The Instigator
Ritik33jain
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hidude45454
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should fighting violently against mental harassment be considered reasonable in the eyes of law?

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 1 vote the winner is...
hidude45454
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 756 times Debate No: 84937
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

Ritik33jain

Pro

You know..mental harassment could be just as painful as physical harassment ..so if somebody harasses you mentally(bullies for eg) and there's next to nothing you can do to stop them other than fighting back physically I.e physically harassing them..shouldn't that be considered reasonable in the eyes of law? I mean the judge can decide was it reasonable on person's behalf to be violent against the other person..but shouldn't the law at least give you a chance to explain why you reacted violently

In the present case scenario mental haressment isn't legal..so there's nothing you can do against the harasser (legally)..isn't that wrong? Shouldn't mental harassers (I'm not talking about the guy who insults you every once in a while..but the guy who provokes you to the extent that you even consider suicide a viable option) be punished by law(if harassing is unreasonable) ..
The law protects an individual's right to self defense .. But shouldn't fighting back against mental harassment which At times could be much more painful than physical violence be considered self defense?
Pain is a feeling ..and both physical and mental haressment can result In it..than why is one Is completely excused by law and one considered the so evil that you are not even given a chance to plead your reason?
hidude45454

Con

I gladly accept the debate. Seeing as this is my first debate, I wish for a positive start in my debate.com experience!
Purpose:
As the question states, it must be proved or disproved that physical violence is legally reasonable as a response to mental harassment. Pro has specified physical violence in the case when mental harassment is “much more painful than physical violence,” such as in cases of suicide as an extreme.
Terms:
We will assume that this takes place within the United States (just for clarification of federal/state laws).
Mental/psychological harassment – Psychological harassment is vexatious behavior that manifests itself in the form of conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures characterized by the following four criteria: they are repetitive, hostile or unwanted, affect the person’s dignity or psychological integrity, and result in a harmful work environment. Sexual harassment at work is also included in this definition. [1]
Reasonable – Just, rational, appropriate, ordinary, or usual in the circumstances. [2]
Physical violence – Physical violence is the deliberate use of physical force with the potential for causing harm. [3]
Self-defense – The protection of one's person or property against some injury attempted by another. [4]
Arguments:
1. Proportional Response
A person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. [5] Let’s consider certain cases of emotional harassment that may lead to emotional pain, along with the potential effects caused: yelling, swearing, name-calling, mocking, threats/intimidation, stalking, exclusion, discrimination, and humiliation. [6]. While these things are obviously morally wrong and may cause severe emotional pain, they do not necessarily warrant a violent response. Instead, between physical and emotional violence, it is physical violence that more often causes serious personal injury, and therefore, giving someone a potentially severe injury because of their emotional abuses is an overreaction, or a disproportionate response. In the cases of threats/intimidation becoming physical, because they no longer qualify as emotional harassment, violence as self-defense will be justified.
2. Better Options
Pro incorrectly states that there are no legal options against harassers. However, there are indeed many legal options to take; for example, violence and the threat of violence are both covered by a criminal code. [7] In addition, victims who win emotional abuse cases often receive damages awards that compensate the bullying with money and other services to help ease the emotional pain. [8] Overall, continued, persistent bullying can be taken to court where victims can win if they provide sufficient evidence of emotional harm. These solutions amount to much more than violent responses, which instead set the stage for more harm than help.
Counterarguments:
1. Incorrect Assumptions
As I have already stated, my opponent made incorrect assumptions when stating that there is a lack of legal support for victims of mental harassment. Therefore, using physical violence is an unreasonable reaction when compared to accessing federal, state-wide, and workplace/school rules that actively protect against many types of emotional harassment.
Conclusion:
Although mental harassment is immoral and often does cause severe emotional harm, it is definitely not right to respond with physical violence, which is often more harmful and sometimes outright illegal. Instead, there are indeed better legal ways to take care of the issue. Even simply getting a supervisor would resolve the situation far better. Therefore, vote con on this issue!
Sources:
[1] http://www.psychologicalharassment.com...
[2] http://www.nolo.com...
[3] http://education.qld.gov.au...
[4] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[5] http://criminal.findlaw.com...
[6] http://www.healthyplace.com...
[7] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...
[8] http://www.legalmatch.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Ritik33jain

Pro

First off I live India..so we won't take the laws in the United States as the only parameter..but they are more or less the same..so it does not matter that much..but in some specific laws it does..you can mention American laws..I can mention indian

