Challenge Match. Semperfortis v Intrepid: It hurts me more than it hurts you?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
The topic for this debate is "Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Semperfortis will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Intrepid will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.


Responses should be made within 24 hours.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve 2 ranking points. The title is not on the line.




posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs. Intrepid

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".


First allow me a moment to thank my esteemed opponent for this opportunity to test my mind against his in this forum of the intellect. Also TheVagabond continues to amaze with his dedication and untiring devotion to our debate forum and is worthy of our admiration.

Semper’s Proposition:

I will show that "Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims"

During this debate I will show you where the “Modernization” and “Civilization” of man has far outpaced his comparatively rudimentary psychosomatic basic conditioning.

We will explore man’s more basic instinctual behavior that still rests inside of us all and we shall discover how impossible it is to ignore those base instincts at times of extreme emotional distress.

Together we will examine what a victim is and how it is they became subject to the victimization psychology.

We will look at the inherent violent nature of humans and their propensity to resort to aggressive behavior during times of great emotional or physical confusion or traumatization.

We are going to explore the phenomenon of “feminization” and its effect on man in general and abusive men in particular.

We will examine homosexuality and its role in the emasculation of man in society.

We will look at the system of “Abuse” laws that in many ways seem “set up” to vastly favor the female and leave the man with no respect and no alternatives.

We are going to discover that the abuser can be as much a victim, as the abused.

We are going to touch on some emotional and controversial subjects during this debate and I caution each of you to understand that this is simply a debate and is in no way indicative of the debater’s true feelings on the subject.

Semper’s Opening:


Abuse:



1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead.
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault

Dictionary.com

When one thinks of abuse, pictures come to mind of the battered wife being lead away to the hospital, the man standing over the woman cowering in the corner, on and on and on. Yet abuse, spousal abuse, can take many forms and inflicts damage to the receiver in many ways.

As evidenced by the definitions above, perhaps the psychological abuse can be even more insidious and destructive than the physical.

So why is it that perfectly normal and reserved members of today’s society are more and more found to be the perpetrators of abuse on their loved ones? Let us look at some possible answers.

“The Emasculation of Society”

The evolution of humans has progressed taking us from our roots as “Hunter Gatherers” to “Farmers”, to our current positions as “Modern Socialites”, all in an historical “Blink of an Eye.”

In each of these progressions, we have been forced to change as our environment has demanded it and relearn our positions in society. Yet is it possible to forget, to unlearn that which had previously become so natural for us?

The violent response to an aggressive or violent environment or situation was for the majority of our existence, necessary for the continuation of the species. This response, this “Fight or Flight” or “Hyper arousal” or “Acute Stress Response” has become a part of our genetic make up.

We developed this response as a natural protective instinct for the vast majority of our existence in order to continue on as a species.

It is only now, in our most recent history and present environment, that we find this not only unacceptable, but criminal and punishable behavior.

Frustration:

“He is my knight in shining armor”
“He is so strong and virile”

Many of our attributes that initially attract the female of the species quickly become unwanted variables in our day to day lives. No longer is there a place for the “Man of Action”, the “Aggressive Alpha Male” or the very same violent behavior that for centuries has protected the female of our species.

While the female may have been attracted to the muscle bound, tattoo wearing “Bad Boy” that was physically dominating his peer group; she soon wants his physical actions to be limited to killing the occasional bug, or fixing the roof.

As males we are designed and predisposed towards violence as a course of action to successfully resolve our conflicts.

Now as “civilized” men, we should know the difference between the attack of the “Prehistoric Smiladon” and an argument with our wives over money. In the more civilized parts of our conscious, we do. Yet in the rudimentary portions of our brains, an attack is an attack and the compulsion to respond with violence is there.

Now for most of us, we have the inner strength to ignore or squash these violent impulses, yet can it be argued that there are men that are far closer to our violent heritage and more susceptible to these violent urges?

Yet society continues it’s course of emasculation and pushes men like this farther and farther to the fringe, or simply incarcerates them as unacceptable members of today’s society.

Are they not the victims of this purge of manliness? Are not their actions simple and purely genetic responses, conditioned by centuries of survival instinct?

We are asked more and more as men, to look inside and become “In touch” with our feminine side. Society’s current legal structure punishes violent behavior even when it is in response to violence perpetrated against us. We are told instead to “Reason” it out, or “Turn the other cheek” or even “Try talking to your adversary”; when our instincts are screaming to act, to react and to violently bring to closure that which is threatening us.


Current Legal Precedent:

What happens when a man is pushed into a position where he perceives his life is being controlled by others? When he feels he has no way out of a current situation he may perceive is threatening his very existence?

When and if he reacts violently, he is faced with the very real and very substantial rule of law and is swiftly incarcerated and placed where he may no longer injure or abuse. He is being punished by society for reacting in a manner completely in line with his genetic conditioning.

Is it wrong for him to act in this manner? Is it wrong for a man to react violently to a non-violent situation out of a feeling of frustration? Of course it is, yet is not the man also a victim; a victim of today’s society and the ongoing emasculation of our historical makeup?

Socratic Option:

1. Does my opponent believe that the current legal system favors the female of the species?
2. Does my opponent think there is any acceptable reason for violent reaction in response to ANY nonviolent action?

Summation:

No one is ever going to postulate that violent behavior towards ones spouse should be acceptable behavior. This is ludicrous. However can we completely ignore our past heritage, our genetic make-up and our desire to be men of action? Can there be no compassion for those men as victims of today’s society as much as their spouses are victims of their violent behavior?

Taking into account it is only recently that it was made illegal in all states to beat your wife; we have progressed as a society as we should. We must however examine those that may have been left behind. Those that may not be able to move as fast forward as the rest of society.

Corporal punishment has been, for a majority of our existence, acceptable corrective actions for both our children and our wives. Not only was it acceptable behavior, society would often shun the man that could not control his “woman” and how she behaved. A man was thought more of a man back then that had a “handle” on his wife and children. Now the very thought of such activities is abhorrent to us all.

Still what about the individual that has been outpaced by society? Where does all of this modernization leave him? Either incarcerated or shunned by a society that no longer recognizes his actions as strength.

Can we ignore this and not understand that the abuser can be as much of a victim as the abused?

Thank you

Semper



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
First off I would like to thank The Vagabond for his time setting up this debate. I would also like to thank semperfortis for this opportunity. I have wanted to debate him for quite some time. I hope we can do this topic justice, make it informative and entertaining to those that read it. My thanks to you as well as it would be a hollow endeavor without the readers.

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

It has long been the practice for some to blame society for the shortcoming of an individual or group. Removing the fact of free will of choice and absolution of blame. Individuals ALL have choices to make and whether to abuse your spouse is just another one of those.

Are men aggressive by nature? Sure we are, just look at the growing popularity of Mixed Martial Arts. The WWE has been popular for decades. I know I enjoy a good boxing match. What do these all have in common? One man trying to defeat another physically. Notice the term "One man trying to defeat another. A man beating on a woman wouldn't garner an audience.

