Hitting a girl is okay in self defense

I stated in round 1 the BOP was shared in this debate. That's honestly how I believe the BOP should fall in this type of situation and my opponent hasn't contested that. It's not enough for him to find a few exceptions to the rule. If generally speaking it' wrong to hit a girl in self defense than I win. My opponent has to show that the majority of the time it's okay to hit a girl in self defense. It's obvious from how this debate played out that we're arguing whether a man generally speaking should hit a woman when being attacked. Here is what I said in round 1 and that my opponent agreed to by accepting this debate;"So let's keep life or death circumstances or any situation that is obscure and unlikely to happen in real life or extremely rare out of it. " Despite making this extremely clear here is what my opponent mentioned in round 2 even after I mentioned that his round 1 arguments were inappropriate' "she could be playfullly punching him as a bet at a party and accidentally kill him (1); she could hit him with a shoe and accidentally kill him (2). Life is fragile. " Most of the time when a girl is playfully hitting you it's not a life or death siuation. It's clear that balling up your fists and hitting her in this situation would be inappropriate nd probably get you jail time. This also falls into the unlikely and extremely rare scenario I urged pro not to use in round 1 and then again in round 2. He follows up this ridiculous nonsense with the following quote. "if the woman has a large number of pets and she has amputated a leg from each of them, but they are otherwise happy and well cared for, then her past behavior lends credence to the theory that she wants to do the same to her boyfriend," Again not only is this argument absurd it violates the guidelines mentioned in round 1 and reemphasized in round 2. Besides that my opponent needs to make a case for why a man hitting a girl in self defense is generally okay, something he has not done. My opponent has approached this debate as if I have the full BOP and that jus isn't sufficient enough for him to win. The following sentence is as good as a concession from my opponent; "I agree with Con that large differences in strength and threat should be considered when judging the morality of hitting in self-defense" This is a concession. I showed that generally speaking men are stronger than women and my opponent says that generally it should be taken into consideration. My opponent can only really point to some exceptions to the rules but since BOP is shared he has to show that generally speaking hitting a woman in self defense is okay. "Therefore, when considering strength difference, it should be based on the individuals concerned. A healthy 25-year-old female kickboxer could easily assault and harm a 75-year-old disabled man who is recovering from surgery. " This is likely a life or death scenario and it is by far something that will rarely if ever happen. "I say that it would be okay to hit her arm to deflect the weapon. That deflection may give him the opportunity to escape uninjured. " Now my opponent is actually trying to redefine hit. This is called smacking the arm away a hit actully involves striking somebody and in this context punching somebody. knocking a girl's arm out of the way doesn't qualify. Conclusion My opponent hasn't showed that generally speaking it's okay to hit a girl in self defense. He has failed to meet his BOP.