It should be legal to stalk someone
My opponent (Con) will argue why it should be illegal to stalk someone.
Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person.
Stalking law, like rape law, are sexist laws.
"The National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAW)... found that 8% of women and 2% of men have been stalked at some time during their lives. This means that 1 out of every 12 women, and 1 out of ever 45 men have been stalked during their lives" 
It is very simple to prevent yourself from being stalked, (and raped), all you have to do is take some responsibility. By making it legal to stalk, people will be more inclined to take responsibility, this will significantly if not eliminate stalking.
Also people will no longer be punished as a result of being falsely accused of stalking since it would be legal.
R1: arguments with or without rebuttals
R2: arguments with or without rebuttals
R3: arguments with or without rebuttals
R4: arguments with or without rebuttals
R5: conclusion - no new sources
Opponent must be 18+, no forfeits allowed, failure to follow the round structure or rules will result in you losing the debate
Why stalking should be illegal
Imagine that you have a child who goes on the internet. Suddenly, a child predator starts stalking him or her and begins blackmailing and making threatening messages. Now imagine that the police wouldn't help you because stalking isn't a crime.
Stalking, the unwanted or obsessive attention by one party towards another, can cause debilitating psychological trauma towards its victims. Victims often need to switch workplaces and move over and over again to escape their stalkers.  Since society ought to protect these victims, it would be in the best interests of society to ban stalking. As such, I, as con, proudly oppose the motion "it should be legal to stalk".
Since both debaters in this debate appear to agree that stalking is bad, all that I need to prove to win this debate is that banning stalking would reduce stalking, and that the costs of banning stalking are not outweighed by the benefits of reducing stalking.
On the other hand, I argue that Pro needs to prove one of the two following statements to be true: 1. that legalizing stalking would reduce stalking, or that 2. that legalizing stalking would not make stalking rates rise enough to outweigh the costs of enforcing stalking.
In order to fulfill my burden, I shall bring two points to the table: "benefits to victims" and "benefits to perpetrators". However, before that, I shall address my opponent's points.
Responsibility of the victims
Pro argues that it is the responsibility of stalking victims to stop stalking. This is illogical; it is inconsistent with our entire current legal system. If victims of crime are completely responsible for preventing it, then there would be no need for authorities to try to prevent any crime. Thus, if Pro's logic is extended, we would need to also allow murder, rape, genocide, slavery, and more.
Reduction of stalking
Pro also argues that legalizing stalking would cause victims to take more responsibility, thereby eliminating or heavily reducing stalking. This is untrue. No matter how careful a victim is, he or she can never be as effective in protecting him or herself from stalking as the police and other authorities because the authorities are better trained and have more access to resources. Thus, legalizing stalking would lead to victims becoming less protected and therefore create more stalking.
False accusations of stalking
Pro argues that one harm of stalking laws is that they can lead to false accusations, and some of those who are falsely accused end up being punished. I argue that this is true for any law; thus, under my opponent's logic, all crimes would need to be legalized. The only way for Pro's argument to make sense is if he proves that the harms of false stalking accusations would outweigh the benefits of having stalking laws; he would need to produce statistics about false accusations and analyze their impacts.
Now that I have refuted my opponent's points, I shall put forward my own. I argue that stalking occurs between two actors: the stalkers, and the victims. By banning stalking, we are acting in the best interests of both.
1. Benefits to victims
Banning stalking would reduce stalking, and therefore alleviate the stress stalking puts on victims. This is because stalking laws provide a disincentive to stalk by imposing a punishment, most likely prison sentences, over stalkers. When would-be stalkers have less of an incentive to stalk, they would be more likely to choose not to stalk.
When we legalize stalking, we would be putting the burden to prevent stalking onto its victims. Thus, we would be creating much stress for them as they repeatedly change their workplaces, residences, phone numbers, and online accounts to avoid stalkers.
2. Benefits to perpetrators
Some stalkers stalk because of mental disorders such as antisocial, borderline, or narcissistic personality disorder.  When we legalize stalking, authorities would cease to investigate incidences of it, and more cases of stalking would therefore go unreported. This means that fewer stalkers who commit their crimes due to mental illness would be treated. Those who have mental illness deserve care and help to make them better, and abolishing anti-stalking laws would deprive stalkers of such help.