Does this mean that as society has developed we have ditched our physical nature? Looking at the popularity of the events above the answer would be "no". Does that mean that men react to an event in the home physically? Some make that choice, however that doesn't mean that it is a result of society. Neither does that make those men a victim.

One Look dictionary:


# noun: an unfortunate person who suffers from some adverse circumstance
# noun: a person who is tricked or swindled


What "adverse circumstances" does an abusive, more powerful, spouse suffer from enough to abuse his spouse? Unless of course the wife was much larger and he then becomes the abused. Then he would be a victim. Don't laugh, this does happen but it isn't the focus of this debate.

Thank you semper for the research on "abuse":


1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2. to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3. to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4. to commit sexual assault upon.
5. Obsolete. to deceive or mislead.
6. wrong or improper use; misuse: the abuse of privileges.
7. harshly or coarsely insulting language: The officer heaped abuse on his men.
8. bad or improper treatment; maltreatment: The child was subjected to cruel abuse.
9. a corrupt or improper practice or custom: the abuses of a totalitarian regime.
10. rape or sexual assault


A very telling explanation of abuse. This all talks about the use of "power" or "control" if you will. Do those things have any place in todays definition of a "union"? Yes, it happened in the past, to what degree? I don't believe semper or I could answer that as we are too young to know.


Originally posted by semperfortis
Now as “civilized” men, we should know the difference between the attack of the “Prehistoric Smiladon” and an argument with our wives over money. In the more civilized parts of our conscious, we do. Yet in the rudimentary portions of our brains, an attack is an attack and the compulsion to respond with violence is there.


I am at a loss to understand the correlation between these two circumstances, unless of course the spouse was coming at the husband with a hunting knife. It's been more than a "blink of the eye" that we have evolved to "modern man". It's been millennia and we have evolved as society has evolved. The proper attitudes for the proper times.

Of course there are some that do not conform to the norm, that's their choice though. The fact that it IS the norm should speak volumes about society and its "said influence" as it pertains to the topic.


Originally posted by semperfortis
Socratic Option:

1. Does my opponent believe that the current legal system favors the female of the species?
2. Does my opponent think there is any acceptable reason for violent reaction in response to ANY nonviolent action?


1- As it pertains to the topic, no. In issues of divorce and such I would agree but the focus here is on abuse and the system is in place to not only protect the victim but also to attempt to rehabilitate those that made poor choices.

2- An interesting question and one I would need more information on to answer properly. Define "nonviolent action".

I will close now, I know, this is brief, it's out of respect for semper's formidable skills and the fact that I got the luck of the draw to be in a rebuttal position but sometimes tactics are as important as words.

The fact that it is the norm in society that most, by FAR most men do not abuse their spouses says that the influence is NOT responsible for poor choices and actions but the opposite. This is a fact, even though we, as men, still retain our aggressive physical nature.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs. Intrepid

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Semper’s Reply #1

Sigmund Freud said:


The conflict between sexual needs and societal mores is the source of mankind’s propensity for dissatisfaction, aggression, hostility and ultimately, violence.

Source

It was Freud’s belief that man is inherently violent and will eventually react violently to any situation that causes him enough frustration or consternation.

“Conrad Lorenz”

On the theory of “Natural Born Fighters”, believed that violent instincts in man are normally expressed in a socially approved way in the modern world, for example through sport, and that failure to find such expression leads to undesirable aggressive acts.


In other words when frustration or consternation reaches a certain level in an individual, and that individual has no practical outlet, violence is bound to ensue.

This as a purely physiological reaction.

We are just starting to scratch the surface in examining the effects a controlled society has on our more base instinctive reactions to stimuli. Our violent reactions to certain situations may be seen by society as completely out of context, when to our inner psychological functions, that same reaction may be perfectly normal.

If an individual is reacting in a specific way to an external stimulus, are they not also victims? Perhaps victims of our societal controls, but victims no less.

Conrad Lorenz also presents the “Frustrated-drive theory”.


This states that aggression arises as a result of the frustration of not getting one's own way. In other words, when an individual is prevented from achieving a goal, this leads to frustration and, possibly, aggression/violence. The degree of aggression that results from this frustration depends on how important the person perceives their goal to be, and on the number of times they have been thwarted in achieving it. Frustration may not necessarily lead to aggression if other inhibiting forces are present, such as awareness of the anticipated consequences of aggression (eg punishment). And aggression, when it occurs, may be displaced onto objects other than the frustrating agent (eg kicking a cat when you're actually angry with the cat's owner).


Life Style

Now while initially appearing as superficial and a simple matter of lack of control, the numerous instances of “anger induced” criminal behavior would seem to bear this theory out. How many times have we all reacted violently to an immediate situation, breaking something and then regretting it?

We must all keep in mind that not all individuals in society have the same amount of self control and yet all are subject to the same amount of “required” control.


Rebuttal:


It has long been the practice for some to blame society for the shortcoming of an individual or group. Removing the fact of free will of choice and absolution of blame.


I don’t think we are attempting to assuage blame here and place it all on society; just that society places restrictions on individuals that may not be psychologically mature enough to abide by those restrictions.

Again; we all have the same societal restrictions, yet we do not all have the same abilty for control.

Remember that we have been historically reacting violently to situational stimuli far longer than we have been repressing those reactions.


Are men aggressive by nature? Sure we are, just look at the growing popularity of Mixed Martial Arts. Notice the term "One man trying to defeat another. A man beating on a woman wouldn't garner an audience.


For sport, yes. Your analogy is accurate, yet we are not discussing a sports event here, but the inherent violent nature of man.

What of the man that does not have the outlet for violence of sport? What actions can we consider to be “normal reactions to a level of frustration from that individual?


Some make that choice, however that doesn't mean that it is a result of society. Neither does that make those men a victim.


Granted for you and for me, it is a choice. But what about those that can not make that choice, but are instead controlled by more base instinctive reactions that we subconsciously control without a thought.

Socratic question 1
If violence against the spouse is all about choice, why is it that individuals repeat the offense over and over regardless of the punishment?

Socratic question 2
Would you agree that some men are more civilized than others? More close to the Primitive?


What "adverse circumstances" does an abusive, more powerful, spouse suffer from enough to abuse his spouse?


Now we can examine the meat of the issue.

The adverse circumstances that would drive a person to violence will of course vary with the individual. I have already touched on the emasculation of man in society, but it goes far deeper than that.

The frustration and helplessness involved in losing a job, failed relationship, loss of a child, on and on.

Take into account that there are still societies functioning today where if the female in a relationship cheats, they are subject to death by stoning. Where as in our society, even after they commit adultery, they are not only protected by the legal system, they stand to lose nothing of any consequence as a result of their actions.

For many individuals, this can result in severe frustration and resultant anger issues. Most individuals that have adapted to society control these issues, most; yet what about those that can not; those repeat offenders that have obviously not been able to adapt to the structure of society. Are they not victims?



