CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I have to agree with Whoopi on this.. As a mom of two boys 11 and 15 and I have a step daughter who we have in the summer, she has realized that she can hit my son and god for bid he defends him self. She is the same size almost taller than my 11 year old. She plays this girl card all the time. We need to teach our kids regardless of sex, not to put there hands on anyone unless they are fighting to live.
It was hilarious that they were claiming that Whoopi was doing a blame the victim scenario when she is advocating not hitting someone. If you hit someone before they hit you, you aren't a victim yet.
One woman (I think the blonde) tries to argue that there's a size difference. Maybe she should have argued that women are not in control of their emotions but that men are, 100% of the time; and therefore it should be the man's responsibility to treat the woman as one would a child. I mean, how retarded is that? ;)
The only thing here is, if a 180lb man hits a 130lbs woman, that woman is going to be out cold. If that woman hit the same man, that man will just shake it off.
It's true, but reasoned poorly, teaching people to not ever hit anyone is, by extension, teaching to not ever hit women. Whether or not you're taught to never hit women has no bearing on whether or not you're taught to hit men.
This is a debate site. The title of the debates needs to get people fired up so they click the link. Then they read the description and say, "Oh." Then they go and pick the wrong side anyway and try to defend it ;)
Sorry, the point is that we are thinking of teaching one thing or the other. Both positions include not having men hit women. The only question here is do we add the women shouldn't hit men part. My point was that saying that men shouldn't hit women does not extend to women shouldn't hit men, and that nobody should be hitting anyone does include both. I was just adding to the discussion.
The problem we have now is the idea that only men can't hit women. The crazy women in the video were all claiming that no matter what happens, if a man punches a woman, she is the victim. That's because of the notion that it is wrong for men to hit women, but not the other way around.
If there is a credible threat to myself or my family, I will do whatever it takes to protect myself and my family from that threat.
Protecting myself and my own may mean a hasty retreat, that may mean negotiation, that may mean fighting for my life, it may be a combination of the above, it could be something else entirely. It depends on the circumstances and the level of the threat.
In no case do I care about the gender(s) of the threatening party/parties- only whether there is a credible threat, and what my options are to protect myself.
Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence, but I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution. So no, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.
Picture this: You are trapped in a small room, let's say with a 5 feet by 8 feet perimeter, you have no door to let yourself out of, and your are trapped in a corner with a person (who you were just in a heated argument with) repeatedly striking you.
Are you telling me you wouldn't feel any sense of panic or necessity to strike back in defense? Even if you personally would not fight back, are you saying that another person who WOULD react that way wouldn't be justified to do so?
This is the exact scenario Ray Rice found himself in when he was trapped in an elevator with his fiancé. His fiancé has been quoted as admitting to hitting him before he struck her. It is absurd to say he had no right to defend himself. When someone is put in a situation where they feel threatened its is a biological function to either run away or fight the threat that they are confronted with. Since Ray was trapped in an elevator he did not have an option to run which left him with the only option of fighting back
Are you telling me you wouldn't feel any sense of panic or necessity to strike back in defense?
It depends on the threat, but I would most likely try to prevent the attack to the best of my ability such as by restraining the attacker or holding them down until I could get away or help arrived.
Even if you personally would not fight back, are you saying that another person who WOULD react that way wouldn't be justified to do so?
Wouldn’t be justified to start hitting back? No. I don’t believe two wrongs make a right.
His fiancé has been quoted as admitting to hitting him before he struck her. It is absurd to say he had no right to defend himself.
Defending oneself can take many forms that don’t require fist fights. Hugging the person tight and restraining them until they either calm down or aid arrives for instance.
When someone is put in a situation where they feel threatened its is a biological function to either run away or fight the threat that they are confronted with.
A biological instinct when someone strikes you in a vulnerable area is to guard that area, if we are struck in the head we reflexively move our arms up to shield the area. The decision to retaliate can serve as a defense mechanism as well but it is not a reflex, it is a conscious learned behavior, and as I said it can take several forms.
