do so in self-defense."

Where are your references to these claims? Though it is obvious that men on average are stronger than women, how does that justify a woman hitting a man and getting away with it based on the fact that she has a vulva? When a man hits a man, no matter which one is stronger, the instigator is going to get hit back. The same consequences should apply to women who cannot control their emotions and feel the need to hit men,

You haven't responded to the following arguments:

"(1)In 2008, an experiment was conducted in an attempt to see societies approach to abuse from either gender. The results weren't surprising in the least. When the man was barely abusing the woman, multiple people confronted him and warned him to stop. When it was the woman abusing the man, not one person bothered to confront her."

"(2) I came across a very interesting article that you should probably skim over in your spare time. It tackles the idea that it is never okay for a man to hit a woman and is somewhat relevant to this current debate - if you believe that it isn't ever okay to hit a woman - which isn't very clear based on your previous argument."

"(3) A bit of snooping around lead me to a poll here on debate.org. Its question was "Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit a woman". The majority of the people that left feedback were against it, but what's interesting is why."

(1)https://www.youtube.com......
(2)http://www.returnofkings.com......
(3)http://www.debate.org......

Feel free to respond to them in your next debate as it is quite cowardly to blatantly ignore them.
Benshapiro

Con

Thanks pro.

If the exception that I just gave is relevant to a possible real-world occurence then it should be taken into consideration when deciding if a man should hit a woman back. In this example I was showing a rare and specific example of how a man can hit a woman back in self-defense but not from vengeful retaliation.

"A little skinny man slaps the same woman you mention in your argument - would it then be okay for her to hit him back?"

No, it wouldn't be okay. The only time it is appropriate to retaliate by hitting back is in self-defense regardless of gender. You are advocating that physical violence should be met with physical violence. If somebody commits physical abuse then call the police and have charges pressed against them or subdue them in much more effective ways (if they are unrelenting) by tying their hands with a physical restraint or wrestling them to the ground.



"If you read over my previous argument once more, you'll notice that I only mentioned the word 'feminist' once."

That's a misleading statement because you alluded to feminists using the word femmies and also and in your introduction you had used the word feminist twice. Whether you have a vendetta against feminists or not (it seems likely) it still isn't relevant to use their viewpoint to represent a fair representation of the opposition in this case because they are clearly biased in favor of women. We should review the facts without any bias or false representation of the opposing argument to make a decision as to whether or not men should hit women back.



"Where are your references to these claims [that men have more testosterone than women]? Though it is obvious that men on average are stronger than women, how does that justify a woman hitting a man and getting away with it based on the fact that she has a vulva? When a man hits a man, no matter which one is stronger, the instigator is going to get hit back. The same consequences should apply to women who cannot control their emotions and feel the need to hit men,"

"Testosterone increases during puberty. This causes boys to develop a deeper voice, get bigger muscles, make sperm and get facial and body hair. . . .Women have a much smaller amount of testosterone in their bodies compared to men.




Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength.8 - See more at: http://drjamesdobson.org...


"Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength"
http://drjamesdobson.org...


Just because a woman has a vulva doesn't justify her hitting a man and getting away with it. First, this a straw-man argument because I clearly gave an example when a man (with a penis) is justified in hitting a woman back in self-defense so having a vulva wasn't my criteria for justification. Second, whether a man hits another man after being hit doesn't show that this should be exemplary. If someone is hit, they have the right to press charges and don't need to retaliate unless it's in self-defense.

Men are 50 percent stronger than women in brute strength.8 - See more at: http://drjamesdobson.org...



"In a word, it is almost like Con is suggesting that females are superior to males as they should not expect consequences after attacking a male, based on the gender roles in such an instance."

I also don't think an 18 year old male should hit a 10 year old male after being struck. Does this make me age discriminatory too?


(1 ) "When the man was barely abusing the woman, multiple people confronted him and warned him to stop. When it was the woman abusing the man, not one person bothered to confront her."

If a dude is being beaten by a woman he needs to apprehend her, call the police, or record the incident to have charges pressed against her at a later time. He shouldn't swing back and possibly cause serious injury. Men are much stronger on average than women.