This all talks about the use of "power" or "control" if you will. Do those things have any place in todays definition of a "union"? Yes, it happened in the past, to what degree? I don't believe semper or I could answer that as we are too young to know.


Exactly. “WE” are too young to know; but what about our fathers, or their fathers? A virtual blink of an eye, evolutionarily, and all of a sudden we are required to subdue, what to our forefathers, would have been a natural reaction to certain circumstances. If it is all about control, which of us has the same levels of control as the next?



I am at a loss to understand the correlation between these two circumstances, unless of course the spouse was coming at the husband with a hunting knife. It's been more than a "blink of the eye" that we have evolved to "modern man". It's been millennia and we have evolved as society has evolved. The proper attitudes for the proper times.


The correlation is simple my friend. While I may not be “shocked helpless” at the approach of a subject with a knife, others that are less well trained, may in fact freeze, run away, void their bowels or do any number of other things. It is all about perceptions at the time of the incident. While here, on this debate, in the light of day, the attack of some prehistoric beast may not be relative to a wife that heaps verbal abuse on her husband until he snaps; the situations are not comprehensible without examination of that individual’s psychosis of reaction at the time of the incident.
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy and relatively free from danger.

Just because their reaction is not one that we condone, we can not simply dismiss it as a “choice.” Not with the relative high percentage of repeat offenders.

The abuser in point of fact, becomes a victim of a society he can not “fit” into.


The fact that it is the norm in society that most, by FAR most men do not abuse their spouses says that the influence is NOT responsible for poor choices and actions but the opposite.


Yet how many have “almost” struck their spouse? Looking inward and being completely honest with ourselves, how many of us have felt an almost overwhelming desire to strike out? Yet our control, our strength of character has prevented us from crossing that line.

What about those that do not possess that amount of self control? Those that are inherently insufficient in whatever chemical composition we each have that gives us the inner strength to not react in a violent manner.

Summation:

Society and civilization has moved forward at a phenomenal pace. With each leap and bound we have taken, we require individuals to change the way they react, feel and perceive their environments.

For most of us, this is a simple matter and life moves on. What about those that can not change so quickly, or move forward?

Do we simply say that make bad decisions and punish them; or can we not see that they are victims of society and seek correction instead of punishment?

Thank you

Semper



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Emasculation of Man

This seems to be a sticking point to my opponent. So let us head to this directly.

Emasculation, Onelook dictionary defines this as:


loss of power and masculinity


One has to ask, as we have evolved have we, as men, lost our masculinity. In my first post I stated:


Originally posted by intrepid
Are men aggressive by nature? Sure we are, just look at the growing popularity of Mixed Martial Arts. The WWE has been popular for decades. I know I enjoy a good boxing match. What do these all have in common? One man trying to defeat another physically. Notice the term "One man trying to defeat another. A man beating on a woman wouldn't garner an audience.

Does this mean that as society has developed we have ditched our physical nature? Looking at the popularity of the events above the answer would be "no". Does that mean that men react to an event in the home physically?


My opponent would lead you to believe that we have been gelded by society and the result is abusive men. I have already shown this to NOT be the case. Let's look at this further then. Look at TV shows(societal creations) that appeal to men. Home Improvement was a hit for 8 seasons and over 200 episodes. This was about a grunting "Tool Man" and his family. OOH, OOH, OOH. If it didn't speak to men it wouldn't have had the run that it did.

Time for a visual:



Does that look like "emasculation"?

How about something more recent? 2 and a Half Men:


A hedonistic jingle writer's free-wheeling life comes to an abrupt halt when his brother and 10-year-old nephew move into his beach-front house.


www.imdb.com...

Again, very popular, in it's fifth season, and over 100 episodes. Does this look like emasculation?

My opponent will like say that these are merely TV shows. However Hollywood is a business, if it doesn't sell, it gets pulled and these shows have sold, men identify with them.

Check out the TV ratings for 2005's Daytona race:

www.usatoday.com...

These modern knights sure have an audience. Let's not even talk about the Superbowl. Redundancy would abound. OK, let's look at this.


The New York Giants' thrilling win over New England was the most-watched Super Bowl ever with 97.5 million viewers in the United States, a total that is second only to the "M-A-S-H" finale audience, Nielsen Media Research said Monday.


www.globesports.com...

Emasculation by society? Seems like all of this is confirmation of masculinity.

1st Rebuttal


Originally posted by semperfortis
“Conrad Lorenz”

On the theory of “Natural Born Fighters”, believed that violent instincts in man are normally expressed in a socially approved way in the modern world, for example through sport, and that failure to find such expression leads to undesirable aggressive acts.


In other words when frustration or consternation reaches a certain level in an individual, and that individual has no practical outlet, violence is bound to ensue.


That's a pretty big leap to say "violence is bound to ensue", based on a "theory".


Take into account that there are still societies functioning today where if the female in a relationship cheats, they are subject to death by stoning. Where as in our society, even after they commit adultery, they are not only protected by the legal system, they stand to lose nothing of any consequence as a result of their actions.


Again the point is lost on me. Are we debating OUR society or another? I will work under the premise that it is our society for the rest of this debate. Unless it becomes clear otherwise.


While here, on this debate, in the light of day, the attack of some prehistoric beast may not be relative to a wife that heaps verbal abuse on her husband until he snaps; the situations are not comprehensible without examination of that individual’s psychosis of reaction at the time of the incident.
Monday morning quarterbacking is easy and relatively free from danger.


Indeed, we don't need Monday morning QBing but we should use some critical thinking thought. I have shown in both my posts that there is no emasculation of man. You use the term "individual's psychosis". Is that affected by an individuals mental makeup? Genetic preposition? Mental disorder? Disease?


Yet how many have “almost” struck their spouse? Looking inward and being completely honest with ourselves, how many of us have felt an almost overwhelming desire to strike out? Yet our control, our strength of character has prevented us from crossing that line.


Again I'm missing the point. I almost won the lottery once, I didn't though. If I was to take this at value and I will, I think this says more about society role against the propensity for violence than it does as a cause for abuse. Remember, abusive males are FAR outweighed by those that don't abuse. Basic mathematical equation.

This post has been about the "emasculation of man. In my next post I will look at the historical aspects of man and abuse.


Socratic question 1
If violence against the spouse is all about choice, why is it that individuals repeat the offense over and over regardless of the punishment?


I have postulated that it may be genetic makeup, mental disorder or possible a disease. THAT last one I will go into more detail later.


Socratic question 2
Would you agree that some men are more civilized than others? More close to the Primitive?


Yes I do but I see no correlation between the any given amount of civility and abuse. Prince Phillip is a civilized individual and some of the things that come out are down right uncivilized.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Read that and shake your head.

Back to you semper.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs. Intrepid

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Semper’s Reply #2

Ladies and Gentlemen, before I get into my rebuttal and my commentary, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to this little tidbit.



Socratic question 1
If violence against the spouse is all about choice, why is it that individuals repeat the offense over and over regardless of the punishment?