In this debate, I have proven two things: firstly, that my opponent's objections to stalking laws are flawed, and secondly, that stalking laws benefit all relevant parties. Thus, I urge you to vote against the motion that "it should be legal to stalk someone."
"Three-quarters of children aged between 10 and 12 have social media accounts despite being below the age limit, a survey has found" 
"The study found that although 59 per cent of children are social networking by 10 years old, just 32 per cent of parents feel 'very confident' about helping them stay safe online. The poll found 21 per cent of children had posted negative comments, starting from an average age of 11, and 26 per cent had 'hijacked' another person's account and posted without permission. Some 43 per cent had messaged strangers, starting from an average age of 12.... only 63 per cent of parents check their child's internet activity at least once a week" 
Cyber stalking is when a person is followed or pursued online, their privacy and every move is watched. If children are old enough to use social network sites i.e. 13, then they should know to only communicate with people they know, and not strangers, they should also know how to create a secure password, and know the importance of keeping it secret, and tell someone if they have a bad experience etc. The fact stalking is illegal gives parents a false sense of security regarding the internet, legalizing stalking would make parents take more responsibility.
People choose to let stalking affect them because stalking is illegal. Many will spend days or longer collecting evidence when they should press the 'block' button and get on with their life.
Cons says that stalking forces victims to leave their homes, and switch workplaces to escape their stalkers. I agree that it can cause debilitating psychological trauma towards its victims however what might have a negative impact on someone might not to another, everybody is different.
Stalking laws create victims. 11.5% of reports of stalking are false . Saying "this is true for any law" is missing the point. 11.5% is a very high percentage, and Innocent people should not be punished, the accused may never recover from the damage to their reputation. They can lose their job, friends, family, spend time in jail etc.
"Brian Philbrick, who spent more than a month in jail after being falsely accused of stalking a Willington teacher, had all pending charges against him dropped Thursday. In May 1996, the teacher, Kathy Gerardi, told police that Philbrick, who had previously been convicted of stalking her, was sending threatening letters again. He was arrested, but in the end, it turned out Gerardi had sent herself the letters in order to put Philbrick back in prison." 
Celebrities stand a much greater chance of being stalked. Social media makes it easy to "follow" someone. And a lot of people tell everyone everything they are doing e.g. having a shower. Unwanted attention can be expected. For that reason it should be legal to stalk.
My opponent attempts to make my argument appear illogical however I am not talking about making every crime legal. It is illogical to think that if we make stalking legal we must make murder legal too. They are two separate things, no-one can prevent someone murdering them or making them a slave but they can do take simple steps to stop or prevent stalking like being careful what they wear, what details they give out and to whom etc.
You say some stalkers stalk because of mental disorders such as antisocial, borderline, or narcissistic personality disorder.
People who have a mental illness or who refuse to believe their relationship is over shouldn't be punished, they should be helped. Making stalking illegal is not in the interest of anyone. Of course authorities would cease to investigate cases of stalking and not report them, but that doesn't mean less mentally ill people would receive help. Laws against stalking creates hatred towards stalkers, if this was gone more people would be helped.
It seems odd that Pro would repeatedly assert that stalkers are easy to escape and stalking is easy to avoid despite the fact that stalkers are often obsessed and hard-to-escape. Stalkers become even harder to avoid if law enforcement agencies refuse to investigate instances of stalking. Thus, for the sake of the safety of stalking victims, I am proud to oppose the motion that "it should be legal to stalk".
Today, I shall reconstruct my positive points and refute my opponent"s points. I shall also make another point: governmental responsibility.
To add to my point about helping stalkers become mentally better, I shall explain
why banning stalking would make it more likely for stalkers to receive psychological care.
When stalkers are accused and go to court, their attorneys might arrange psychiatric evaluations to see if there is a possibility that an insanity defence would stand up in court. Insanity defences have been used in stalking cases before.  Thus, in the status quo, it is more likely for stalkers who stalk due to mental illness to be treated.
On the other hand, under my opponent"s motion, stalking wouldn"t be seen as illegal, but stalking would still be socially stigmatised. Thus, stalkers would not have a reason to seek psychiatric help at all, since there exists a social stigma against them. This is unlike in the status quo, in which stalkers sometimes do have a reason to seek psychiatric help, at least for court cases, because the effects of being released from jail outweigh social stigma.
