So this wonderful post got my attention: http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/1xoewa/one_billion_rising_the_un_and_who_estimate_that/ . In it the OP discusses how much he hates advocacy statistics and discards the claim of a paper from John Hopkins University.

In here, we can see the very "insightful" and "academic" two-sided debate that goes on in FeMRADebates. As we can see there are many reasoned arguments debating with the OP and not all of them are agreeing with the OP.

joly_mcfats indicates he "really want[s] to focus on how misleading Eve Ensler's quote is"

Leinadro agrees that the [feminist] states are false and goes on to say that even when they are "proved" to be false feminists will "likely switch from quoting that stat to defending the claim by saying that 'The exact numbers are not important'". According to Leinadro this is "dangerous".

avantvernacular praises the OP as conducting a "very insightful investigation" and class the academic paper an "altering of statistics and dishonest reporting".

upliftedsquid compliments the OP in his or her "nice work" and tips their fedora while giving the OP an upvote.

hrda comments that he believes the OP and that we should focus on men. eDgEIN708 replies to them saying that 100% of the men they have known were beaten.

Begferdeth, a self proclaimed neutral party, indicates that beating is a part of life in many places, discusses how many of their friends were beaten and that they agree with the OP on how shoddy the methodology of the paper is.

Seand0r asks the OP if there are any papers from the "other side" that use the same "tactics". OP replies saying they don't know of any such MRA paper that is so misleading and would be interested in seeing one.

And finally, the one and only post disagreeing with the OP. Oh wait, it's deleted by the moderators. The comment faults MRAs for not analysing GWW's and TB's claims as thoroughly. Replies vary from "we do" to "sweeping generalizations".

TL;DR: FeMRADebates is a subreddit dedicated to MRAs being able to circlejerk about how "academic" they are and how "open" they are to debate.