It Should be Legal in the U.S. to Occasionally Hit Someone

It is a a great pleasure to debate you, feverish. I apologize again for the forfeited round. I hope this argument will be good enough to make up for the one I had to forfeit. "There are probably other examples but I will not take the semantic route of invalidating a resolution that calls for the instigation of laws that already exist. I will instead debate my opponent on his opinions. In any case my opponent's definitions make it clear that he advocates delivering blows against just "some person" from "time to time" which covers just about any instance of provoked or unprovoked hitting." I knew you were going to say something like that. However, I believe I made it quite clear what I was talking about with my arguments. So no, I do not advocate delivering blows to anyone by anyone at any time. There are obvious instances where hitting should not be legal. I bring you back to what I said: "Of course, there should be other limitations, such as instances were the action becomes addicting." Other restrictions should also apply, such as when the person being hit is defenseless, etc. "If people were given license to wander around delivering blows to random people who happen to annoy them, the world would be a worse place." Here my opponent makes a unsupported statement of opinion, which I disagree with. On the contrary, I believe the world would be a better place, as annoying people would quickly learn to not be annoying. This would virtually eliminate all human annoyances on earth. I would say that would make the world a better place. 1) Hitting does indeed relieve stress for the hitter. I had assumed this was a generally accepted fact. Simply exercising muscles will go a long way in reducing stress.[1] Hitting is excellent exercise. Hitting will especially deflate stress if you hit an annoying person, as they will be in too much pain to continue to be annoying. Also, if you hit someone hard enough you won't have to worry about them pulling out a gun on you. 2) My opponent has conceded my original point that hitting can teach someone. All his other points are irrelevant, or statements of unsupported opinion. 3) So what if fights generate more fights? Fights toughen the body. More fights, more toughness. Men should be able to deal with their problems in a way that aids all. Fistfights are an excellent method of doing this; both men eventually come to an agreement, walking away from the ordeal with a measure of respect for each other. 4) My opponent has not even tried to refute this point, instead providing an impractical substitute. 5) If the 'thoughtful' and 'enlightened' are not intelligent enough to avoid fights were they will get pwned, then they do not deserve to reproduce. And violence is not 'rewarded'. It is allowed to a certain extent, but not rewarded. 6) Your point, while a good one, does not really address my point. I showed that hitting may be mutually beneficial to both the hitter and the person being hit. I have shown many instances where hitting is beneficial to both. Hitting does not violate the American doctrine so long as both parties involved are able to defend themselves; otherwise it would be abuse. "If my opponent really thinks that hitting is acceptable, I can only assume that either he has never taken a good beating himself or he has taken one too many and is suffering from mild brain damage." With this statement my opponent has shown that he has failed to understand all of my arguments, as he does not know why I support this just cause. True it may be that I have never taken a good beating, this is only because no one would dare do something like that to me. However, I have myself given quite a few good beatings to others. "I'm not a big guy but I'm a grown man and my opponent is a 14 year-old youth, if I lamped him in the head I think he would (rightfully) want me to be punished." If you lamped me on the head, I would want you punished. However, I would prefer to punish you in my own way, instead of having to go to the government with my problem. It would be much more satisfying for me. Heh-heh-heh... My opponent has barely touched my arguments. I have given six good points as to why hitting should be legal in the U.S., and my opponent has failed to refute all of them. He has mingled with his arguments personal speculation as well as statements of opinion, while I have demonstrated my point with clear logic and facts. I recommend a Pro ballot. People these days are far too wary of physical contact. I have always thought this ridiculous, because of all the benefits I have listed. If it is legal to orally devastate someone, why is it that punching someone, which would cause no permanent damage, can result in years of jail time? On that note I end my argument. [1] http://training.fitness.com...