My opponent states that when stalking is legalised, people would be more careful, thereby reducing stalking. He argues that this is because, in the status quo, anti-stalking laws give people a false sense of security. This is not true. The fact that rape is illegal doesn"t make women go to backalleys frequented by motor gangs. The fact that murder is illegal doesn"t make people leave their homes at 1:00 in the morning and stroll around in urban slums. The fact that muggings are illegal doesn"t mean you would walk around at night with ten billion dollars stored in your bag. The above examples are true because the media reports on instances of crime, making people more aware of what is safe and not safe to do. In my opponent"s world, the media wouldn"t report on instances on stalking as frequently because it isn"t a crime; thus, people would be less, not more, careful.
My opponent also makes it seem as if having stalking victims deal with stalking is the perfect solution. This is not true, since a victim"s ability to protect themselves is limited compared to the abilities of police and intelligence agencies. Stalkers are obsessed by definition. A stalking victim can block a stalker online, but said stalker could just register another account or hack a friend"s account (my opponent"s statistics state that even children can hijack accounts) and continue harassing them. As soon as a stalker learns the victim"s address, the victim has no choice but to move, in which case the stalker might be able to learn their new address by tailing them to there in their car. By reporting stalking to authorities, on the other hand, the stalker would most likely be tracked down without much trouble.
Pro argues that false accusations in stalking make it necessary to abolish stalking laws. If so, many other laws would also need to be abolished. A VERY conservative estimate of wrongfully convicted death row inmates at 4.1%, and crimes involving the death penalty go through a lot of investigation . One can only imagine the wrongful conviction rates of other crimes, which logically must be way higher. Thus, Pro"s logic could be used to justify abolishing any law.
Again, my opponent failed to prove that false accusations of stalking are so bad that they make it necessary to allow stalking.
Pro argues that the same logic used to legalize stalking cannot be used to also legalise murder. He does so by claiming that murder and stalking are different in that murder is unpreventable but stalking is preventable. I argue that, in many cases, stalking can be hard to prevent and stop (see above). Likewise, in some cases, murder can be easy to prevent"stay indoors at night, don"t anger the mafia. Thus, Pro"s distinction between murder and stalking is invalid. Therefore, if stalking victims are responsible for preventing stalking, then murder victims would also have to be responsible for preventing murder; Pro"s logic therefore is flawed because it can be used to justify making murder legal. The victims of crime should never be responsible for said crime. The perpetrators should be.
The government has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. That"s why we have laws and regulations in the first place. Stalking causes psychological harm to its victims"it is unwanted by definition"and thus should be considered a crime to keep citizens safe. Since citizens, as proven above, cannot adequately protect themselves from stalking without help from authorities, the government, due to its responsibility to keep citizens safe, must help stalking victims by enforcing anti-stalking laws.
In this debate, I have proven that stalking is harmful to its victims because it causes psychological trauma and that stalking laws reduce stalking because they disincentivise stalking and give authorities a reason to help stalking victims. I have also shown why stalking laws make it more likely for stalkers to seek psychiatric help. Thus, stalking laws benefit all parties involved in a stalking incident"the stalker and the victim"and therefore should stay. My opponent has failed to address my points on how anti-stalking laws reduce stalking incidences. As such, let it be resolved that it should be illegal to stalk.
Con also says in round one that stalkers may have mental disorders, and says that if stalking is legal stalkers won't be reported and treated. He uses another source in round 2 to prove that attorneys can arrange psychiatric evaluations to find out if someone is insane. However, if it is illegal to stalk and at least half of stalkers have mental disorders and need to be medicated, why should they potentially face time in jail? It doesn't seem very compassionate to me. Stalkers should not have to fear seeking help. Would a stalker report someone who beat him up for stalking i.e. doing something illegal? People will express their hatred towards stalkers if it is illegal to stalk to a much greater extent.
In round two Con says that estimates suggest that 4.1% of death row inmates are wrongly convicted despite there being a lot of investigation. Lesser crimes are not investigated as thoroughly so a higher percentage of people can be expected to be wrongly convicted of them. This should tell you that the death sentence should be scrapped. 11.5% of stalking reports are false, no amount of investigation will change that, 70% of false stalking reports are made by people suffering from delusions. Many women who have bad sex, or who have regrets after having sex with a stranger already think they have been raped, now just imagine how many more women will think they are being stalked when it is illegal. People falsely accused of being a stalker, or rapist, can end up on the sex register, lose their job, and have all kinds of difficulties. Stalking laws are sexist, and the harmful effects of stalking are entirely preventable.