I have postulated that it may be genetic makeup, mental disorder or possible a disease. THAT last one I will go into more detail later.


That my good friends and readers, is my argument in a ‘Nut shell” so to speak.

If it is a disease, mental disorder or the result of genetic makeup, then those that suffer from this are by definition, VICTIMS.

I shall continue on however as if my opponent did not just hand me the debate.

Emasculation:

My opponent argues that man is not being emasculated in today’s society.

Really?

Just read this expose’ to get a feel for how proud this writer is of Stay At Home Dads and how proud their wives are of them. SHEESH. My wife is proud of my work ethics, my job and how safe I make her feel, not how well I keep the bed made.

Here is the article.

Lifestyles MSN

R.W.E. said it well.

“Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. The virtue in most requests is conformity. Self reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs.” *Ralph Waldo Emerson – American Poet 1803 – 1882*

How can anyone look around them and not see the ongoing emasculation of man? From “getting in touch with our feminine side”, to the Homosexual agenda, being a man’s man has suddenly gone out of vogue.

No longer do we gather at the local drinking holes and engage in bar fights buying each other drinks afterwards. Now if someone hits us, we call the police and then our attorney.

And what of that individual that gets left behind? What if that individual reaches a breaking point and has a little less self control than the rest of us? What if he does something horrible and reacts violently towards his spouse? Is he not a victim of the society that has moved on and become more civilized, leaving him behind?

Choice:

My esteemed opponent would call it a choice. Perhaps in many ways the choice is removed for some. Yes the strong willed individual can make the choice to not strike out. Yet we are not all strong willed, we all have different breaking points where we will react violently even to non violent stimuli.

Who among us has not reacted without thinking? Without making a choice as it were? We have all known weak willed individuals that have difficulty making mundane choices throughout their day. What chance to they have of making the correct choice in such a high tension situation?
Are they not victims of a society that has placed the burden of “Being a Man” on their completely unprepared shoulders? In their ultimate moment of frustration at trying and failing to live up to the standard of manhood they believe is necessary for their spouse, or their perception of self esteem, they strike out attempting to show the world, and their spouse, that they are not less than a man. It would at times like that, seem to be their only recourse.
Are they not also victims of their perceived vision of what a man should be?

Still don’t think an abusive person can be a victim?

Psychological:

Let us examine “Temporary Insanity” and “Criminally Insane.”

The phenomenon of Temporary Insanity and Criminal Insanity are both proven and court substantiated conditions accepted throughout society and upheld on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court. Those that suffer from either of these conditions are not only considered victims, that is their psychological diagnoses. “They are the victims of this disorder.”

So a person that suffers from Temporary Insanity, no matter how brief, and strikes, abuses or assaults their spouse are by definition, victims and therefore the premise of the debate is proven by default for these individuals.

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

The cultural defect being Temporary Insanity possibly caused by emasculation, denigration or verbal abuse/assaults, combined with a substandard ability to handle stress and the cultural misconception of a role in society, and your product is…. That’s right folks…. A Victim.

Rebuttal:


My opponent would lead you to believe that we have been gelded by society and the result is abusive men. I have already shown this to NOT be the case. Let's look at this further then. Look at TV shows(societal creations) that appeal to men.


TV not with standing, (I loved the “Tool Man” by the way) it is not the “Gelding” of man that I reference, but the frustration of a society that has moved faster than the specific individual, an individual that still admires the foregone era of their forefathers and yet is forced to live in the civilization of today. Although their reactions are confusing even abhorrent to us, are they not victims in every sense of the word?

Of course they are.



My opponent will like say that these are merely TV shows. However Hollywood is a business, if it doesn't sell, it gets pulled and these shows have sold, men identify with them.


Exactly!!!!

Men do indeed identify with strong masculine examples portrayed on our televisions. Some even try and emulate them. What chance to they have? None; for real life is not a television show, real life does not have stunt doubles and retakes. Real life has spouses that tell their husbands how worthless they are and how disappointed they are in having chosen them. Combine enough verbal abuse, over a long enough period of time, with a weak personality and again you get a victim. An abuser.
Make no mistake about it, the abused are victims as well, but we can not ignore the societal phenomenon and psychological triggers that create another victim, an abuser.


That's a pretty big leap to say "violence is bound to ensue", based on a "theory"


I base my “leap” on the research of Mr. Lorenz, a far more learned individual than I.


Again the point is lost on me. Are we debating OUR society or another? I will work under the premise that it is our society for the rest of this debate. Unless it becomes clear otherwise.


We are of course debating our society, yet is it your contention that our society is pure and absent of the influence of other societies where woman are often subjugated? When these individuals are integrated into “our” society, do you suppose they leave their traditional outlooks towards women behind, or do they bring them here and become the victims of their past culture in trying to live up to ours?

Are they not victims of their heritage?


I have shown in both my posts that there is no emasculation of man. You use the term "individual's psychosis". Is that affected by an individuals mental makeup? Genetic preposition? Mental disorder? Disease?


I missed where you have “shown” or “proven” there is no emasculation of man.

I would suggest that I have in fact shown and proven otherwise.

Also I must insist that those individual you mention that may suffer from a faulty genetic preposition or mental disorder are by definition victims.


Remember, abusive males are FAR outweighed by those that don't abuse. Basic mathematical equation.


Also remember that we are not arguing amounts, just that abusers are also victims. We may not like to call them victims due to the inherent aversion most of us have for these individuals, but we also used to harbor such aversion for mental illness and those suffering birth defects. As we learn, we accept that there are those that are victims of various parts and actions of our society, and we learn to not turn our eyes from them, but accept them as victims and allow the healing to begin.

Victims of birth defects.
Victims of unusual sexual preference.
Victims of mental illness.

All victims; all previously shunned and abhorred…

Until we grew and we learned.

Abusers are also victims of society.

Thank you,

Semper



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

In my last post I detailed the flaws in the theory that the "Emasculation of Man" leads to abuse. In this post we will look at the history of man and his relationships, views with/of women.

Historical Relationships of Men and Women

Due to character count we can't go back to Adam and Eve so I will begin with the age of Chivalry, when men were men and women were glad for this. This age was dominated by men of action. Testosterone flowed. What were the views of men towards the fairer sex in this violent age?

According to the Code of Chivalry and Courtly Love:


Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Protect the innocent.

Respect women.

Be respectful of host, women, and honor.

Being obedient in all things to the commands of ladies, thou shalt ever strive to ally thyself to the service of Love.


There's much more but nowhere in this Macho age did it say anything about smacking your Lady around. In fact it was the opposite. Of course there were exceptions to the rule, Henry the 8th wasn't a good example. We do however have exceptions today.

There is a difference between "womens rights" and abuse on women. Women got the basic rights of men within the last century. Voting, etc. That doesn't mean the societies past took a light view on abusing women. In addition to the above, note that in Shakespeare's time that women were not even able to partake in productions of his plays. One of the funniest lines from Shakespeare in Love, where a woman was disguising herself as a man to be in a play and was discovered, was, "My God, that woman is a woman."