So, your wife can smack you upside the head all she wants and you'll just take it with your arms protecting your head? Or, if you decide to use hugs instead, you will hug her every time she smacks you upside the head? And if when you stop hugging her she smacks you again, you'll just hug her some more? ;)
Hitting is a form of disrespect. If she hits you, she disrespects you. I don't know what you would have to do to be shown such disrespect. But when you take an action that deserves such disrespect and combine it with the act of the actual disrespect, it doesn't add up to a loving marriage ;)
It can be. In that sense it only strengthens my view that people shouldn’t hit.
But it’s not as defined as you suggest.
If I smack my wife on the ass, it’s not because I disrespect her.
A person who spanks their child doesn’t necessarily mean they disrespect them.
If she hits you, she disrespects you.
If I get smacked for ogling a girl when she bends over, it’s because I deserved it in my opinion. It’s my wife’s way of letting me know she saw me and she’s offended.
I don’t agree that violence is the best way to resolve a situation, but I don’t deny its effectiveness.
it doesn't add up to a loving marriage
My marriage is just fine thank you; we’re very loving.
I don't want to come across as argumentative but, smacking your wife on the ass can be viewed as you treating her as a sex object which in turn can be considered disrespect. The fact that she may like it is besides the point.
You ogling a girl when she bends over would be considered disrespectful to your wife and the smack would be her responding in kind.
I was not referring to your marriage, I was referring to anyone's marriage in the given situation. ;)
if you decide to use hugs instead, you will hug her every time she smacks you upside the head? And if when you stop hugging her she smacks you again, you'll just hug her some more?
When I worked as an aid for the mentally handicapped and when I was in security we were trained to use take-downs and techniques to disable a threat. “Hugging” a perp (maneuvering behind, and clasping our arms around the person’s arms and mid-section) was one such technique. There were several holds and take-downs we were taught to use that didn’t involve hitting.
While this can still be considered violent to some, they present alternatives to hitting for self-defense.
So no, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.
This statement implies that women are not held to any standard.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”
This implies that women should be held to the same standard.
You have conflicting ideas. It isn't about saying that it is ok for men to hit women, but changing it to people shouldn't hit other people. Remove gender from the discussion.
It doesn't matter if I hit support, dispute, or clarify.
My complaint about your post is that it was incomplete. You continued the status quo without addressing the issue that violence is bad from women as well. You allude to it, but don't directly mention that women shouldn't be violent. I did not make any assumptions. I was not saying that you believe women should be held to a different standard, but that your words indicate that women should be held to a different standard because you never mention how women behave. I disputed you because you left out the fact that women shouldn't be violent either. I disputed you because you agreed that Whoopi had a point that we aren't teaching women not to hit men, but only said that we need to stay the course with teaching men not to hit women.
My complaint about your post is that it was incomplete. You continued the status quo without addressing the issue that violence is bad from women as well.
“Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence”
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution."
Let’s not do this thing again where you completely ignore relevant information in my comment.
Cherry picking the one thing that can be construed to support your view only makes you look like an idiot.
You allude to it, but don't directly mention that women shouldn't be violent.
“Women should understand that they are not free to say or do whatever they want without any consequence”
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution.”
I did not make any assumptions. I was not saying that you believe women should be held to a different standard, but that your words indicate that women should be held to a different standard because you never mention how women behave.
"Never mention how women behave." Correct, so whatever assumptions you infer from that are your own doing.
I never mention how men behave either for that matter; just that violence should not be used.
I disputed you because you left out the fact that women shouldn't be violent either.
”I also don’t think men, or anyone for that matter, should ever consider violence a justified resolution.”
but only said that we need to stay the course with teaching men not to hit women.
Again, that statement was in direct response to the debate question
Do I think we should stop teaching men to never hit women? No, I think we should continue to teach it.