Con doesn't believe that it is easy to avoid being stalked even though cyber-stalking is more common than physical harassment with many victims finding themselves pursued by complete strangers online . It is easy to block or not read emails, texts, facebook messages etc. Instead of doing that people are being advised to keep a record of their unnecessary abuse when they should just get on with their life. Children can hijack accounts because people don't use secure passwords, give easy password hints, tell people etc. They'd quickly know if someone is the person they say they are.
You say in your own words "As soon as a stalker learns the victim"s address, the victim has no choice but to move". I strongly doubt that. Why can they not just not open the door, not let them in, turn their phone off, etc?
There is a social stigma against stalkers, like there is against fat people, does that mean fat people don't seek help from their doctor, try diets, join gyms etc? No. A social stigma against stalkers does not stop stalkers having a reason to seek psychiatric help. Are you saying stalkers should be motivated by being released from jail?
Women who are raped often have a false sense of security, they feel that they can wear what they want, go home late at night on their own and not worry about being raped because it's illegal. It's the same for stalking, women think because it is illegal no-one will stalk them and they can take zero responsibility. If something happens to them then they won't have to feel stupid because someone else was entirely to blame. Murder is different to stalking, people wouldn't expect to be murdered at 1:00 in the morning having a stroll in urban slums but might ask why they'd want to do that. The average handbag contains a few thousand pounds or so, people don't expect to be mugged unless you are elderly maybe but it is always a good idea to take some responsibility/precautions e.g. lock your car, house, hide things from sight etc.
If there were less stories about stalking people wouldn't feel so helpless like they do about rape, women who feel a crime is beyond their control take no responsibility e.g. they may wear very little clothing, get drunk, surround their selves with drunken men etc. People can't prevent being murdered by staying indoors, not angering the mafia, they need to live their life, go to work etc. A person can be obsessed with someone for no apparent reason, but the victim can stop them stalking them quite easily, they could ask them not to contact them, tell them they are wasting their time etc.
In a world where the law ought to protect those vulnerable to crime, my opponent is suggesting that authorities should take away protection from stalking victims, thinking that stalking victims can somehow easily stop stalking. This is irresponsible and would lead to more stalking, ultimately harming society. Therefore, I am proud to, as the only writer on team opposition, oppose the motion that "it should be legal to stalk someone".
In this round of the debate, I shall refute my opponent's points one by one. Then, I shall make one constructive point: encouraging of stalking.
Differentiation between stalking and murder
Pro once again tries to make a distinction between stalking and murder in order to render useless my objection to his points. Pro argues that one can expect stalking but not murder or muggings. This is patently untrue; if one is walking in an urban slum alone at night, one should reasonably assume that one would become a victim of violent crime. Authorities try to protect potential murder victims, so stalking victims should not be alone in defending themselves against crime either.
Ability of victims to protect themselves against stalking without help of authorities
Cyberstalking is difficult to stop, since if a stalking victim blocks an account, the stalker could always make more accounts or hack a friend's account to override the blocking. Pro's objection to my argument that hacking could make cyberstalking difficult to stop is based on a misunderstanding of my argument; my argument wasn't about impersonation, it was about getting around blocks.
If a stalker learns a victim's address, they can potentially get inside through breaking windows and such. After all, stalkers may be obsessive by definition. Stalking can easily lead to violent crime; thus, banning it is in the best interest of everyone.
In addition, simply wearing longer dresses and being more modest would not stop all stalking. Stalkers can stalk because they persue personal vandettas or were angered by rejection; even if some victims were able to prevent stalking by not wearing bikinis outside, other victims who get stalked due to different reasons would end up with no aid from authorities at all.
Does banning stalking increase or decrease responsibility?
Pro argues a ban on stalking would increase responsibility. This is untrue, since stalking cases are already publicized by media in the status quo, which already causes people to take responsibility. In fact, Pro's proposal would actually make people less responsible; when stalking is no longer a crime, incidences of stalking would become less known as they are no longer reported as much by the media. Thus, we get less responsibility on the side of stalking victims.