Does that mean that woman were targets for physical male dominance? Shakespeare didn't write it so. It didn't say in Romeo and Juliet, "Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou Romeo."

"Down here woman. Get thyself here now or I'll smack you around." No.

What about something closer to home. Do you think the Beaver watched as Ward gave June the back of his hand because supper wasn't on the table when he got home from a hard day?

You may ask why I keep using examples from entertainment to drive my point home. This discussion is about "societies" role on the issue of spousal abuse. What better medium than what is the norm of society?

Rebuttal #2



Originally posted by semperfortis
Ladies and Gentlemen, before I get into my rebuttal and my commentary, I would like to draw everyone’s attention to this little tidbit.



Socratic question 1
If violence against the spouse is all about choice, why is it that individuals repeat the offense over and over regardless of the punishment?

Originally posted by intrepidI have postulated that it may be genetic makeup, mental disorder or possible a disease. THAT last one I will go into more detail later.


That my good friends and readers, is my argument in a ‘Nut shell” so to speak.

If it is a disease, mental disorder or the result of genetic makeup, then those that suffer from this are by definition, VICTIMS.


I'm glad that semper agrees with me that these elements could be causal effects for abuse. He then goes on at length about what constitutes a victim. Please, we are ALL victims in some manner. My father is 300lbs and a diabetic. I'm just over 200lbs, same height and was diagnosed last year as a diabetic. One could say I'm a "victim" of genetics. It's the choices that follow that lead to how we conduct ourselves in a positive manner.

That being said, he did agree that "genetic makeup, mental disorder or possible a disease"(my words) "is my argument in a ‘Nut shell'"(his words).

Further, "If it is a disease, mental disorder or the result of genetic makeup, then those that suffer from this are by definition, VICTIMS."

Victims, victims, everywhere. The flaw in this is that it isn't pertinent to the topic. Remember what that is?

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

It's not whether they are victims, we all are to some degree, the question is does society play a role in this. I have shown many avenues where this is not the case. semper on the other hand has just reinforced my point by agreeing, "...is my argument in a ‘Nut shell" being his own words.



Originally posted by intrepidRemember, abusive males are FAR outweighed by those that don't abuse. Basic mathematical equation.



Also remember that we are not arguing amounts, just that abusers are also victims. We may not like to call them victims due to the inherent aversion most of us have for these individuals, but we also used to harbor such aversion for mental illness and those suffering birth defects. As we learn, we accept that there are those that are victims of various parts and actions of our society, and we learn to not turn our eyes from them, but accept them as victims and allow the healing to begin.

Victims of birth defects.
Victims of unusual sexual preference.
Victims of mental illness..


STOP! Let me make my own points. Remember? Societies causal effect on abusers. THAT is your point.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs. Intrepid

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Semper’s Reply #3


My dear Opponent,

You seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time trying to convince me that Spousal Abuse is wrong. I will save you the time you have been spending and assure you that I also believe that it is.

I will also assure you that I believe that anyone that engages in any self-destructive behavior, or behavior that is destructive to others, is wrong.

I will also insist that in the real world of proper psychoanalysis, if they can not stop what they are doing, they are therefore victims.

Read this article…

Seattle PI

As horrible as what transpired there, as terrible as what he did to this woman was; can we not see that this man was not thinking sanely? The indications of his psychotic behavior, ending with his suicide, are classic, and all too common in these scenarios. As much as she was a victim, so was he.

These sorts of stories are happening all over the country each and every day. No sane person, by all modern standards, acts or reacts in a manner that is so self destructive. Yet possibly because of the horror we feel at his actions and the terror the woman must feel, we can not seem to understand the pain and suffering the man is feeling inside as well.

Overview:

My opponent continues to contend that spousal abuse is incorrect behavior and a deviation from the norm. I doubt that anyone reading this debate will argue that point with him. I sure will not. Yet that is what I am getting from his presentation. That it is simple wrong behavior. How can we not see that it is far deeper and more complex?

Wrong behavior.

Our mental facilities are chock full of patients that have engaged in wrong behavior. We have been able as a society to identify these individuals as victims, and instead of putting them away and forgetting they exist, we are trying to treat them and further understand what has caused them to deviate so far from a societal norm. Thereby establishing programs to correct and not simply punish.

The serial abuser is no different. How many more thousands of abuse scenarios must end in murder suicides before we come to realize that the abuser is a victim of his own psychosis and inability to adapt to society and not simply a criminal that chooses to do wrong?

Whether the trigger of that psychosis is emasculation or domination or verbal assault, the end result is the same. A victim of external stimuli reacts outside of normal societal parameters and falls within the realm of criminal behavior.

We must remember that many criminal actions are the result of an uncontrollable psychological reaction and the perpetrators are victims as well.


Rebuttal:


Historical Relationships of Men and Women


Other than to provide substantial support for evidential triggers of deviant behavior, the historical relationships of men and women would be irrelevant, as we have already established that spousal abuse is not a societal norm.

Socratic Question #1

1. Would you not agree that do to your assertion that Spousal Abusers are not behaving in a normal fashion, they would by definition be victims of abnormal behavior?



Women got the basic rights of men within the last century. Voting, etc.


Yet even in this we subjugated women.

Socratic Question #2

2. Why do you think it is that we, as a society, gave former slaves the right to vote before we gave that right to women?


That one action alone exemplifies our inherent propensity for the subjugation of women in our society. Yet we demand that everyone, everyone adapt to this socially accepted norm, or be punished; not treated, punished.

Now again, this shows that as normal, well adapted members of society, we have no difficulty in understanding and accepting that our behavior towards women is indicative of our nature. Again I will point out that not everyone falls within that category of normal or well adjusted.


Interlude:

Spousal Abusers, as with other disorders, can be categorized into sub-categories dependant upon the individual and their environment.

Family Violent
Generally Violent/Anti-Social
Dysphoric/borderline personality

Science Direct

All however, can be traced back to various “trigger” groups, event related trauma and/or possibly genetically influenced family group dynamics.

Remember that a disproportionately large number of Spousal Abusers are “Familial Repeaters.” (Statistically all of them)

They are in fact, victims of their heritage.

Also keeping in mind, that which is a decision to you or I, may not in fact be a decision to another.

Rebuttal Continued:



You may ask why I keep using examples from entertainment to drive my point home. This discussion is about "societies" role on the issue of spousal abuse. What better medium than what is the norm of society?


Are you really going to back the presumption that entertainment is the NORM of society?

Come on!


Please, we are ALL victims in some manner.


Does this in anyway detract from the premise of the debate? Just because we are all victims in one way or another, does not eliminate an abuser from being a victim. In point of fact, it reinforces my position and establishes again my proposition.
At what point did we begin to only debate certain values of victim?



It's not whether they are victims, we all are to some degree, the question is does society play a role in this. I have shown many avenues where this is not the case.


On the contrary my valued opponent. In supporting my case of past historical abuse, you have substantiated my position.