(2) I do believe that in certain cirumstances that it is okay to hit a woman in self-defense as I've already illustrated with the 300lb woman example.

(3) I tried following this source but it just led me to the homepage. Interestingly, you said that "the majority of people that led feedback were against it" instead of focusing on the results of the poll. Were most people in favor that there was an acceptable situation?

Debate Round No. 3
Spectacular

Pro

Thank you.

"If the exception that I just gave is relevant to a possible real-world occurence then it should be taken into consideration when deciding if a man should hit a woman back. In this example I was showing a rare and specific example of how a man can hit a woman back in self-defense but not from vengeful retaliation."

In a sense, you're actually offending women by suggesting that they are weak and fragile human beings who cannot endure a simple hit, where - in some cases - they actually deserve it.

(1) In this relevant recording, a woman took it upon herself to hit the man shown in the video. As a result, she got hit back (with much less force). This is the kind of retaliation I'm referring to - where if a man is hit by a woman (nobody holds her accountable), you simply hit her back with as much force as the man in this video used.

"No, it wouldn't be okay. The only time it is appropriate to retaliate by hitting back is in self-defense regardless of gender. You are advocating that physical violence should be met with physical violence. If somebody commits physical abuse then call the police and have charges pressed against them or subdue them in much more effective ways (if they are unrelenting) by tying their hands with a physical restraint or wrestling them to the ground."

Lawfully, yes, that is the only time it would be okay. But are we arguing about the law? No. We're arguing about whether or not it's morally justified to physically retaliate when hit by either gender. And no, not in every circumstance would I condone violence being "met" with violence. Only in circumstances where you feel that you didn't deserve such violence would I label it justified.

"That's a misleading statement because you alluded to feminists using the word femmies and also and in your introduction you had used the word feminist twice. Whether you have a vendetta against feminists or not (it seems likely) it still isn't relevant to use their viewpoint to represent a fair representation of the opposition in this case because they are clearly biased in favor of women. We should review the facts without any bias or false representation of the opposing argument to make a decision as to whether or not men should hit women back."

I didn't allude to feminists, the person I quoted did. In fact, I didn't even use the word "feminist" outside of my quotations. My introduction is irrelevant to my statement as you were arguing against my previous argument and not my introduction, thus making your paragraph misleading.

"Testosterone increases during puberty. This causes boys to develop a deeper voice, get bigger muscles, make sperm and get facial and body hair. . . .Women have a much smaller amount of testosterone in their bodies compared to men."

I was not referring to testorence differences in in genders, I was referring to the following statement you made:

"The force of a man hitting a woman, on average, is not proportionate to the force that a woman would hit a man with because she is weaker, smaller, and less athletic."

"Just because a woman has a vulva doesn't justify her hitting a man and getting away with it. First, this a straw-man argument because I clearly gave an example when a man (with a penis) is justified in hitting a woman back in self-defense so having a vulva wasn't my criteria for justification. Second, whether a man hits another man after being hit doesn't show that this should be exemplary. If someone is hit, they have the right to press charges and don't need to retaliate unless it's in self-defense."

Your argument is clearly invalid as in your exception you assert that it is only justified to hit a woman back when the man is basically an anorexic and physically incompetent. You act as though women are children who should never experience a thorn pricking their fragile feet.

"I also don't think an 18 year old male should hit a 10 year old male after being struck. Does this make me age discriminatory too?"

Straw man.

"If a dude is being beaten by a woman he needs to apprehend her, call the police, or record the incident to have charges pressed against her at a later time. He shouldn't swing back and possibly cause serious injury. Men are much stronger on average than women."

You're missing the point. Society condones the act of physical violence against men and only stands up to violence against women. Tell me how that has any relevance to your statement?

"I tried following this source but it just led me to the homepage. Interestingly, you said that "the majority of people that led feedback were against it" instead of focusing on the results of the poll. Were most people in favor that there was an acceptable situation?"

I provided you with the name of the poll and with some comments given by the people against the idea that a man should hit a woman back.