Pro further argues that women get so great a false sense of security from stalking laws that we might as well let stalkers run rampant. This is illogical, since women are already very careful in the status quo; feminists frequently talk about a "rape culture" and the media reports on stalking incidents, which cause fear and therefore care.
False stalking accusations
Pro does nothing to refute my point that because other crimes can also have high wrong conviction rates, his logic would result in scrapping many other laws. Instead, his response to the argument does not actually deal with the imperfection in his logic.
My opponent says that stalkers are not motivated to leave prison. That's ridiculous, since prison is intended to be undesirable and therefore prisoners almost always want to leave prison.
My opponent also states that we should not criminalize stalkers because they are mentally ill. He therefore ignores the fact that potential criminalization gives stalkers a reason to get a psychiatric diagnosis, thereby making their lives better.
Encouraging of stalking
Some would-be stalkers choose not to stalk because they understand its illegality and cannot bear to be sent to prison. If we legalize stalking, they would likely want to "try it out", leading to more stalking. Thus, we would be creating, not reducing, stalking.
"Stalkers are obsessive by definition"
"As soon as a stalker learns the victim"s address, the victim has no choice but to move"
"If a stalker learns a victim's address, they can potentially get inside through breaking windows and such"
"Stalking can easily lead to violent crime"
Every person has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Con is trying to justify a sexist law in the same way feminists do with rape by saying that women can't take care of their self despite the fact they are responsible adults, not children. A man can be guilty of rape if a woman "freezes up" i.e. says nothing and does nothing to stop a man having sex with her, because apparently it doesn't matter if she says anything, as he is a rapist and will rape her anyway. That is what people are taught to believe, and that rapists gain something when in fact they can only lose confidence via having to force a woman to have sex with them. If a man and women have drunken sex, it is the man who will be charged with rape. Feminists want all men to be guilty until proven innocent, they will support sexist laws because they don't care whether false accusations shatter a man's life, damage his relationship with his family, whether he has personal things seized or if he has suicidal thoughts because a feminists goal is to feel superior to men.
Stalking laws are also sexist, 88% of women stalked are done so by men, while the much smaller number of men who are stalking victims are stalked by men and women to an equal degree - Wikipedia. This is despite the fact that women are natural born stalkers who want to know what is going on all the time . Laws should not treat or cause one gender to be treated better than the other.
A stalking victim must keep a log of everything that is happening to them, especially how a stalker's behavior is impacting on their life, they should keep gifts in a sealed bag as evidence too. Basically stalking victims are being advised to lead on or encourage the behavior of a stalker instead of telling them "I don't want any gifts from you or a relationship with you."
Con says "Authorities try to protect potential murder victims, so stalking victims should not be alone in defending themselves against crime either". Murder and stalking are two different things. Murder, robbery, assault are clear when they are committed. Stalking is not clear, someone has to imagine whether someone else would suffer mentally if they were put in the same situation.
If a stalker creates a new account, he will be wasting his time and give up. It takes a second to block, and much longer to create new accounts or to hack into someone else's.
Feminists are offended by sensible advice or common sense, they will not take responsibility simply because someone was raped or stalked, they will more likely blame the rapist or stalker and think it is solely a stalkers responsibility to not stalk.  . They might even take their clothes off and write "I'm not a slut" on their body. Women think that if something is illegal they should be protected, the only way they can is by collecting evidence, which leads to more stalking. This does not happen though with robbery, or assault, murder etc.
The only laws I would scrap are sexist laws which have a high wrong conviction rate, as the evidence is not as clear as say fingerprints on a murder weapon, or fingerprints left after a robbery etc. This would also mean victims would not be disappointed or discomforted by the low number of people who are punished.
Stalkers who are motivated by leaving prison will come out and stalk again. Alienating stalkers, putting them on some register doesn't help them. Making stalking illegal makes stalkers fearful for asking for help just like a person taking illegal substances would find it difficult, they'd probably try their best to hide their behaviour and perhaps make threats in an attempt to escape jail. Somebody is more likely to get better if they choose to be.
I don't think there are any such thing as would-be stalkers out there, if someone is obsessed they will stalk in some way or another. Would you want to try stalking out? Firstly you have to be obsessed with someone or mentally ill to make such an effort, and people would have low opinions of you if you did. What do you think you would gain from stalking? It would shatter relationships, and generally make your life more difficult.
