Hitting a girl is okay in self defense

In Self-Defense This debate is about whether it's okay for a man to hit a woman in self-defense, not whether it's okay for a man to assault a woman in general. The words "in self-defense" describe a very specific set of circumstances. Although the exact legislative wording depends on the jurisdiction, the basic idea is always that a man is acting with violence to defend himself and for no other reason. In particular, the following conditions need to be true for it to be self-defense. (1,2)1. The threat must be immanent.If a woman beats up a man and then stops, climbs off him, gets her bag and starts looking for her car keys, and he takes the opportunity to punch her, then that's not self-defense, it's retaliation. Even though she hit him, because she'd stopped, there was no longer immanent threat and so it's plain assault. That kind of circumstance isn't covered by the resolution.2. The man must reasonably believe he's under threat of harmCon describes weak women who are incapable of injuring a man. If that is true, then there is no reasonable evidence of a threat and if a man hit a woman in those circumstances it would not be self-defense but plain assault, and of course it would not be okay.The resolution only circumstances where the man is under threat of injury or sexual assault (or death, but that is excluded from this debate).3. The response must be proportionate.For it to be self-defense, the act of violence must be sufficient to remove the threat and no greater. In round 2, Con said,“Quite honestly if a girl punches you in the face you'll probably walk away with a bloody lip at worse. Punching them back will leave them unconscious laying on the floor.”Such a response would be disproportionate. If a man was in immediate danger of getting a blood lip, it would be okay to defend himself - maybe by hitting her hands away - but not to the extent of knocking her unconscious. That would be disproportionate violence and therefore plain assault rather then self-defense.Therefore, if a man is hitting in self-defense, it means by definition that a milder response could not be reasonably expected to protect him. For instance, if he could avoid injury easily by holding a woman's wrist, and instead he hit her, then that would not be acting in self-defense because the response is disproportionate.Difference in StrengthBecause this debate is about self-defense, Con's arguments about women tending to be weaker than men are simply irrelevant. Being weaker just means being less likely to present a threat, which means that the circumstances of self-defense are less likely to apply, or if they do apply, the proportionate response required is likely to be milder - such as hitting or pushing someone away rather than knocking them unconscious, for example.However, sometimes men can be weak - they might be sick, injured, or frail. Women could be armed and the man could be unarmed, or there could be other circumstances that put the man at a disadvantage and he might find himself in imminent danger of being harmed by a woman. On such an occasion, it's okay for him to act to protect himself, and that may mean hitting back. As I said last round, it's not only okay to protect himself, but I think a man should protect himself to avoid injury.Hitting, smacking, striking, slappingCon argues that hitting someone's arm to deflect a weapon doesn't really count as "hitting"."Hit" means to come into contact forcefully with something or to strike (3). That covers hitting someone's arm away when they are trying to stab you.In any case, because of the rule about proportionate response, to hit in self-defense only includes situations were it is proportionate to the threat.(1) http://www.shouselaw.com...(2) http://criminal.findlaw.com...;(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;