As we have both established that historically, spousal abuse was much more prevalent and accepted, it is the changing of that societal norm that has caused these abusers to suddenly become criminal. To become the victims of society.

Simply an equation:

A couple hundred years ago if “Joe” beat his wife, he would not be arrested for it.

Society changed.

Now “Joe” beats his wife and he is a criminal.

“Joe” just became a victim of society.

That my friend is logical and unavoidable and sadly undeniable.


Summation:

As Society progresses we begin to understand that it is “our” actions that are causing much of the damage and psychological destabilizing we see in many areas of our persona. We are just coming to understand the complexities of human sexuality, childhood and adult relationship variables. Yet we still resist the term victim in regards to those actions that repel our senses.

If all we do is to continue to punish those that can not, for whatever reason, adapt to our societal standards, we will forever be plagued by their anti-social actions.

If we can bring ourselves past our prejudices and understand they are victims of our society, we can begin the healing process and possibly eradicate this cancer from our society forever.

Thank you

Semper



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Clinical Reasons for Spousal Abuse

The topic being discussed is that society has placed an influence on individuals that causes them to react violently to their mate. To date I have shown the positive historic value that men placed on women, that "emasculation" of men is just a "theory". Now I will point out that it isn't society that places these men in a position to abuse but a much more personal aspect that causes this.

There are some that are predisposed to spousal abuse due to internal factors. Be it psychological factors, as my opponent has already attested to:


Originally posted by semperfortis

I will also insist that in the real world of proper psychoanalysis, if they can not stop what they are doing, they are therefore victims.

Read this article…

Seattle PI

As horrible as what transpired there, as terrible as what he did to this woman was; can we not see that this man was not thinking sanely? The indications of his psychotic behavior, ending with his suicide, are classic, and all too common in these scenarios.

*snip*

My opponent continues to contend that spousal abuse is incorrect behavior and a deviation from the norm. I doubt that anyone reading this debate will argue that point with him. I sure will not. Yet that is what I am getting from his presentation. That it is simple wrong behavior. How can we not see that it is far deeper and more complex?


Yes, that is horrible and I agree that it's "far deeper and more complex". BUT is it society that has forced this man and others like him to act in this manner or was it a personal psychosis, as you have pointed to? If so, society had NO effect on this person. He would have done the same regardless of if he was in Washington state or a biodome. Psychosis is as psychosis does.

What about the disease of Alcoholism? Is it created by society or is it just a disease? If so the point is then moot. The debate being that "society" is to blame for creating what my opponent calls "victims". Let's look at Alcoholism:


* Craving: A strong need, or compulsion, to drink.

* Loss of control: The frequent inability to stop drinking once a person has begun.

* Physical dependence: The occurrence of withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, shakiness, and anxiety, when alcohol use is stopped after a period of heavy drinking. These symptoms are usually relieved by drinking alcohol or by taking another sedative drug.

* Tolerance: The need for increasing amounts of alcohol in order to get "high."

Alcoholism has little to do with what kind of alcohol one drinks, how long one has been drinking, or even exactly how much alcohol one consumes. But it has a great deal to do with a person's uncontrollable need for alcohol.

This description of alcoholism helps us understand why most alcoholics can't just "use a little willpower" to stop drinking. He or she is frequently in the grip of a powerful craving for alcohol, a need that can feel as strong as the need for food or water.


alcoholism.about.com...

One may ask, why is this important? Because this disease incrementally increases the likelihood of a person abusing their spouse.


The results showed that those classified as the heaviest drinkers (22 or more drinks per week) were 66 percent more likely to abuse their spouses than those classified as abstainers. In addition, self-reported moderate (8 to 14 drinks per week) and heavy drinkers (15 to 21 drinks per week) were three times as likely, and light drinkers (1 to 7 drinks per week) were twice as likely, as soldiers who report they typically consume less than one drink per week, to be drinking during the time of the abuse event.


alcoholism.about.com...

66% more likely to abuse their spouse whether drinking or not? I don't have the character count to post most of that article but I recommend reading that article, the info there shows a DIRECT corollation between the disease of Alcoholism and abuse. The disease that ISN'T a produce of society. It's just a disease.

In fact society has made strides to help those that suffer from this, as opposed to being the cause. See AA, Al-anon, Al-ateen, etc. While my opponent still uses the word "victim" for these people, as he must due to the debate, even he acknowledges this:


Our mental facilities are chock full of patients that have engaged in wrong behavior. We have been able as a society to identify these individuals as victims, and instead of putting them away and forgetting they exist, we are trying to treat them and further understand what has caused them to deviate so far from a societal norm. Thereby establishing programs to correct and not simply punish.


Society is doing all that it can for these people, not creating an environment that is creating abusers, which is the focus of this debate.



Originally posted by intrepidIt's not whether they are victims, we all are to some degree, the question is does society play a role in this. I have shown many avenues where this is not the case.



On the contrary my valued opponent. In supporting my case of past historical abuse, you have substantiated my position.

As we have both established that historically, spousal abuse was much more prevalent and accepted, it is the changing of that societal norm that has caused these abusers to suddenly become criminal. To become the victims of society.


No, I showed that anyone could use what they wish to perceive to deem themselves a victim. Aside from the psychotic, the option of "choice" still comes into play. Even with the psychotic that doesn't mean that society has played a part in making them abusers. You have said as much.

As far as history goes, that being the focus of my 3rd post here, men have NOT been abusers of women any differently than the occasional anomaly. Please reread that, the point may have been missed.

Is society at fault or is it helping?

From my previous sources(please read them all, they really tell the tale):


Domestic violence is a significant and preventable cause of injury to women. The majority of cases involve violence perpetrated by a male partner, and heavy drinking has also been implicated as a risk factor.


alcoholism.about.com...

This study being done on soldiers. I'm pretty sure they aren't "emasculated". So it's "preventable".


While some people are able to recover without help, the majority of alcoholic individuals need outside assistance to recover from their disease. With support and treatment, many individuals are able to stop drinking and rebuild their lives.

Many people wonder: Why can some individuals use alcohol without problems, while others are utterly unable to control their drinking? Recent research supported by NIAAA has demonstrated that for many people, a vulnerability to alcoholism is inherited.


alcoholism.about.com...

That means there is a "choice" available, most times with help. Help from who? Not likely the family, as the bold points out that could be "inherited". Who's helping then? Society? Who's the good guy now?

I did not ignore your Socratic questions. #1 is answered in this post. The second doesn't apply in this debate. See Jim Crow laws.

In my summation I will tie all of these aspects together to make the picture even more clear that society isn't creating "victims" but are creating an environment to help individuals that "choose" to avail themselves of the options to NOT abuse their spouses.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs. Intrepid

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Semper’s Closing:

No rebuttal, no dragging out mistakes my opponent has made, only a summation and request for common sense.

My opponent has attempted to say that abusers may be victims, but not necessarily of society. But look at the topic of the debate and you will understand that we are not arguing about society. The topic is clear; Cultural Defects.