And sir my assumptions weren't incorrect..as I have clearly mentioned when 'he has next to no potion' than his reason for physical violence can be heard ..and if found reasonable ..shall be considered reasonable

And Sir saying emotional pain is not generally as painful as physical pain is wrong..they are both kinds of pain..and emotional pain can be more painful than physical pain and vice versa ..and there's no way you can possibly assume that physical pain is more painful than emotional pain as a whole..it depends on case by case.....physical pain is more visible...but not necessarily more painful..if anything emotional pain is more painful as a whole

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

And as I said every little insult against a person shouldn't give him the right to hit someone back..but what about the cases when any reasonable man could have done the same ..even then their are no remedies for culprit/victim

Let's consider an analogy-
i know a guy who got mArried 2-3 years ago
Ever since the marriage..the woman has been insulting him..in front of friends and families..calling him names..creAting farces ..pretty much everything evil..
One day ..she was screaming at him calling him names..insulting his parents..and the guy had reached a high point..and he very angrily slapped her..Almost every man/woman in the colony thought the girl was in the wrong given her past antiques and the current antique she was pulling off
But the girl filed a domestic violence suit(laws are more strict here in this matter than in America) ..and won obviously..leaving the guy even further destroyed emotionally

Ask anyone in the neighbourhood..ask the policeman..they'll all tell you that he reasonably had at least one slap for years of emotional abuse..
I think any right thinking mind will agree that the world would be a better place with the woman in jail rather than him
But there are no laws against the emotional damage the woman caused..and no protections for the physical damage the man caused and the physical damage couldn't even be compared to the emotional harassment he went through

at the moment it's easy to get away with mental harassemt in social situations..with friends,family etc..as can be seen in the above example..but that does not make it right
And physical violence is considered an evil and culprit doesn't even stand a chance to explain his reasons and even when the reasonable man(based on whom are all the laws) thinks the conduct was reasonable even then there's nothing the law can do to protect the culprit/victim

Yes ..you cannot go around giving everyone the right to beat up people..and if laws are made in favor of reasonable violence against mental harassment ..they should be very strict..and everyone should not be able to exploit these laws..but that is not say that there should be no law giving protection to reasonable man's reason for violence
Not every one should be able to get away with physical violence just because they 'felt' insulted and decided to take matters in their own hands but that is not to say no one should get away with violence no matter how reasonable the reason
hidude45454

Con

Arguments:
First of all, apologies for finishing my argument so late. Finals week is next week and I'm feeling a bit stressed out.

No offense, but it's kind of hard to understand what you're saying, so I'll base my arguments as best I can off of what I think you're trying to say.

Here's why using physical violence to counteract other physical violence is reasonable:
If someone is trying to attack you, there are two options - run away, or fight back. Many times, running away isn't an option. Let's take an example: an attacker can still shoot a victim at long range, so shooting the attacker is rational and justified because in the situation, it is kill or be killed. Obviously, one cannot kill whoever they want in a physical confrontation on grounds of self defense. For example, sometimes it is better to subdue the attacker. [1] What I'm trying to say is that excessive force is always grounds for punishment. But if force is properly used and can solve the impending problem at hand, it is rational and justified.

Now, let's take a look at emotional harassment:
If a confrontation is strictly emotional, that means that there's always a means for escape (once the attacker tries to stop you from leaving, then it becomes a physical violence case, which we're not considering for purposes of this debate). Therefore, we must consider the first part of the legality of self defense: the duty to retreat. [2] Simply stated, one must try and avoid violence at first. This is clearly not happening if someone responds to emotional harassment simply by slapping them for example. In addition, using physical violence will not help the problem at hand (unless the victim is sadistic) because they will continue to experience the same pain as they did before. In fact, it's not even close to the best solution available - one could seek medical help, simply avoid the attacker, or in certain cases, even sue them for emotional distress. [3] If we consider all the factors, a violent response to emotional harassment is irrational and unreasonable.

Yes, in some cases, emotional pain is more hurtful than physical pain, but for the reasons I stated above, physical pain cannot justify emotional pain. I'm curious to know more about your case, but you didn't provide any link for it. Obviously, it's pretty extreme, but no matter what, the slapping was unjustified - any type of slapping is constituted as battery. [4] Instead, there were a plethora of better options - for example, he could have filed for divorce, probably sued her, or even talked it out with someone. Just because he thought the slap was reasonable does NOT mean that it WAS reasonable.

