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

Here are my first and final rebuttals to debunk your essay argument. 1. "Why would Domestic Violence need to occur in every household in order to exist? Can you apply this logic to other crimes? Do traffic violations for instance, not exist, as not everyone commits one? " To prove your point that it is a thing. You questioned and contradicted yourself in these questions. I'm not saying every "crime" does not exist, I am only saying that Domestic Violence is not even a real thing. You are irrelevant. Would you necessarily assume that every person should be violent or would you assume that Domestic Violence is a thing? Of course you would. 2. "Why would the existence of non-violent humans eliminate the possibility of domestic violence? There is no reason to believe this, simply because some humans are not violent, does not eliminate violence committed by others. " Why wouldn't they? Because Domestic Violence isn't a real thing. It's like asking "Why would they act to stop domestic violence? " When it isn't even a real thing to begin with. Another contradiction you committed upon yourself. 3. "Your issue with this phrasing is irrelevant, my argument is that domestic violence does exist. The state of Arizona defines domestic violence as almost any criminal act of abuse committed by one "family or household member" against another. As crime between household members occurs, I would suggest that domestic violence does indeed exist. " That is barely an argument at all, just because you use the definition and that's it, doesn't necessarily make it a strong argument. It is too late to bring sources, you plagiarised. You should've put a source in your first argument round. You didn't, therefore, I have evidence that you plagiarised. Definition is barely evidence at all because any definition alone is forged for people to get barely a glimpse of anything in a skewed perspective. What phrasing was irrelevant? Were you talking about my example of definitions. Here I quote, " just because you can define something, doesn't necessarily make it a real thing. You can define The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is still not even a real thing. " It is a good example, you can't just call everything the dictionary defines as real or fact. 4. "Nor do I suggest it does, I am merely clarifying my perspective. Each culture and country has a different take on domestic violence. " You claimed that, but you didn't name any, nor provided any example for each culture (just a few). You keep on contradicting yourself. You will surely lose this debate. Just merely clarifying your perspective is not an argument, or doesn't even make your position strong enough to defend your claims. That is all my rebuttals. Now to prove the con has the burden of proof. Con's Burden of Proof: The Con merely suggests he believes that Domestic Violence is a real thing, Then he plagiarised with a definition without a source to begin with, contradicts himself multiple times, and he has the burden of proof, he just quoted me, just not to prove his point. Here is the link to the video, I based this debate on: . https://m.youtube.com...