(1)https://www.youtube.com...
Benshapiro

Con

Jumping right in.

"In a sense, you're actually offending women by suggesting that they are weak and fragile human beings who cannot endure a simple hit, where - in some cases - they actually deserve it."

It's not an offensive stance to say that women are physically weaker than men on average. It's indisputable. Whether they deserve it or not (taking an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth stance) doesn't determine whether or not this should be the norm because men hit with much greater force than women. Hence a woman might bruise a man but a man could *easily* break bones (such as the nose) in a single blow. The force is not equal between the hit of a man and woman.

"...you simply hit her back with as much force as the man in this video used."

This isn't practical. In a real situation a man couldn't hit with exactly as much force as he was hit by the woman. It's much more devastating to take legal action against someone causing physical abuse against you rather than hitting back with (attempted) equal force.

"Lawfully, yes, that is the only time it would be okay. But are we arguing about the law? No. We're arguing about whether or not it's morally justified to physically retaliate when hit by either gender. And no, not in every circumstance would I condone violence being "met" with violence. Only in circumstances where you feel that you didn't deserve such violence would I label it justified."

Meeting violence with violence is a slippery slope. If you condone such a moral right, if a man testifies his innocence after breaking a woman's nose after being hit (possibly weakly) by that woman, what would condemn him for this action? It simply isn't reasonable to condone vengeful acts of physical violence.

"I didn't allude to feminists, the person I quoted did. In fact, I didn't even use the word "feminist" outside of my quotations. . ."


Whether you had argued for it personally or not is irrelevant. I could claim to be an unbaised news source but only cite studies arguing for one side of a certain controversial cause and nobody would take this news source seriously because they'd obviously have a hidden agenda.

"I was not referring to testorence differences in in genders, I was referring to the following statement you made:

'The force of a man hitting a woman, on average, is not proportionate to the force that a woman would hit a man with because she is weaker, smaller, and less athletic."

Just because the context of the text you were referring to wasn't applicable doesn't cast any reasonable doubt on whether or not a man actually hits a woman with less force. It would be ridiculous to assume that somebody clearly "50% stronger" would hit a woman with lesser or equal force to the person 50% less strong.

"Your argument is clearly invalid as in your exception you assert that it is only justified to hit a woman back when the man is basically an anorexic and physically incompetent. You act as though women are children who should never experience a thorn pricking their fragile feet"

I gave an example magnifying the relevance of a man protecting himself in self-defense. If a man is much stronger than the woman physically abusing him, he would easily overpower her and wrestle her to the ground or apprehend her (which is likely the case given that men are stronger than women on average). If the woman is much stronger than the man (as shown in this specific example) the most viable way of stopping this physical abuse is to retaliate in self-defense for the sake of protecting himself. Humans have rights regardless of gender, the purpose of retaliation shouldn't be to teach a woman that she can behave as physically abusive as she wishes but that physical retaliation is never the solution regardless if you are male or female unless it's in self-defense.

"I also don't think an 18 year old male should hit a 10 year old male after being struck. Does this make me age discriminatory too?"

Straw man."

No, it's actually completely analogous. You've said that I am "offending women in a sense" by suggesting that they are weak and can't endure a hit. Given these offensive gender differences, am I also offending age differences among those who are younger and perceived to be weaker?

"If a dude is being beaten by a woman he needs to apprehend her, call the police, or record the incident to have charges pressed against her at a later time. He shouldn't swing back and possibly cause serious injury. Men are much stronger on average than women."

You're missing the point. Society condones the act of physical violence against men and only stands up to violence against women. Tell me how that has any relevance to your statement?

Society does not condone the act of physical violence against men. Laws were created by society specifically for the purpose of settling disputes without the need for physical violence.

"I provided you with the name of the poll and with some comments given by the people against the idea that a man should hit a woman back."

You still didn't answer my direct question about the reuslts of the poll last round which was "Were most people in favor that there was an acceptable situation?" By my own investigation the answer is no.
Debate Round No. 4
Spectacular

Pro

As you know, this is the last round and therefore I will not be able to respond to any of your arguments after this. Thank you for having this debate with me, Con. I look forward to possibly debating with you in the future.

