Should The Definition of Bullying Be Changed

Thank you for the history lesson, now lets get back on topic. We are not talking about a good way to solve bullying. We are debating about whether the bully is weaker than the victim or not. As it is, the bully is not weaker than the victim. This can be proved by looking at the characteristics that each the bully and victim encompass. The victim encompasses strength to put up with the bully and the ability to stick up for themselves in various ways(whether it be going to a teacher or "a swift kick to the groin"). Generally, a bully encompasses insecurity, which results in bullying. From seeing the differences it is obvious to tell that the victim is indeed stronger than the bully. My opponent could not even have a straight response when I asked him if he viewed himself as weaker than the bully. His response was as follows ", I accept your request and yes, my bully is stronger than myself in the aspects he/she takes advantage of." In his response he stated that the bully was stronger in the places that he took advantage of, but only in the places he took advantage of. He declines to respond to if the bully is stronger than him in all or most aspects. Due to the fact that in common cases the bully is not stronger in all or most aspects it is clear that the victim is indeed stronger than the bully. Some of these examples include intelligence, political strength, and financial strength can be why the bully instigates upon the victim. Furthermore, my opponent compares bullying to world wars, but reiterates that civil justice has "no business" in bullying cases. These individuals are criminals that should be held accountable, they are indeed weaker, which is the point I am attempting to get across. People have no right to stereotype the victim as weaker. All victims are stronger or equal to the bully. It should be obvious to my opponent that victims are stronger. My opponent also states that as a group we can take down the bully without a legal team, but I have tried with my group of friends to take down a bully in two instances. In both instances we needed to resort to action from a principle. It rarely occurs that a group of friends can take down the bully. It is not because the victims are weaker, but because the bully is relentless. His goal is to bring you down. He/she will drive you to the brink of insanity. The victim can persevere, the bully cannot. My closing argument is that the bully is not stronger than the victim. Through reading the strong evidence shown to you I know that you will agree. For my closing argument I will quote David Baldacci ", As a lawyer, as a private citizen, you see a lot of injustice. You see a lot of people who should have been punished and are not, and people who were punished wrongfully are not vindicated. Fiction is sort of a way to set the record straight, and let people at least believe that justice can be achieved and the right outcomes can occur." This quote must tell you if you want bullies to be held accountable you must pursue justice and accountability otherwise they won't be punished. At least my opponent believes that they are already punished. Civil resolution is the only way, and accountability starts with the definition.