Sources:
[1] http://www.lawteacher.net...
[2] http://criminal.findlaw.com...
[3] http://injury.findlaw.com...
[4] http://blogs.findlaw.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Ritik33jain

Pro

First of..you think he hasn't had thought about getting a divorce ? ..he did..but he can't ..because she easily could have filed a suit claiming he was divorcing her because of dowry issues..
And he has been talking it out with people for 2-3 years now..one day he couldn't take it anymore..and he slapped her..yes it was battery..but how is that unjustified? ..just because something is illegal..doesn't necessarily mean it's unreasonable/unjustified .. For example..in India romantic realtionship between two people of the same sex is illegal and violator can be prosecuted but that doesn't necessarily mean that being gay is unreasonable

And sorry..I can't provide you the link..as it's just a local happening ..it is not on the Internet..you can consider it to be a hypothetical situation too ..but all the laws I have mentioned are applicable in India

Now since this is my final round..I would like to clarify why I chose this issue for my first debate..
To bring into light the fact that mental harasement is just as bad as physical harasement .. This fact is an unpopular one ..and that's why it was a good subject to tackle..I think I have been able to prove this point with the help of the link in my round 2 of this debate

Now since my opponent said that he wasn't able to understand what I was saying
I'll try to explain it better (for both the opponent and the readers)
Mental and physical harasement are both immoral and unjustified..either can be more devastating ..it depends on the particular case...They are both ways of harming individuals and either could be more devastating than the other..
Now..the criminal law is linient when it comes to emotional abuse laws..it doesn't prohibit people from being rude , disrespectful or insulting to one another unless they threaten to harm them(for eg-I'll break your legs) and that too only if they aren't joking and are literally threatening to harm the individual
Now the problem with this law is that sometimes the person may not be threatening other person directly with violent words (like I'll break your legs)..but the constant insults and rudeness is intended to harm them emotionally and it is harming them emotionally ..
Now since their are no laws against this kind of abuse ..the person being abused might find no way out of the abuse and hence might react violently just out of sheer desperation to make the harasser stop .. Now since he was desperate enough and he was doing it to protect himself from further abuse ..it should be considered self defence and hence his reason for violence justified..(for eg-the guy had no way of escaping his wife..he was going to be abused again and again..hence his reason for violence can be considered as self defence)

Now in many cases .. Even if the person being abused had an option of walking it off or of talking to someone..he might react violently ..now in such cases the reason for violence can't be considered self defence but that is not to say that their reason for violence was not justified
But in such cases the emotional abuser will get the justice and the abused will probably face a fine or jail time
Now this kind of judgment might be upholding of the law ..but no reasonable man can consider it to be justice
What I intend to say is laws regarding physical violence are very strict..and to an extent them being strict is reasonable..but if the physically harassed guy himself is an emotional harasser to the physical harasser ..the law should listen to both's reasons for their particular reaction and should decide accordingly .. I mean in such cases ..the law shouldn't blindly decide against physical harasser..the laws are their to protect the morales of the society and in such cases the person who is in morally grey area should be decided against

Now I would like to reiterate..that not every little insult makes violence justifiable..but that isn't to say that no amount of insulting/emotional harassing justifies some amount of violence

Just because even an intentional pushing amounts to battery doesn't mean that even the littlest amount of violence against even the harshest but legal sort of mental harassment is Unreasonable ..

To the opponent..best of luck for your finals
Worst of luck for this debate( jk ;) ) ..may the better argument win :)