"It's not an offensive stance to say that women are physically weaker than men on average. It's indisputable. Whether they deserve it or not (taking an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth stance) doesn't determine whether or not this should be the norm because men hit with much greater force than women. Hence a woman might bruise a man but a man could *easily* break bones (such as the nose) in a single blow. The force is not equal between the hit of a man and woman."

It's an offensive and stereotypical stance to say that they're too fragile to cope with any sort of physical violence from men. Most men are stronger than women, yes, you've made that point many times. But a man knows how to control his strength in moderation. When I play fight, I don't use every ounce of my brute strength. Similarly, if I was hit by a woman as lightly as you imply the average females hits are, I would retaliate in such a way that the woman would not suffer anymore than I did.

"This isn't practical. In a real situation a man couldn't hit with exactly as much force as he was hit by the woman. It's much more devastating to take legal action against someone causing physical abuse against you rather than hitting back with (attempted) equal force."

No, not exactly. But a man can control how much force he'd want to use in his blows. In boxing, we learn different types of punches a boxer can throw. A "haymaker" has much more power than a simple jab, thus meaning that one's own intention of how much force one wants to use on an opponent can be controlled.

"Meeting violence with violence is a slippery slope. If you condone such a moral right, if a man testifies his innocence after breaking a woman's nose after being hit (possibly weakly) by that woman, what would condemn him for this action? It simply isn't reasonable to condone vengeful acts of physical violence."

That man in such a situation idiotically used much more force than necessary. It takes a good swift and forceful blow to break a nose, so even I, in this situation, would condemn such an a person.

"Whether you had argued for it personally or not is irrelevant. I could claim to be an unbaised news source but only cite studies arguing for one side of a certain controversial cause and nobody would take this news source seriously because they'd obviously have a hidden agenda."

I think it's completely relevant given the context. A better approach would've been for you to have conducted an analysis and shown us the results.

"Just because the context of the text you were referring to wasn't applicable doesn't cast any reasonable doubt on whether or not a man actually hits a woman with less force. It would be ridiculous to assume that somebody clearly "50% stronger" would hit a woman with lesser or equal force to the person 50% less strong."

Now you're implying that every man on the face of the earth is stronger than every woman. Every man has his own strength capabilities and as does every woman. To say or imply that every man is 50% stronger than women is a logical fallacy as evidence suggests otherwise. As I've stated previously, not every man uses every ounce of strength he possesses.

"I gave an example magnifying the relevance of a man protecting himself in self-defense. If a man is much stronger than the woman physically abusing him, he would easily overpower her and wrestle her to the ground or apprehend her (which is likely the case given that men are stronger than women on average). If the woman is much stronger than the man (as shown in this specific example) the most viable way of stopping this physical abuse is to retaliate in self-defense for the sake of protecting himself. Humans have rights regardless of gender, the purpose of retaliation shouldn't be to teach a woman that she can behave as physically abusive as she wishes but that physical retaliation is never the solution regardless if you are male or female unless it's in self-defense."

By doing so you strayed from the topic at hand. Self defense and hitting someone back are two different things; the latter would only occur if one was threatened with violence to the extent that it could only be countered with violence. That, again, is not the basis for this debate.

"No, it's actually completely analogous. You've said that I am "offending women in a sense" by suggesting that they are weak and can't endure a hit. Given these offensive gender differences, am I also offending age differences among those who are younger and perceived to be weaker?"

The gender differences are that most men are stronger than women. How is it then fair to suggest that they are fragile and weak and can't endure a hit only because we're typically stronger? And age does not limit one's strength capabilities.


"Society does not condone the act of physical violence against men. Laws were created by society specifically for the purpose of settling disputes without the need for physical violence."

https://www.youtube.com...

[I just scrolled up and saw that the video link was not actually given, instead the link just goes to youtube.com. I will retry referencing the video I intended to in the beginning]

"You still didn't answer my direct question about the reuslts of the poll last round which was "Were most people in favor that there was an acceptable situation?" By my own investigation the answer is no."

