Feminists have always objected to the results of cts based studies that ask men and women the same questions because they show gender symmetry .

This is the cts . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_tactics_scale

If you cite a cts based study that has not been biased to suit the feminist narrative you will typically be given a gish gallop of reasons why the cts is not telling the full story . Most of these reasons are illegitimate .

There are limitations to the cts - for example you cannot tell from it who is initiating the DV , you cannot tell if the DV is just couples fighting, or if one of them is a persistent controlling abuser .

So to circumvent that part of the debate which is tedious as hell and one you cannot win without the studies on context, go straight to the studies that look at the context .

For example the claim that CTS is measuring women's self defense and calling it equal ...

The reverse is true, DV is female lead, its more often men acting in self defense and the CTS is hiding that fact .

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

The goal posts will be moved to injuries , the same study shows that injuries to women are best predicted by their own initiation of violence , a man hitting back, then the woman hitting back harder and on until the smaller, weaker but more aggressive one is injured .

The claim will be made that the more real abuse is Intimate Terrorism (true), where one partner is a controlling, repetitive abuser and that's male dominated (false) . They will probably cite Micheal Johnson's work , or some VAWA related office citing Johnsons work .

Micheal Johnsons work was a fraud . The first paper in this journal shows how he did it . Its called "the architecture of anti science".

http://www.responsiblerecovery.org/PDF/PartnerAbuse.pdf

The truth is that women are as or more likely to be this sort of abuser according to Johnson's definitions .

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/abstract;jsessionid=7E5976EFECE491DB47EC469461CE68F7.f04t04

Then the goal posts will be moved to deaths via DV , there is a reasonable argument to be made that the disparity wasn't there in the 1970s and is there today because women are getting off at astonishing rates (see the comments section) .

https://www.np.reddit.com/r/mensrightslinks/comments/1ytant/dvipvgovernment_homicide_trends_in_the_us/

TL/TR

Citing Martin S. Fieberts bibliography or anything thats mainly CTS based will leave you vulnerable to a long argument which you cannot win .

Citing studies that show context - who leads the DV and who is more often the Intimate Terrorist and being able to prove Micheal Johnson is a fraud is the quick and easy way to win .

Ironically, it was feminists who called for this new model of research, and its what ended the debate for them .

Also, if you have any slam dunk methods ... post them and I'll add them to mine .