Common Sense:

If a man comes here from a different culture, one where violence against women is not only accepted but expected, and is punished here for acting in a manner completely acceptable within his cultural heritage, he is a victim of “Cultural Defects.”

Pure and Simple.

All too often a man is raised in an abusive family environment, where day in and day out during his formative years, he is subjected to abuse, right or wrong he matures thinking, at least subconsciously, that this is a relationship. He enters a relationship as an adult. Knowing consciously that abuse is wrong, still in a moment of high stress he acts/reacts as his upbringing has taught him and he strikes out. He is arrested.

He is a victim of cultural defects.

Abuse is a horrible fact of society. Abusers are looked on with scorn and contempt, as much for a lack of self control as the actions they commit. As such we will all hesitate to “call” them victims. Yet victims they are, no matter how much you or my opponent may recoil at the indication.

My opponent will tell you it is a choice and one that “we” do not all make. I present to you that so is picking up a bottle and drinking to excess. In point of fact, drinking until death. A choice? You bet ya’. Are they victims of the disease alcoholism? Absolutely.

Their choice to pick up a bottle has rendered them victims. The one sure fact is that they could no more “choose” to not drink, than an abuser can “choose” to not hit.

These are all pure and simple, factual examples of “victims of cultural defects”. We may not like it. It may not “set” well with us. Yet it is undeniable.

During this debate we have discussed many different ideas and propositions. My opponent has even brought television into the mix. We have discussed society, psychological issues and all sorts of victimization. My opponent even chose to not follow the guidelines for Socratic Questions,

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceeded by a direct answer.
which as the questions answer would have wonderfully illustrated a point I was making, I don’t blame him. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

We must accept that as a society we often learn from mistakes. Can anyone argue this?

Not too long ago, we reviled and persecuted alcoholics. Many of us still do in many ways. We are just coming to learn about the disease and how those afflicted are victims of a culture virtually swimming in alcohol. Do they qualify as victims of the cultural defects of society? Well of course they do.

Heck, there was even a time in our recent past when a child born with birth defects was considered a product of something evil. We would not call them victims then because we were repulsed by them until we learned, learned that they are victims. Victims of a culture of prejudice and superstition.

We are just starting to learn the awesome effect the individual cultures we grow up in have on our adult lives. Even the Bible says this. “Train up a child in the way he should go, and he will not depart from that.” As true as this is in proper rearing of a child, it is equally as true in the opposite. Teach a child to be wrong and he will be wrong as an adult.
Children learn from watching what we as adults do.

If the child’s culture is such that they are exposed to abuse, they will most certainly grow to abuse.

They will become victims of their culture. Victims, pure and simple.



Now, I have shown you where an abuser may in fact be a victim of psychological trauma or disease.

I have shown where an abuser can be the victim of a society that has moved on past his ability to keep up with civilization.

I have shown where an abuser can be the victim of their former culture; one where it is accepted that a man should physically punish his wife, yet here they are punished for their actions. Becoming victims.

I have shown were abusers can be victims of levels of frustration we can only imagine; suffering the emasculation that society forces upon them.

I have shown where abusers can be victims of a violent human nature that resides in us all, but is far stronger, more prevalent and closer to the surface in many.


I have shown where many, in fact the vast majority of abusers, are VICTIMS of being raised in a family atmosphere of abuse; therefore becoming abusers as a natural course of the human element of learning through example.

Criminally Insane, Temporary Insanity, psychological trauma, cultural heritage, upbringing, on and on and on. All victims in one way or another, but assuredly, all victims.

I think that we must consider this:

Every single aspect of what makes, what creates an abuser, is also the attributes of what creates an alcoholic. How can we with any common sense argue that an alcoholic is a victim, which we all know to be true, and an abuser not, when the triggers, the foundations, the root causal elements are the same?

Simple and factual:

We may be repulsed by it, but an abuser is definitely the victim of cultural defects.

We may want to deny it, to avoid it, even to pretend it does not exist, yet it remains; that huge nasty black eye on civilized man. The abuser. A victim of cultural defects as I have proven again and again.

What you can take away from this debate is a better understanding of the psychological makeup and possible reasons that abusers exist.

What I have provided you is a list of numerous reasons abusers are victims, all factual and all relevant to the debate.

What you can not deny, is this:

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

When I started this debate, I was convinced that I would again be arguing a side I was not confident with, my research and the formulation of this debate have definitely changed my mind.

I am convinced that the debate topic is true on its face and I am positive that as you have read this debate, you must also come to this conclusion.

Thank you,

Semper



posted on Feb, 27 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I would like to thank my opponent for this lively debate, it was fun. I would also like to thank those that took the time to read it, that's why we do these debates. I hope we did the topic justice and entertained you as well.

Before I get into my summation I would like to note that yes, I did lapse in a matter of protocol. While I have answered ALL of my opponents challenges I didn't answer one of his questions in the proper format. I apologize to the judges as they are to be the ones that will have to determine if that is a large or small matter when considering this debate and the content therein.

"Spousal abuse is as much a product of cultural defects as individual ones, and therefore both the abused and abuser can be considered victims".

Summation

I have contended all along that spousal abuse is a matter of choice, not a product of society's influence. There is not a historical basis for abuse, in fact, as shown, men of a manly age actually were the defenders of the "fairer sex". That would be the post entitled Historical Relationships of Men and Women.

My opponent has postulated that the "emasculation of man" in our times has contributed to spousal abuse. I have shown this "theory" to be without merit. In fact man has NOT been "emasculated", this is evidenced by society and the reflection of it in the media. See my post entitled Emasculation of Man. We are no different than we ever were. There ARE anomalies though, as there has always been.

I have also put forth that there are contributing factors, personal factors, medical/psychological factors that come into play when abuse happens. The example of Alcoholism is a REAL, VALID explanation for this behavior. An alcoholic is 66% more likely to abuse a spouse, whether drunk or not. See my post entitled
Clinical Reasons for Spousal Abuse
. Because a person has a disease does that mean that it's societies fault for causing a spouse to be abused? THAT is the meat of this debate.

I have also shown that society is there for those that choose help, therapy, AA and it's many offshoots, jail/rehabilitation even. Society is wanting to help those that have a lack of control due to an illness/psychosis. semper agrees:


Originally posted by semperfortisOur mental facilities are chock full of patients that have engaged in wrong behavior. We have been able as a society to identify these individuals as victims, and instead of putting them away and forgetting they exist, we are trying to treat them and further understand what has caused them to deviate so far from a societal norm. Thereby establishing programs to correct and not simply punish.


He still calls them victims, he has to, but the fact remains that society is there to assist those that make poor choices and give them another chance. Societies influence creates victims?

semper also pointed out an important fact:


Originally posted by semperfortisJust because their reaction is not one that we condone, we can not simply dismiss it as a “choice.” Not with the relative high percentage of repeat offenders.


