The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A serial killer is usually more intelligent than a serial rapist.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/1/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 79253
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Round one is either for acceptance or Con's opening case. I dont' mind which because I'll be winning this either way. ;)


Thank you for this odd debate I will just be accepting this round but prepare for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Killing is, simply put, the more rational, efficient and terrifying outlet for a psychopath to use to feel like the great monster they want to become famous for being (or unknown for being but enjoy being).

Rape, unless ended with kills each time, if done regularly to the same type of victim puts a target on the back slower than the serial killer's victims will put one on theirs. On the other hand, the ability to track a killer who is using gloves and basically leaving zero traces of who they are or where they come from is phenomenally harder than a rapist. Rape could work if you used chloroform and gang raped, or just self-raped the victim in a 'dungeon' room of sort and ensured they left the room with no mark of you on it and you didn't ejaculate onto them or they definitely swallowed it if it was in their mouth but overall it's far more prone to leaving traces of some kind and location wise- killing can be done at a variety of locations, ape has to be done somewhere where no one else is around and you have to keep the victim form making noise if people are around for far longer than a serial killer does.

So despite kill victims being a more efficient fast warning signal for a serial killer to be caught, rape is a far easier tracked crime back to the criminal.

Another factor is the learning and mastering if weapons and combat is far more difficult intellectually than mastering drugging someone and abusing them once they’re already tied up. Some serial killers drug their victims first to make it easier but may need their victims sober for the simple thrill of the chase. There is far more demanding training to be an amazing serial killer than there is to be an amazing serial rapist.

Both serial killers and serial rapists obsess over a particular ‘type’ of victim. They have some nightmare(s) from childhood that they need to get the hell over but can’t. Killing that person is a far more understandable way to ‘get back’ at the world and also ensure no one is left alive who knows that filthy part of you exists while raping them is frankly just barbaric and doesn’t ‘get back’ at anyone other than the one you’re raping. Killing is in itself symbolic to begin with as it’s only going to really harm those alive who knew the people the long run. Raping just targets that victim type and irrationally tries to solve the unsolvable (the trauma of the persons’ childhood).

Serial killers tend to train form the get go in life. A dead rabbit here, a dead dog there but serial rapists first practice on the actual real human victims… That’s a major problem. They not only have never done it before and may fail to complete the rape but the person may themselves be a serial rapist or killer and take revenge on them. On top of this the fact they don’t kill is horrendously irrational, that victims can run and tell any time they want. Serial killers can target both animals and humans as well as both people they know well and people they barely know. Rapists can only target either people who barely know them or people so mentally weak it’s simply pathetic and not a fair fight to begin with.

Take the average serial killer and put them in a ring with a serial rapist. The rapist has a great early game, overpowering the killer, grappling like a bear and pingnign them down in no time utnilt he killer says 'okay mate, time to show you real martial arts', and has snapped their neck with their feet jumping up from the floor in no time.



jlara00 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


He's alive... I swear... >.>


I am arisen from the dead! Anyways I was busy and forgot. So, Killings all you need to do is plan when and where to kill someone then when and where to put the body. It is complicated but a rapist has to worry about DNA evidence left, how to keep her/him silent, whether or not to let them win, and if you kill them then you need to find a when/where to get rid of the body. Both are complicated but you need more brains to rape a person then you do to murder someone.
Debate Round No. 3


Tough forfeited this round.


Well thank you for the debate but I guess I will end this jut saying. A serial rapist would have to have more brains than serial killer. Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
Yep. IQ of serial killers is only 93.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
@Lexus: The IQ's of serial killers are actually below average when taken as a whole.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Probably going to be based off of IQ, because there are a lot of serial killers with higher than average IQs, and no real studies towards serial rapist IQs.
Posted by Shrektheboss 2 years ago
Why are you a rapist
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and grammar to Pro on the grounds that Con made several grammatical errors in round 3. Arguments to Pro. Neither side refuted the other, but Pro's arguments were more indepth and helped his case well more than Con's. Pro wins due to him being able to uphold BOP.