Physically harming your spouse, is worse than cheating on her.

"I am not going to play semantics in this debate with my opponent. He knows very well that when I mean physically harming your spouse, that I mean with purpose or intent of harming her, not accidentally stubbing her toe. This is talking about abuse." I don't want to play semantics either. You said: "I am arguing that physically hurting a spouse in any way, is worse meantally abusing your wife through cheating." It is very clear through the use of the words 'physically hurting a spouse in any way' that I was adhering to the confines of the argument by deciding to present the most minor, minimal case of physically hurting one's spouse. That is my job as the opposition. This is a debate site. One must debate within the given parameters to win the debate. "He knows very well that what I mean physically harming your spouse, that I mean with purpose or intent of harming her, not accidentally stubbing her toe." Firstly, don't assume to know what I'm thinking. I can't know your intentions because you didn't make it clear. I could've guessed it or assumed it, but I could've guessed or assumed an entire host of things in your preamble. If you mean intentional violence, you should have said intentional violence, not "physically hurting your spouse in any way." But because I'm not all about winning, and I do enjoy rational discourse, I will allowed the addendum, "...I mean with purpose or intent of harming her..." In the future though, define the parameters of your debate clearly. I lost my first debate by making the exact same mistake. My Case: Firstly, let me clarify that I am not debating for the comparison between an ongoing physically abusive relationship of years vs. infidelity (that's hardly a fair comparison). I will debate solely for a single act of intentional violence against a spouse vs. a single act of infidelity against the spouse. My opponent asserts that ' (intentionally) physically harming your spouse is worse than cheating on her.' All I have to do is present a scenario where this isn't true and I will disprove my opponent's claim. As Con, I will prove that a single act of mild (intentional) violence is not as bad as a single act of cheating on your spouse. As divorce usually happens after only a single occurrence of cheating, it is only fair that we examine a single occurrence of physical abuse. The scenario: Let us imagine a scenario where a husband and wife are in the kitchen in the middle of an argument. The wife gets angry with her husband and in a fit of passion she slaps him across the face. The husband is shocked and sits in stunned silence as his wife storms off. (Here is another scenario where a husband slaps his wife in which the marriage continues happily and they resolve their differences with ease. http://www.newvision.co.ug...) This is a single instance of physical violence, but we see it all the time in modern media and news http://www.newvision.co.ug.... It is depicted in television, movies and can even be seen in our own homes. This sort of violence, once the spouse has calmed down, can be sorted out, forgiven and the couple can move on with their lives. Now let us imagine a scenario where a husband and wife are in the kitchen and the wife, amidst a flood of tears, says that she has cheated on her husband (only once and once is all it takes). Let me refer you to the statistics that my opponent has provided: 63% cases of divorce are due to infidelity. This single act of betraying the spouse's trust leads to the dismantlement of a relationship, a love and a family. Here are some other effects of divorce: --Nearly 50% of couples fall into poverty after a divorce (http://www.articlesbase.com...) --Grief --Guilt --Anxiety --Anger (http://www.livestrong.com...) -- Can lose rights to see your kids. There is no need to go on. While a single act of mild intentional violence can be forgiven with relative ease, the same cannot be said for a single act of intentional infidelity. Divorce and breaking of trust is a very nasty business and can even lead to suicide. (http://www.shatterdmen.com...) Rebuttal: My opponent's mistake is in assuming that all people who are physically harmed in a relationship remain quiet about it, don't act out and just let the damage rain on them emotionally and physically. His mistake is also assuming that physical violence is always a trend rather than a single occurrence that both parties regret. Another mistake is in him assuming all spousal violence is directed from men to women. It is not. " Domestic violence and abuse are used for one purpose and one purpose only: to gain and maintain total control over you." This may be the case for ongoing abuse that becomes habitual. But I contend that the reason people divorce after a single case of infidelity is because they don't want to let it happen again. People who were physically assaulted have that same option. And as presented in my scenario above, domestic violence doesn't happen for only one reason. It can sometimes happen out of a fit of anger or emotion. It can be a one-off thing. The list of effects of physical violence my opponent presents are effects of an ongoing relationship of violence that has become habitual. That may be the case in such scenarios, but they are not the case in the scenario of a single act of impassioned violence that I presented. (http://www.newvision.co.ug...) So this list becomes irrelevant. "With in 5-10 years, 50-75% of all woman who have been cheated on end up getting remarried. This goes to show that suffrage from divorce is completely minor in contrast to that of physical abuse." That isn't what it goes to show necessarily. It could show that the spouse is so emotionally scarred that they need to reaffirm their attraction to potential companions. It could mean they are all very ill-willed and want to get back at a surrogate-husband. It could mean that they simply can't exist without a husband because of financial difficulties. I'm not saying any of this is true, but it is all speculation, like my opponent's assertion. My opponent says it best, "Infidelity is horrible, and leads to a broken family, divorce, lack of money, etc." And while I agree with his contention that extreme physical violence over a long period of time that has become a habitual co-dependent unhealthy relationship can be horrible too, I don't agree that all acts of physical violence are worse than all acts of infidelity. In fairness, if one takes a single case of infidelity and pits it against a single case of mild intentional violence (As I have done above), you will find that the effects of infidelity are far worse. My opponent has tried to take the most extreme case of ongoing physical violence to suit his argument. As infidelity is a single-case issue, they are incongruent. I'll assert in conclusion that if you take a single case of physical violence and compare it to a single act of infidelity, the consequences of infidelity are much more far-reaching and utterly damaging.