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the matter yourself.



Benshapiro

Con

Thanks pro for instigating this debate.

"It's an offensive and stereotypical stance to say that they're too fragile to cope with any sort of physical violence from men. Most men are stronger than women, yes, you've made that point many times. But a man knows how to control his strength in moderation. When I play fight, I don't use every ounce of my brute strength. Similarly, if I was hit by a woman as lightly as you imply the average females hits are, I would retaliate in such a way that the woman would not suffer anymore than I did."

The first sentence shows that my opponent is constructing another straw-man argument. I am not implying or arguing that a man should not hit a woman back because they are too fragile to cope with the physical violence. I am arguing that a man should not hit a woman because vengeful reciprocation of violence is never the best way to solve the problem unless it's in self-defense. This applies for both men and women. Just because you, personally, would hit a woman with the same strength as she hit you, doesn't mean that all men would or would be required to.

"No, not exactly. But a man can control how much force he'd want to use in his blows. In boxing, we learn different types of punches a boxer can throw. A "haymaker" has much more power than a simple jab, thus meaning that one's own intention of how much force one wants to use on an opponent can be controlled"

Not every man is a boxer and can control how much force he uses with his blows. Remember: we are arguing over whether the default reaction a man should have, after being hit by a woman, is to hit back. The average man isn't an experienced boxer.

That man in such a situation idiotically used much more force than necessary. It takes a good swift and forceful blow to break a nose, so even I, in this situation, would condemn such an a person.

I'm glad you see the problem. However, when you advocate violence to met with violence, and since men are stronger on average than women, there would be no reasonable justification to condemn this man with hitting her with such force. He could easily argue that he hit her with just as much force even if his intention was to break her nose. Especially since you'd be very angry and pissed off if someone hit you in the heat of the moment.

I think it's completely relevant given the context. A better approach would've been for you to have conducted an analysis and shown us the results.

I don't see the relevance to this rebuttal from my initial point.

Now you're implying that every man on the face of the earth is stronger than every woman. Every man has his own strength capabilities and as does every woman. To say or imply that every man is 50% stronger than women is a logical fallacy as evidence suggests otherwise. As I've stated previously, not every man uses every ounce of strength he possesses.

I've been using "on average, men" throughout this entire debate. By focusing on the fact that I'd left out "on average" when discussing that men are, on average, stronger than women instead of attacking my actual argument that I was making, this is another straw-man from my opponent.


By doing so you strayed from the topic at hand. Self defense and hitting someone back are two different things; the latter would only occur if one was threatened with violence to the extent that it could only be countered with violence. That, again, is not the basis for this debate.

By showing a relevant example of how a man can defend himself against a woman by hitting her I've remained on topic. I agree that self defense is not the basis for this debate. You are advocating violence to met with violence, and I am advocating for violence only in situations of self-defense. I've repeatedly stated that there are better ways to react to a situation where you are struck. By taking legal action or subduing the person you can achieve peace without violence.

The gender differences are that most men are stronger than women. How is it then fair to suggest that they are fragile and weak and can't endure a hit only because we're typically stronger? And age does not limit one's strength capabilities.

Whether the person being struck can endure a hit or not doesn't matter. I am arguing that it's always wrong to meet violence with violence instead of taking more effective ways of action. I don't understand how you can say that "age does not limit one's strength capabilities." Does a 5 year old have his strength capabilities more limited than a 25 year old?
Yes.


Thank you for taking the time to investigate the matter yourselff

Pro drops my point.

In conclusion:

I argue that I should win this debate primarily because

My opponent never rebutted my major contention that taking legal action, subduing, or restraining a person is a better course of action to take than to meet violence with violence.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by advice 1 year ago
advice
No one has the right to hit anyone!! Men should not hit woman and woman should not me! It is that simple.
I'm a 5ft 96lb female and I choked out a man much bigger than me. So you cannot judge someone by their size and assume they're either weak or strong. If people live by this concept then we wouldn't have to worry about self defense. However since there are people out there that hit then the victim should do whatever they have to to defend themselves. If you can safely restrain the other person then do that.
Posted by Spectacular 3 years ago
Spectacular
Doing "nothing" is 'cowardly'? Seriously? So in your world when a 6'3" 220lb husband and his 5'2" 105lb wife get into an argument ad she slaps him in anger, it's not only justifiable for him to then beat the hell out of her, but he's a coward if he doesn't? That insane. Failing to react violently to violence is 'cowardly' in your world. Wow. Again, violence is nothing more than an emotion reaction to a provocation real or imagined. Yet you want to turn it into some sort of intelligent, thought out, proper response.

