The Instigator
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Losing
29 Points
The Contender
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

It is the fault of rape victims that rape happens

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,962 times Debate No: 16124
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (15)

 

socialpinko

Pro

BOP will be shared.

Pro will argue that it is the fault of rape victims that rapes occur.

Con will argue that it is the fault of anyone but rape victims that rapes occur.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening arguments
R3: Refutations of opponent's arguments
R4: Defending of one's own arguments and conclusions

A sense of humor is a requirement for anyone to accept this debate.

Illegalcombatant

Con

As per the rules, round 1 is for acceptance, this is me accepting.

I have no idea where this debate is going, but I am sure Pro has something in mind.

I look forward (maybe) to Pros opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Pro

Definitions

Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.[1]

Fault: esponsibility for failure or a wrongful act.[2]

Victim: a person who suffers from a destructive or injurious action or agency.[3]

Argument

Premise 1: In order for a rape to occur, some form of sexual intercourse must be forced on to a recipient. From definition

Premise 2: It is logically impossible to forcefully impose sex on a willing agent. From definition

Premise 3: To be a rape victim, one would have to be resistant to the idea of a sexual act with the rapist. From definition

Conclusion 1: Because rape victims are resistant to the idea of a sexual act with a 'rapist', rape occurs. From definition

Conclusion 2: Rape victims cause rape. From Con2

Conclusion 3: It is the fault of rape victims that rape occurs. From Con3

I await my opponent's response.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...




Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Pro for their opening argument.

Definitions

Pros definition of rape is flawed, as it does not address the issue of consent. As such I propose this addition to Pros definition of rape. Please note this is an add on to Pros definition not a replacement.

Rape = Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent [1]

CA: Premise 1: In order for a rape to occur, some form of sexual intercourse must be forced on to a recipient. From definition

This premise is wrong, its possible to rape some one without using "force" for instance some one who is asleep or passed out. This is why I added lack of consent to the definition of rape. From wikipedia........ "the act may be carried out by force, under threat, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. The term is most often defined in criminal law." [2]

Rape is possible without force, consider this excerpt from an article in The Age..... "Attorney-General Rob Hulls told The Age: "If you want to have sex, you have to ensure that your partner is agreeing to that sexual act. It's not rocket science. There's an obligation, under this legislation, to turn your mind to the issue."

Mr Hulls said the change relating to unconsciousness addressed cases in which accused claimed they did not think about consent because the victim was asleep." [3]

CA: Premise 3: To be a rape victim, one would have to be resistant to the idea of a sexual act with the rapist.

As shown above, the rape victim does not need to be resistant, the lack of consent by the victim is sufficient criteria to be a rape victim.

Both Premise 1 and Premise 3 are shown false, thus the argument is unsound. "An argument is sound if and only if The argument is valid. All of its premises are true." [4]

The rape victim is not at fault for rape

Seeing that I am required to make this argument as per rules.

1) A victim is not at fault for the crime committed against them
2) Rape is a crime
3) There fore a someone who is raped is not at fault for the rape.

The rapist is at fault for the rape

1) Rape is a crime
2) Some one who has committed a crime is at fault for that crime (absent any extenuating circumstances)
3) A rapist is some one who has committed rape
4) Therefore the rapist is at fault for that rape (absent any extenuating circumstances)

I look forward (not really) to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.theage.com.au...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Pro

Definitions

My opponent believes that my definition is flawed because it leaves out other forms of rape such as date rape where a victim may be unconscious or unable to provide consent. I am arguing about the form of rape which I have defined. I have no interest in arguing about date rape or any other type of rape which I did not define.

CA: Premise 1: In order for a rape to occur, some form of sexual intercourse must be forced on to a recipient. From definition

My opponent's only objection to this premise is that rape is not always forced as a victim may be asleep and thus be unable to provide or deny consent. I again will tell my opponent that I am arguing about the form of rape which I have defined. I realise that there is more than one type of rape but the one which I have defined is the one which I am arguing about. If I were to debate against the existence of the Christian god, evidence for the Muslim god would not be relevant.