The bold is mine. Interesting fact here. Repeat abusers? Yes, that IS a fact. semper has postulated that some are "victims of heritage". They learned to abuse because Daddy did, in another country. While it was decided that we were talking about our society, not another, I will still answer this. Say if someone was from an eastern European nation immigrated here and these actions were perpetrated, that might be understandable. However, as semper pointed out, there are "repeat offenders. They didn't make the CHOICE to avail themselves of the assistance that western society has made readily available. And that is just talking about those few immigrants. It doesn't address the majority that are born and raised here.




Socratic question 1
If violence against the spouse is all about choice, why is it that individuals repeat the offense over and over regardless of the punishment?


Posted by intrepidI have postulated that it may be genetic makeup, mental disorder or possible a disease. THAT last one I will go into more detail later.


That my good friends and readers, is my argument in a ‘Nut shell” so to speak.

If it is a disease, mental disorder or the result of genetic makeup, then those that suffer from this are by definition, VICTIMS.


My opponent doesn't get the point. A disease does not a victim make. Call a sufferer of MS a victim. Call a person with CP a victim. They'll go ballistic and you might even get a call from the ACLU. People with a disease are NOT victims.

I have NEVER in this debate stated that abusers are victims. I HAVE said that we all, on some level, are victims of something. It is making the choices that are given to us that determines the outcome. From one of the previous sourced material that I provided:


Domestic violence is a significant and preventable cause of injury to women. The majority of cases involve violence perpetrated by a male partner, and heavy drinking has also been implicated as a risk factor.


alcoholism.about.com...

Preventable? Seems like there is some influence here. All one has to do is make the right CHOICE.

The bottom line here is that we ALL have to make choices. Will they be productive or destructive? THAT is up to the individual. The avenues are open to all. The individual has to decide for themselves.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Intrepid has won. Judges comments:


Semperfortis had an early lead. Once I got over the unfortunate association of strongly pro-masculine ideologies with facism, I had to grant that for the first two posts he was carrying the point that recent changes in culture were creating new stresses, which definately can evoke a primal response.

But halfway through the debate his argument really began to self destruct. It didn't look like intrepid had necessarily "laid a trap" for him to talk into, but the effect was pretty much the same. When semperfortis began to speak of abusers as victims of insanity, etc in response to Intrepid's suggestion that it could be a disease, he essentially began arguing for his opponent's position, because those are personal weaknesses, not collective ones, even if they are personal weaknesses which the abuser cannot necessarily help.

Of equal importance, Intrepid finally managed to strike back at the idea of cultural change by citing chivalry, and there was also a little something to be said for rhetorical value of picturing romeo threatening to smack juliet around.

The late decision to develop the idea of individuals who move from one culture to another seemed to be a tacit admission by semperfortis that he had lost track of his topic for a post or two and needed to get back on message.

Ultimately the question to judge was whether abusers represent the toll taken by a collective weakness, or whether they are the weak links that break under common stresses.

There seemed to be an agreement between the opponents that these individuals had some kind of personal weaknesses- a low tollerance for stress, a bad temperment, not enough athletic activity, an inability to "fit in" with society, etc. That made Intrepid the winner.

I also can't help noting that in the end, the biggest problem with the topic wasn't the unpopularity of semperfortis' position: it was the contrast of groups with individuals. The topic all but forced semperfortis to make generalized characterizations of our society and culture, but left Intrepid free to focus on how individuals act, which can seem much more concrete even when tenuous characterizations are made about them.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 05:45 AM
link   
INTREPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CONGRATULATIONS ...................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What a GRAND and WONDERFUL debate.

Intrepid you know that I have filed a grievance with the International Debate Judging Committee in Switzerland and am simply awaiting a reply on my request for an appeal. OK... Maybe not....

intrepid, this was a well fought and comprehensive debate. As we talked after the debate and discussed my strategy, you can see by the Judge comments, it BACKFIRED...
:bnghd: while you continued to hold your course and won the day..

I am exceptionally glad to be the first one awake and on the thread this morning to congratulate you on your win. It is well deserved and well earned...

Just remember during the Tournament, I now have a grudge, so beware!!!


Semper



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Thanks semper. Helluva debate if I may say. More later, I just got up and I'm a little shocked.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
There we go, coffee and breakfast done. Much thanks to semper, he pushed HARD. That's what we need to improve. Close, DAMN close debate. I hope everyone enjoyed this.

Tourny up semper.



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Oh you better believe I am coming out with gloves off now....

IT'S ON!!!



Semper



posted on Mar, 2 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Great work guys.

I want to share publically the same praise I gave semper via u2u, which is that although I've seen abusive men in action time and again, courtesy of some bad decisions made by my mother, Semperfortis represented a very controversial point of view without seeming in any way offensive, and I did find myself questioning the nature of things that I was certain I knew all about. That's the mark of a great debate.

Intrepid was great too. Talk about slow and steady wins the race- I know from experience that sometimes you can outsmart yourself by making an argument too complex- Intrepid was consistent and concise and just kept tossing out the right alternative explanations and choosing the right hills to fight on.


My favorite moments:


"Romeo, Romeo, where for art thou Romeo."

"Down here woman. Get thyself here now or I'll smack you around."



and although the preceeding quote was big enough to steal some of the bite:

STOP! Let me make my own points. Remember? Societies causal effect on abusers. THAT is your point.


I couldn't help but think of Ronald Reagan: "There you go again Mr. President".



posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Mr 'trep, big congrats my friend. The day has come where the almighty semper has finally fallen. Rejoice!


I came close.. but unfortunately we're talking about the debate forum and not hand grenades or horse shoes. So close doesn't cut it. Good work guys.

While you two are busy going back and forth, I'll rearrange my member area to slot that nifty little debate flag in.

Carry on...




posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Is this where all that have fallen to the mighty sword of the grandiose semperfortis collect in order to hail the now legendary example of the hailed " 'trep"?

Congrats Intrepid....a well fought battle this one was!

Semper indeed made you fight for it...

As for close calls with the debate master, chissler,....*cough*...


Don't forget the Pine Sol....it has a really nice smell and will leave you at least something when you find that area still empty after the tourney.




Originally posted by semperfortis
Just remember during the Tournament, I now have a grudge, so beware!!!


Grudge? Look what you left in your wake!




posted on Mar, 4 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
AHHHHHH Chissler my Friend....

It is good to dream is it not?

Personally I think that flag looks perfect right where it is and you can be assured, I will fight to keep it there..


If anyone, and I MEAN IF anyone does win it from me, it will be well earned...


Yes, Memoryshock, I stop on occasion to mourn those I have soundly bashed on my way up the ladder.

ALL WILL COME TO FEAR....

OH OK, You guys know me well enough to know I can't pull that one off..


It was an excellent debate and most enjoyable. Thank you all for your praise it means a lot coming from the great fighters on this board and I feel humbled to be friends with you all.

I told intrepid that even after reading it through a couple more times, I can't see where I could have added or removed anything. Like all of my debates, I learned somethings though that I will carry into future tournaments.

Semper





top topics
 
2

log in

join