No one wins

Let's say two people have been captured. One is a male that we'll call kyle, and one is a female we'll call sarah. Kyle is demanded to kill and rape Sarah, and if he doesn't he will be killed. He doesn't want to do this because it would be crude and heartless, but he knows that if he doesn't do it someone else will do it, but probably more violently. He could make it as painless as he could and then he could be set free. If he does do it he is doing a horrible injustice, but if he doesn't do it isn't he doing the same?

He should do it.

I thank my opponent for this debate and will now present my case.

My opponent is upholding the position that in his scenario, there are no winners. This is his burden. As the contender, I must show that given what my opponent has told me, there are possibilities for this to be untrue. That is, for there to be at least 1 winner.

My opponent's proposal is that if Kyle does not rape and kill Sarah, someone else *MIGHT* do it. This chance that someone might NOT do it, determines the morality of the situation. If Kyle decides not to do it, he is doing a morally good deed because whether or not someone ELSE will do it, is unknown.

However, I will now offer a series of scenarios throughout the debate in which this result can have a clear winner.

Definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Kill: to deprive one of life
Rape: (noun 3) 2. unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

SCENARIO ONE:

Sarah is a spectacularly beautiful but evil head of a neo-nazi regime that is taking over Europe. Kyle is a European soldier who is trapped with her after an earthquake collapsed a building. There is nothing else in the room besides the two people and their clothes.

There is a two part device implanted inside Sarah that is wirelessly linked to a bomb. Help is coming in 1 day, but the bomb within Sarah is set to go off in 2 hours.

First, the failsafe for the device must be deactivated through her vagina. Since there are no tools, and it is located 6 inches deep, we will assume that the only way Kyle can deactivate this failsafe is to rape Sarah. After the failsafe has been deactivated, the bomb must be disabled physically, and it is tied to Sarah's central nervous system. Kyle must choke Sarah to death immediately after disabling the failsafe in order to avoid being blown up.

In this case, if Kyle decides to do it, he will be a winner. Not only would he have the opportunity to have sex with a spectacular bombshell, but he could also save his life and cripple the neo-nazi regime.

Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's response.

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

1) I would like to start with a quote from my opponent:"My opponent's proposal is that if Kyle does not rape and kill Sarah, someone else *MIGHT* do it. This chance that someone might NOT do it, determines the morality of the situation. If Kyle decides not to do it, he is doing a morally good deed because whether or not someone ELSE will do it, is unknown."

This is poorly misquoted. In my Argument I strictly stated he knows someone else WILL kill and rape Sarah, not might. This fact completely nullifies that whole paragraph.

2) In my opponent's scenario, Sarah is a "evil head of a neo-nazi regime that is taking over Europe" and Kyle is a European soldier. If this is the case then my opponent is correct, it would be morally correct and he could win.
In the scenario provided by my opponent the morals are changed. In MY argument I clearly stated that if he kills and rapes Sarah it IS a moral injustice. Therefore neither Kyle or Sarah can win.

I thank my opponent for his response and will now give my own.

First, I would like to apologize to my opponent and to the audience, as I have misread the quote. I meant to say that the "probability" occurs not in the engagement of the act by another party, but that it occurs in how violently it will occur:

"but he knows that if he doesn't do it someone else will do it, ***but probably*** more violently"

The only way Kyle can be sure he does not become the greater evil, is to not do it at all. Perhaps if he decides to opt out, the next person will find a way to do the act and to make it even less violent.

As for the second point, my opponent is incorrect. In my situation, it is still a horrible injustice and the act is still morally wrong, but it is outweighed on the opposite end by a massive amount of good.

If he does it, it is a horrible injustice.
If he doesn't do it, it is an even MORE horrible injustice.

The point is that clear. I did not malign any part of my opponent's argument, I have abided by all of his restrictions. All the elements are there.

********

Let me attack the resolution from another angle.

SCENARIO TWO:

Kyle is a Hangoyun prince, the crown prince, from a tribe of people that is culturally used to raping and killing any non-Hangoyun female.

Sarah is a foreigner, captured by the Hangoyun king.

They are both imprisoned in the same room and as a rite of passage, the crown prince of Hangoyunia must rape and kill Sarah, or else be killed himself for disgracing his people. Furthermore, he knows that his brother would like to engage in the act himself in his stead, so that he can become the next crown prince.

He is reluctant to do this because it is crude and heartless, much like slaughtering a cow for a festival, but it is also culturally common.

Rape and murder are horrible moral injustices to Sarah, as well as to the rest of us, but my opponent never stated that Kyle had to have the same viewpoint. Even if it were a horribly immoral act, these people are unaware of it and thus, it makes no difference.

If he does it, Kyle would not have the guilt, and no one would blame him. The entire country of Hangonyunia would celebrate his coming of age and he himself would be glad that he got his rite of passage over with. The only person who carries over those morals would be Sarah, and she would have been raped and killed.

Thus, this situation also fulfills all of my opponent's restrictions while showing that Kyle is a complete and total winner, except for the minor amount of pity he had in raping and killing the poor creature, but not much.

Thus, I have now produced TWO situations that completely abide by my opponent's restrictions and negate the resolution.

Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response.

My opponent has forfeited his last round, so all of my arguments extend forward.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.

Again, My opponent has forfeited his last round, so all of my arguments extend forward.

I hope my opponent decides to post something for his final round.

Thank you to my opponent and to the audience.

I thank my opponent for this debate and hope we have a chance to continue it another time.

Vote CON.