You’re assumption of what I mean by that, as if I mean “women shouldn’t be held at the same standard” is incorrect as indicated by the rest of my comment. You’re cherry picking.
I honestly don't even know why you do this kind of shit man, you're better than this, I've seen it. Why do you misrepresent someone and then argue that misrepresentation? Its a lot like what Joe does, but at least he leaves a little ;) after his comment so that people know not to take him seriously. Do you intend to be taken seriously? because you come off as being a troll.
I honestly don't even know why you do this kind of shit man, you're better than this, I've seen it. Why do you misrepresent someone and then argue that misrepresentation? Its a lot like what Joe does, but at least he leaves a little ;) after his comment so that people know not to take him seriously. Do you intend to be taken seriously? because you come off as being a troll.
I am trying to point out to the error in your ways. Your words misrepresent you to other people. It requires extra effort from the people who read your argument to determine what you actually mean. I am trying to explain to you how your words sound when someone reads them.
Do I think we should stop teaching men to never hit women? No, I think we should continue to teach it.
We currently ONLY teach that men should not hit women. When you say you don't want a change it misrepresents you because you want women to be taught not to hit men as well. I feel your argument was incomplete because you used softer words to represent how women should behave. They need to understand instead of being taught. There is no implied punishment with not understanding something. If you are taught not to hit someone it is clear that there is a problem when you do hit someone. Your position on female violence is wishy washy, but your stance on male violence is firm.
You’re assumption of what I mean by that, as if I mean “women shouldn’t be held at the same standard” is incorrect as indicated by the rest of my comment. You’re cherry picking.
It wasn't an assumption of what you believe it was the interpretation that people will make about the statement that you made. No matter how much you intend to mean something if you write words that interpreted in a way that is contrary to how you feel you will have a problem.
Overall, I understand that you believe that violence is bad no matter what gender you are, and I was never trying to claim you felt differently. And, I realize that your statement meant that we should not stop teaching men not to hit women.
I am trying to point out to the error in your ways.
You might find that cherry picking the one statement out of context to support your view is not the best way to do so.
Here is the context:
Question: “Should we stop teaching men to never hit women”
Answer: “No, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.”
Your words misrepresent you to other people. It requires extra effort from the people who read your argument to determine what you actually mean. I am trying to explain to you how your words sound when someone reads them.
I’m sure other people can speak for themselves.
My words do not need to be interpreted in any way other than the way I stated them. If you, or anyone else, interprets my statements incorrectly through making incorrect assumptions or taking things out of context, that is no error of mine.
We currently ONLY teach that men should not hit women.
I have three daughters. I teach them not to hit, I know many parents in my community that teach hitting as wrong no matter what gender you are. In fact, I don't know of any parent or teacher that teaches that girls can hit and guys can't.
There is a common misconception among people as they get older in thinking that men should be held to that standard more than women out of a sense of chivalry and that women are under the impression that they are untouchable even if they don't uphold their end of that standard, but I don’t think it would benefit us to teach men that it’s ok to hit women in order to counter the fact that women are not currently being held at the same standard as men. So no, I don’t think we should stop teaching men to never hit women.
I also don't think women should assume that they are free to do or say what they want without any consequences, as I stated. But considering my stance on violence, I don't think being hit should ever be one of those consequences, even if they hit first.
I feel your argument was incomplete because you used softer words to represent how women should behave. They need to understand instead of being taught. There is no implied punishment with not understanding something. If you are taught not to hit someone it is clear that there is a problem when you do hit someone. Your position on female violence is wishy washy, but your stance on male violence is firm.
This is what I mean when I say you assume too much. Please re-read your words here.
The problem is that most people do NOT want to take the time to TRY and understand. Anyone who took the time to read the description would have understood. ;)
The problem is that most people do NOT want to take the time to TRY and understand. Anyone who took the time to read the description would have understood. ;)
"Should" is relative. You can teach yours whatever you want, I'll teach mine what I see fit. I personally believe in violence and that men should not hit women.