CA: Premise 3: To be a rape victim, one would have to be resistant to the idea of a sexual act with the rapist.

Please refer to my last point which states that I am arguing about the form of rape which I defined earlier.

Looking at my opponent's argument for why the victim is not at fault for rape, my opponent says:

1) A victim is not at fault for the crime committed against them

As this is the premise which my opponent's entire argument rests on, I would ask that he defend it. I have already shown that by simply giving consent, all cases of rape as I have defined it would be prevented. Fault is defined as:

Fault: [r]esponsibility for failure or a wrongful act.

It has been shown that by allowing rape to occur, the victim is at least partly responsible for the act.

With my opponent's first premise refuted, his third inevitable falls and his argument is refuted.

The rapist is at fault for the rape

My opponent in premises 2 and 4 says that they are true "absent any entenuating circumstances". The extenuating circumstance in the case of rape would be that the victim is resistant. Without this rape would not occur and thus my and my opponent's argument can both be correct.

I await Con's response.
Illegalcombatant

Con

Definitions

Pro says "I am arguing about the form of rape which I have defined." Pro did not provide definitions in round 1, so I couldn't even look at it and challenge it till round 2.

Pro says " I realise that there is more than one type of rape but the one which I have defined is the one which I am arguing about. If I were to debate against the existence of the Christian god, evidence for the Muslim god would not be relevant."

If you were debating the existence of the Christian God you would make that clear in round 1 with your debate topic + definitions + opening arguments.

You made no such distinction about limiting "rape" to a certain "type" of "rape" in the first round.

My definition is superior, as such my refutation of Pros argument stands.

Countering Pros arguments

Pro says..."It has been shown that by allowing rape to occur, the victim is at least partly responsible for the act. It has been shown that by allowing rape to occur, the victim is at least partly responsible for the act."

Claiming that the victim of rape is responsible by allowing the rape is self refuting, as rape is an act that has not being consented too.

As part of Pro argument, they assert that the rape victim is at fault because they "resisted". Pro implies that it is wrong to resist rape ? On what basis does Pro make this claim ?

Why doesn't the victim of rape have the right to self defense ? As Wikipedia says..."Self-defense, self-defence (see spelling differences) or private defence is a countermeasure that involves defending oneself, one's property or the well-being of another from physical harm. The use of the right of self-defense as a legal justification for the use of force in times of danger is available in many jurisdictions, but the interpretation varies widely." [1]

As Pro has not justified that it is wrong to resist rape, and the rape victim is not wrong to assert self defense, this refutes Pros claim that "The extenuating circumstance in the case of rape would be that the victim is resistant". Without the extenuating circumstance the rapist is at fault.

I kinda look forward to Pros reply.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Pro

"As part of Pro argument, they assert that the rape victim is at fault because they "resisted". Pro implies that it is wrong to resist rape ? On what basis does Pro make this claim ? Why doesn't the victim of rape have the right to self defense ?"


I have never argued that the victim is not allowed to resist being raped. I am merely claiming that it is because of resistance that rape occurs. I would like my opponent to show me one example of rape as I have defined it where the person would have still been raped if they had not resisted.

My opponent tried to define rape differently as he has seen that he has lost this debate. I defined rape as:

Rape: any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

My opponent sees that he can no longer successfully argue that the victim is not at least partially responsible so he tries to add a different definition. I would like voters to use the definition which I provided and the one which I as the instigator intended for this debate to be about.

Vote Pro
Illegalcombatant

Con

Definitions

Pro says "I would like voters to use the definition which I provided and the one which I as the instigator intended for this debate to be about."

No definition of rape was provided in round 1. As such it was assumed that the general meaning of the word was being used. When it became clear that Pro was restricting what "rape" is and is not, through their definitions and arguments (Not revealed until round 2) then I challenged it.

I provided a superior definition of rape that also has legal precedent. Pro has not being able to show why their definition is superior. Pro merely asserts that by some unknown fiat that his definition of rape should be used cause he says so.