In a world where harmful actions are, as a rule, prosecuted under law, my opponent is suggesting that we legalize a crime that harms society; this is inconsistent and irresponsible. As such, I am proud to, as opposition, criticize the motion that "it should be legal to stalk someone".
This round will be dedicated to rebuttals.
1. Burden of proof
Pro states that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and uses that to justify legalizing stalking. He ignores the fact that stalking laws already treat stalkers as innocent until their guilt is proven. As Pro admits, stalking victims are already required to log evidence of stalking. Thus, his objection to how stalking laws go against the burden of proof is unfounded.
2. Ability for stalking to be defined
Pro argues that it can be unclear what stalking constitutes. This is false, since it can be defined clearly. For instance, one possible definition is that if a person continues to be obsessed over another through sending messages and physically following them even after the victim has told them to stop more than five times, it constitutes stalking. In addition, the examples of murder, robbery, and assult can also be unclear. Lawyers frequently quabble about whether something is murder or manslaughter. Things can be more complicated that what Pro makes them out to be.
3. Whether stalking laws are sexist
Pro argues that men are incriminated too much by stalking laws. Does this mean that we should abolish laws against everything else for being racist because Black people are more likey to be incriminated than White people for the same crimes? No.  Pro hasn't proven that the laws themselves are sexist, only that their enforcement might be sexist. Likewise, laws against murder, theft, and drug dealing aren't racist, it's just that they are enforced in a racist way. Until Pro proves that stalking laws are sexist inherently, the only thing we can conclude is that we need to have more fair jury selection.
4. Pro's thoughts on feminism
Pro generalizes all feminists. Not all feminists are Tumblr users who claim to be trans-species wolfkin who sexually identify as attack helicopters. In addition, his criticism of feminism is not relevant to the topic.
5. Whether banning stalking leads to more psychiatric help of stalkers
Pro argues that making stalking illegal would make mentally ill stalkers have fears about psychological help. I argue that, both in the status quo and in a world where Pro's motion succeeded, stalking is heavily stigmatized, so stalkers have no reason to search for help if there wasn't an attached benefit. The status quo gives stalkers a reason to search for help so that they can move from a prison in which they'd be punished to a mental hospital in which they'd be cared for.
My very first point in round one of this debate was that stalking laws are sexist, my opponent was allowed to challenge right away. Even though this was a 5 round debate Con didn't challenge this point until round 4 knowing that I am unable to defend my point with evidence without breaking my own rules.
I have proven that women are 4 times more likely to be a victim of stalking, and that 88% of women who are stalked are stalked by men meaning far more men will be punished by this law. This is clearly due to the law being sexist, and not because most enforcement officers are sexist. We can also assume men and women have equal prospects. Con states the above figures are normal or expected but doesn't give any explanation and directs attention to Black people. In America they may make up more than half the prison inmates despite being a small fraction of the population, that's not because they have black skin though or because enforcement officers are mostly racist. It has been proven many times that crime is linked to factors like poverty, education, opportunities etc. Black people are probably not equal in those areas, but there is no reason why men and should women differ unless it is due to sexism.
My second point was that people can take responsibility to prevent their self from being stalked. Cyber-stalking is the most common form of stalking, but people can simply block a person's phone number, emails, or other messages, and be more careful on the internet e.g. not let underage kids use social networks, monitor their activity, use a secure password, don't tell anyone their password or other details including those which only stalkers would be interested in knowing. Women can prevent their self being followed late at night very easily e.g. by staying in a group.
Stalking laws require a person to keep a log of evidence which mean "victims - typically feminists" must lead someone on e.g. accept their gifts but secretly put them in a sealed evidence bag, basically allow someone to harm them psychologically. Stalking cannot be compared to other crimes, because each individual action which makes something stalking e.g. giving a gift, compliment, or even an insult is actually acceptable. Even if there was a rule whereby having to say stop 5 times makes it stalking, what should the time period be between each time? Thus it is not clear when a crime has been committed unlike robbery or murder where one clearly negative action is illegal.
An astonishing 11.5% of stalking reports are false, those falsely accused suffer severely. This is wrong, especially because the so called real victims allow themselves to be hurt emotionally.
