The Roast Game Skeptic: Domestic Violence Is Not Even A Real Thing

Watch this video: https://m.youtube.com...

The Roast Game Skeptic easily debunks Domestic Violence.

After watching the video, let's debate!

I am an American, so I am using the US Department of Justice's definition of domestic violence.

Domestic Violence: Is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.

This is then further defined by State, in my State of Arizona, many laws can be considered domestic violence and is dependent on the victim. But a basic summary would be:

The state of Arizona defines domestic violence as almost any criminal act of abuse committed by one "family or household member" against another.

As crime between household members occurs, I would suggest that domestic violence does indeed exist.

Thanks for accepting the challenge.

Here is my argument that Domestic Violence isn't even a real thing, though somehow you can define it. But, just because you can define something, doesn't necessarily make it a real thing. You can define The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is still not even a real thing.

If somebody believed that all men or all women are violent, that is sexist.
Sexism is unacceptable. Domestic Violence is a fallacy because it doesn't happen in "every house" or it didn't happen at all. I am skeptical of your claims.
Feminists and MRAs have been spreading this fallacy called "Domestic Violence" for a long time.
But just because not all men or women are violent, doesn't necessarily make Domestic Violence a real thing. Let me quote you. "I am an American, so I am using the US Department of Justice's definition of domestic violence.

Domestic Violence: Is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.

This is then further defined by State, in my State of Arizona, many laws can be considered domestic violence and is dependent on the victim. But a basic summary would be:

The state of Arizona defines domestic violence as almost any criminal act of abuse committed by one "family or household member" against another.

As crime between household members occurs, I would suggest that domestic violence does indeed exist."

You would suggest, not that you will believe that Domestic Violence indeed "does exist" This is an irrelevant argument. Just because you're an American, it doesn't necessarily make that a valid argument. I am an American too, I am skeptical of Domestic Violence. You did not put a link or a source in your first argument, though you said you would use their definition. You could've backed your argument up. You plagiarised the definition of "Domestic Violence."

You will lose a lot of points if you plagiarize.

"Domestic Violence is a fallacy because it doesn't happen in "every house" or it didn't happen at all."

Why would Domestic Violence need to occur in every household in order to exist? Can you apply this logic to other crimes? Do traffic violations for instance, not exist, as not everyone commits one?

"But just because not all men or women are violent, doesn't necessarily make Domestic Violence a real thing."

Why would the existence of non-violent humans eliminate the possibility of domestic violence? There is no reason to believe this, simply because some humans are not violent, does not eliminate violence committed by others.

"You would suggest, not that you will believe that Domestic Violence indeed "does exist" This is an irrelevant argument. "

Your issue with this phrasing is irrelevant, my argument is that domestic violence does exist.

"Just because you're an American, it doesn't necessarily make that a valid argument. "

Nor do I suggest it does, I am merely clarifying my perspective. Each culture and country has a different take on domestic violence.

"You did not put a link or a source in your first argument, though you said you would use their definition. You could've backed your argument up. You plagiarised the definition of "Domestic Violence."

You will lose a lot of points if you plagiarize."

I actually do state the source, the Department of Justice.
https://www.justice.gov...

Here are my first and final rebuttals to debunk your essay argument.

1. "Why would Domestic Violence need to occur in every household in order to exist? Can you apply this logic to other crimes? Do traffic violations for instance, not exist, as not everyone commits one?"
To prove your point that it is a thing. You questioned and contradicted yourself in these questions. I'm not saying every "crime" does not exist, I am only saying that Domestic Violence is not even a real thing. You are irrelevant. Would you necessarily assume that every person should be violent or would you assume that Domestic Violence is a thing? Of course you would.

2. "Why would the existence of non-violent humans eliminate the possibility of domestic violence? There is no reason to believe this, simply because some humans are not violent, does not eliminate violence committed by others." Why wouldn't they? Because Domestic Violence isn't a real thing. It's like asking "Why would they act to stop domestic violence?" When it isn't even a real thing to begin with. Another contradiction you committed upon yourself.

3. "Your issue with this phrasing is irrelevant, my argument is that domestic violence does exist.
The state of Arizona defines domestic violence as almost any criminal act of abuse committed by one "family or household member" against another.

As crime between household members occurs, I would suggest that domestic violence does indeed exist."

That is barely an argument at all, just because you use the definition and that's it, doesn't necessarily make it a strong argument. It is too late to bring sources, you plagiarised. You should've put a source in your first argument round. You didn't, therefore, I have evidence that you plagiarised. Definition is barely evidence at all because any definition alone is forged for people to get barely a glimpse of anything in a skewed perspective. What phrasing was irrelevant? Were you talking about my example of definitions. Here I quote, " just because you can define something, doesn't necessarily make it a real thing. You can define The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is still not even a real thing." It is a good example, you can't just call everything the dictionary defines as real or fact.

4. "Nor do I suggest it does, I am merely clarifying my perspective. Each culture and country has a different take on domestic violence." You claimed that, but you didn't name any, nor provided any example for each culture (just a few). You keep on contradicting yourself. You will surely lose this debate. Just merely clarifying your perspective is not an argument, or doesn't even make your position strong enough to defend your claims.

That is all my rebuttals. Now to prove the con has the burden of proof.

Con's Burden of Proof:
The Con merely suggests he believes that Domestic Violence is a real thing, Then he plagiarised with a definition without a source to begin with, contradicts himself multiple times, and he has the burden of proof, he just quoted me, just not to prove his point.

Here is the link to the video, I based this debate on:
https://m.youtube.com...

So voters, I will not implore, but I will kindly ask voters to vote for Pro!

1."To prove your point that it is a thing."

So is Domestic Violence.

2."You questioned and contradicted yourself in these questions. I'm not saying every "crime" does not exist, I am only saying that Domestic Violence is not even a real thing. "

This is your contradiction, not mine. You cannot apply your logic consistently else ware concerning other crimes.

3. "Would you necessarily assume that every person should be violent or would you assume that Domestic Violence is a thing? Of course you would"

This is a false dichotomy, not everyone need be violent for domestic violence to exist.

4. "Because Domestic Violence isn't a real thing. "

You have yet to prove this, you cannot logically use your own conclusion, to support your conclusion. This is circular reasoning.

5. "That is barely an argument at all, just because you use the definition and that's it, doesn't necessarily make it a strong argument"

Yet, your argument is presented without evidence, and domestic violence as defined, does occur. You would need to eliminate at least one of the following:

Familial units
Domiciles
Violence

6. "It is too late to bring sources, you plagiarised. You should've put a source in your first argument round. You didn't, therefore, I have evidence that you plagiarised. "

My first post: " I am using the US Department of Justice's definition of domestic violence."

7. "Definition is barely evidence at all because any definition alone is forged for people to get barely a glimpse of anything in a skewed perspective. "

Domestic violence as defined, does occur.
https://www.bjs.gov...

8. "Here I quote, " just because you can define something, doesn't necessarily make it a real thing. You can define The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is still not even a real thing." It is a good example, you can't just call everything the dictionary defines as real or fact."

This is a false comparison, domestic violence as defined, occurs in reality.
http://www.azdhs.gov...

You haven't furthered any evidence to suggest that violence between family members, or violence within households doesn't occur. Without this, it would be false to state domestic violence doesn't exist.