You clearly ignored the rest of my statement:

"The third is the one where you do absolutely nothing and tolerate the offense, which is simply cowardly and idiotic *****unless you feel that you weren't hurt to the extent that the offender deserves retaliation*****."

This is not the place for a debate.
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
No. Retaliation is what it is defined as:

to take retributory action, esp by returning some injury or wrong in kind

My example is completely relevant. The wolf whistle is simply a non-invasive action the woman responded to with violence (slapping you). Retaliation is you "hitting her back" for slapping you. If you think a whistle is somehow a 'provocative action deserving of violence against you' then you are simply someone who believes violence solves all situations. Violence is ALWAYS an emotional response to something. No woman is going to just randomly slap a guy unprovoked. That doesn't happen in the real world.

Doing "nothing" is 'cowardly'? Seriously? So in your world when a 6'3" 220lb husband and his 5'2" 105lb wife get into an argument ad she slaps him in anger, it's not only justifiable for him to then beat the hell out of her, but he's a coward if he doesn't? That insane. Failing to react violently to violence is 'cowardly' in your world. Wow. Again, violence is nothing more than an emotion reaction to a provocation real or imagined. Yet you want to turn it into some sort of intelligent, thought out, proper response.

The only time violence is justified is if necessary to defend yourself or someone else from an unjustified attack. It's NEVER justifiable just as retribution. In most cases of a man vs. a woman, the woman can be subdued without resorting to violence. The COWARD is the 6'3 220lb man who strikes a woman for any reason short of her threatening his life with a weapon of some sort. HE is the coward because he's attacking someone incapable of defending themself from the attack. Any violent other than self defense is emotional and NOT justifiable. I'm not saying she is justified in initiating the violence. I'm saying her doing so doesn't automatically justify you responding in kind. Don't believe me? Guess which one of you is going to jail after the altercation concludes?
Posted by Spectacular 3 years ago
Spectacular
No, rather, retaliation is a situation where you've done nothing provocative to deserve any form of violence against you. Meaning your wolf whistle theory isn't relevant to retaliation.

Someone hits you, you have 3 options. Resolve it the legal way or the Malcolm X way ("Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."), both are justified in my eyes. The third is the one where you do absolutely nothing and tolerate the offense, which is simply cowardly and idiotic unless you feel that you weren't hurt to the extent that the offender deserves retaliation.
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
It's a pretty simple distinction. Retaliation is hitting her simply because she hit you. Self defense is preventing her from actually harming you with repeated strikes. If you wolf whistle at a girl and she slaps you for it you can't just haul off and punch her in the nose, that's retaliation, you aren't defending yourself. Self defense is protecting yourself from physical harm. If she's swinging a baseball bat at your head, yeah, punch her in the face and knock her out. In MOST cases of a man striking a woman it is retaliation for something, not self defense. Most of the time even if you are defending yourself against a substantially smaller woman you can do so with minimal force, ie, you don't have to beat the crap out of her.
Posted by Spectacular 3 years ago
Spectacular
@mmadderom How do you distinguish retaliation from self-defense?
Posted by mmadderom 3 years ago
mmadderom
You make a very generalized statement here. If, indeed, it is a matter of self defense of course anyone is within their rights to do so regardless of gender. If it is a matter of retaliation, then your argument is absurd on it's face. You seem to be arguing that striking someone in retaliation is fine. It's not. Regardless of gender.
Posted by Teemo 3 years ago
Teemo
I agree with the resolution. I also believe the common "don't hit a girl" is sexist and should be abolished.
No votes have been placed for this debate.