Strangely my opponent thinks that making stalking legal would cause more people to stalk as they'd "try it out". However Con gives no reason why he would give it a go, or why anyone would waste their money and time. Stalkers are obsessive, you'd have to be in order to make such efforts despite being unsuccessful.
By making stalking legal, less people will stalk or think they are stalked (brings down false reports), and there will be less other crimes committed. This is because stalkers will be more likely to seek help due to not being fearful of seeking help. Also stalkers will not make such huge efforts like hack accounts to hide their behavior as they will not fear seeking help. Punishing someone by law who is mentally ill or obsessive is not going to change their behaviour, neither will advising them to act irresponsibly just so they can feel responsible when happily accepting lots of unwanted gifts and unwanted messages i.e. "evidence".
Many thanks for the debate, hope you have found this interesting too
Please vote Pro
I believe that, in this debate, there were two main points of contention. First, which side benefits stalking victims the most? Second, which side benefits the rest of society the most? While both sides have raised valid points over the issues, the opposition side has taken the upper ground for both of them.
Points of contention
1. Benefits to stalking victims
In round 1, I argued that stalking victims would be better off with stalking laws since they would not receive help from authorities if they didn't exist. In response, Pro claimed that stalking was easy to prevent and escape from, and that allowing stalking would cause people to take more responsibility for themselves. Pro's point was refuted by the fact that, in the status quo, people already take a lot of responsibility due to high profile cases of crime being reported in the media; if Pro's motion succeeded, we would hear less about cases of stalking in the media and people would end up being less, not more, responsible. I have also demonstrated that stalking victims are less able to defend themselves from stalking if they have no help from authorities, since their efforts to escape their stalkers would eventually fail, and reporting stalking to authorities is the best way to stop a stalker in their tracks because intelligence agencies and police stations have more access to resources than a stalking victim could ever have. Pro fails to adequately address this point in later rounds; in round 4, he simply stated that it takes a long time for stalkers to create new online accounts and ranted about how feminists are "offended by sensible advice".
I have also argued that anti-stalking laws reduce stalking because they create a legal disincentive to stalk. Pro fails to refute this point.
As seen above, Pro has consistently failed to refute the notion that banning stalking would lead to less stalking. Thus, the opposition has won this point of contention.
2. Benefits to the rest of society
In round 1, Pro asserted that stalking laws are sexist. He stated that women were more likely to be stalked, but did not state that this meant stalking laws were sexist, or even clearly connect the statistic of stalking of women to the alleged sexism of stalking laws. Thus, the argument was ignored in my round 1. Later, in round 4, Pro brought up the statistic again, and this time clearly linked it to the sexism of stalking laws by stating that the statistic demonstrated that the law was treating one gender better than another. In response, I demonstrated that whether a law's enforcement is sexist does not determine if the law is inherently sexist. I provided the example of laws against violent activity. Black people are more likely to be incriminated by laws against murder, theft, and drug dealing, but that doesn't mean banning murder is racist; it only demonstrates that we need a fairer legal system. While it would have been better for both debaters if the point was debated about earlier, it wasn't explained well by Pro until the fourth round. I believe that I have demonstrated that the sexism of stalking laws hasn't been shown to exist, much less be severe.
In round 1 and 2, I demonstrated that by banning stalking, we provide an incentive for stalkers to get tested for psychological conditions that often cause stalking as a part of legal defense. Banning stalking gives stalkers help. In response, Pro argued that making stalking illegal "alienates" stalkers and doesn't help them. I have shown that to be wrong, because stalking is stigmatized both in the status quo and under Pro's motion, the benefit of not being imprisoned gives stalkers a reason to find psychological help. Pro's motion is thus worse for stalkers than my side.
Pro's logic in banning stalking laws is that because stalking victims can help themselves escape stalking, stalking should be allowed so that they would be more careful. I have shown that to be illogical because murder victims can also avoid murder—don't go out at night, and don't anger others—and yet we haven't allowed murder to make people more careful. Pro's logic can be used in justifying permitting murder. Pro's attempts at making my reductio ad absurdum itself seem absurd were, in my opinion, refuted by my arguments that made murder similar to stalking.
In this debate, I have shown that anti-stalking laws benefit stalkers by allowing them to get aid in avoiding stalking and that they benefit society as a whole. Thus, let it be resolved that it shouldn't be legal to stalk anyone.