http://www.springtideresources.org...
hidude45454

Con

Alright. First of all, thanks for the interesting debate.
Let's talk about your example first. Out of all possible arguments I gave, you responded with one theoretical example with no links and no solid evidence. Let's take a look at what you've written in this round:
"she easily could have filed a suit claiming he was divorcing her because of dowry issue" - this is total nonsense. If you said before that everyone in the neighborhood knew she was causing significant problems, he should be the one winning cases because he has witnesses. In addition you used the words "could have", meaning it didn't happen (and is very likely not to happen).
Also, please don't compare this issue with gay marriage; they have nothing in common (in only one case, the government has the right to intervene; guess which one it is).
Furthermore, while you have proved your point that emotional suffering can be just as bad as physical suffering, that was never the debate in the first place. In fact, I don't know why anyone would disagree with that statement. And of course the law would not charge cases against most insults. Note I said MOST cases, so your point there is invalid. Furthermore, even though you said there are no laws against extreme emotional abuse, your own link contradicts that point. [1] There are many, many different legal actions one can take, even in the case that you mentioned.
"he was desperate enough" - being desperate is not a valid reason at all why an action could be considered reasonable.
"doing it to protect himself from further abuse...he was going to be abused again and again..." - Again you contradict yourself here. Hitting someone is certainly not going to protect from further emotional distress, so this in no way solves the problem. As you aptly stated, the woman simply continued to emotionally harm him, so hitting is essentially an unreasonable response.
Essentially, my points have invalidated your whole claim and some of your incorrect assumptions about the law, so I extend my points. In addition, you have not proven why physical violence is a solution to emotional harassment at all. Therefore, there is no option but to vote con on this issue.
Sources:
[1] http://www.springtideresources.org...
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
I'll get a vote on this if I can later.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FlammableX// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Con (S&G, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct point is tied - both sides were respectful to one another. However, spelling and grammar point goes to con, due to run-on sentences on the pro side which made their argument a bit hard to read. While both sides presented good arguments, the con's arguments were objectively better - stating that one has two options when confronted by physical violence, but with mental violence, one can always "escape." The pro side relied on personal experience or some generalized argument "ask the police etc.." which failed to uphold his BOP. He makes a hasty generalization fallacy when giving the example of the person he knew. Thus, con made more legitimate arguments. The con successfully showed that physical pain cannot justify emotional pain. The pro also makes a false analogy comparing Gay marriage to this issue at hand, without showing specifically how the analogy is veracious.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently covers the arguments given, and thus the RFD is sufficient. With regards to the report, it should be noted that assessing the debate and specific arguments is beyond our scope. We do not determine whether the logic of an RFD is good, just whether or not the RFD meets the standards.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
At least I have given reason why I find the vote illogical and biased :)
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
Once again I would reiterate .. Give a convincing RFD and I'll accept defeat .. But I won't accept such an illogical RFD which is in no way good enough to be considered a legitimate vote and that's why the vote got removed
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
Once again I would reiterate .. Give a convincing RFD and I'll accept defeat .. But I won't accept such an illogical RFD which is in no way good enough to be considered a legitimate vote and that's why the vote got removed
Posted by hidude45454 1 year ago
hidude45454
"I have no problems with accepting defeat"
Would a guy who reports the vote, then rants in the comments section really have no problems accepting defeat?
Also, meow indeed
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
I have no problem with accepting defeat .. I'm petty good at it.. But it's pretty clear that the voter is biased..and his reasoning is flawed, for eg-he said my gay argument was pointless..but I mentioned that argument to make the point that just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it's unreasonable..and I had to make that point because con was saying that physical violence against menTal harassement is unreasonable because it's illegal(battery) ..
I would accept defeat if the voter posts a logically sound RFD ..logically explaining how con's arguments were better than mine .. Not when the vote and reasoning are clearly biased and illogical ..before you say it..no I don't think they are biased and illogical because they aren't in my favor..
Posted by EverlastingMoment 1 year ago
EverlastingMoment
It's okay to feel upset, it's only natural that you would disagree with a voter voting against you especially when you spend a lot of time on your points. It may be hard to accept defeat sometimes, we all suffer from that. We simply have to adapt with it.

Meow
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
Voter has ignored most the points that I made in thae argument and IMO vote is completely based on incorrect reasoning .. It's like the voter wanted to voted con.. And than read the arguments and that too not very thoroughly
Posted by Ritik33jain 1 year ago
Ritik33jain
How has con legitimately proved that emotional pain can't justify violence ? By saying its illegal? Everybody knows that..the debate was about why is it illegal .. Con has proved nothing on that ground
And about that 'person I knew' example..I clearly stated you can even considerate it to be a hypothetical situation..but all the laws were legitimately applicable in India

And the gay analogy was to make the point that just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's unreasonable
All these things I have clearly mentioned in the debate..voter has seemed to ignore all these points and has maybe voted with personal bias

Also can somebody please tell me about the question I asked In my previous comment?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FlammableX 1 year ago
FlammableX
Ritik33jainhidude45454Tied
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 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: Conduct point is tied - both sides were respectful to one another. However, spelling and grammar point goes to con, due to run-on sentences on the pro side which made their argument a bit hard to read. While both sides presented good arguments, the con's arguments were objectively better - stating that one has two options when confronted by physical violence, but with mental violence, one can always "escape." The pro side relied on personal experience or some generalized argument "ask the police etc.." which failed to uphold his BOP. He makes a hasty generalization fallacy when giving the example of the person he knew. Thus, con made more legitimate arguments. The con successfully showed that physical pain cannot justify emotional pain. The pro also makes a false analogy comparing Gay marriage to this issue at hand, without showing specifically how the analogy is veracious.