Pro blames the rape victim

Pro says "I have never argued that the victim is not allowed to resist being raped. I am merely claiming that it is because of resistance that rape occurs"

Pro acknowledges that the victim is allowed to resist rape. This shows that the rape victim has NOT committed a wrongful act by resisting the rape thus can't be at fault for the rape, as pro defined Fault as responsibility for failure or a wrongful act.

With the rape victim not committing a wrongful act by resisting rape thus they are not at fault for the rape, this refutes Pros conclusion that..."Conclusion 3: It is the fault of rape victims that rape occurs."

Have a nice day.

Vote Con.




Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
if they don't and accept what is happening, a rape wouldn't occur, so they do have a role in the definition of the sexual act. It's a subtle argument. A dumb and horrible one. Like I can't believe I'm voting that it's their fault, cuz i don't remotely believe that, but on arguments alone, pro puts forward an interesting nuance and con fails to fully grasp the nuance.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
I had a reason, I explained it so ya'll would stop being pissy.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 5 years ago
Illegalcombatant
So I get a message about this old debate having activity on it, I am like what's going on. Anyway I don't mind just gives a chance to remember fun times.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
i don't mind voting. again I really only care about votebombing, such as the last two votes.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Oh, okay, I see. Well, I have certainly been guilty of necro-bumping quite a few forum topics that were months old, but it was always done with good intentions because the topic was interesting. Anyway, Spinko, I do see your point. I see no reason to vote on an old debate if the debaters don't want any more votes, so I will refrain from voting. It was a really good interesting debate though on a very unique topic.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Since Necro is a prefix for Dead, necro-vote or necro-bump refers to voting on a debate or posting on a thread thats had no activity for a long time, making it "dead".
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
f-16, need i say more? Observe 19kadams, obvious necro vote bomb.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Maikuru, I provided the definitions first.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
It can't always be bad. I remember you were losing your abortion debate with BennyW before you posted it on a forum and a bunch of us put in legit votes and actually ended up winning. I think the main reason I wouldn't want an unlimited voting period on my debates is because I'd want to know whether I won or lost rather than be left hanging forever. Anyway, this one looks interesting. I am going to check out this debate.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
I don't think there's anything really wrong with it so long as it isn't a votebomb. And I really fvcking wish I could change the voting time on my debates, I made most of my first debates unlimited voting time which is annoying now when I get updates that someone just voted on a debate of mine from six months ago. Plus imabench's RFD isn't very substantive. Look at the first four, which actually illuminated on the reasons/
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con countered well and agreed with his statement and pro did have a good argument but his did not make sense to me but it was still good
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is sneaky. Con doesn't seem to quite grasp the crux of his argument: that if only a rape victim viewed the sexual act as accepted, then a "rape" would not have occurred. This is obviously silly, since our emotions are not under our control and thus not our "fault", but con doesn't make this argument. All of his arguments hinge on saying that rape victims "cause" rape is value negative, but the word cause is value neutral. Pro never says they can't defend themselves, just that if they don't a
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 5 years ago
ApostateAbe
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Relying on an argument that depends on an exclusive and unintuitively-specific definition of "rape," and not defining it in Round 1, Pro loses both the conduct and the argument. Seems like a jerk move, and I have no sense of humor about that.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: COn had a better argument because how can a victim make the other person do it? Con had a much better case. He also proved that, and he had sources
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering 16A's ridiculous votebomb.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate is another example of why it is essential that all definitions and rules are presented clearly in Round 1. When they are not, as was the case here, Con is free to challenge Pro's intended definitions and change the entire course of the conversation. As Con's definition was better established and more widely accepted, his case stands.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe the con had better arguments and justified how rape victims are not at fault for rapes happening. I gave him grammar because I noticed that pro had missed some punctuation....
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 5 years ago
bradshaw93
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: cancelling out vote bomb
Vote Placed by Mr.Black 5 years ago
Mr.Black
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is an idiot, sense of humor for this debate? Oh because rape is a funny topic? Grow up
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
socialpinkoIllegalcombatantTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: .