The Instigator
yodaddyo
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DynEco
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Rape Culture exists in America

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 2 votes the winner is...
DynEco
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 87704
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

yodaddyo

Con

Rape is a very controversial topic in America. Some claim that the United States has a rape culture in which, through various methods, rapists are validated, such as by rape jokes and societal norms that do not take rape seriously. I disagree. In round 1, just state your opinion for or against my argument, and then in round 2, we will present our information. Round 3 is for rebuttals/responses and round 4 will be summary of your point. Thank you for taking the time to participate in my debate!
DynEco

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate! Yes, it is quite controversial and it should be discussed rather than hidden. I don't believe American culture promotes rape. America has a diversity of cultures that mix to create our country. However, I do believe one of those is a rape culture supported by a small part of our population but unchecked by American society at large.

There are people who blame victims or say they are faking and there are people who let those remarks go unchecked which creates no reason to stop. It's the bystander effect on a national level. Many people don't know how to respond or are too scared to confront people using such language, so they keep quiet and laugh along. A very small group of people are causing the problem (rape) and a wider group of people, as well as the justice system, are letting it continue by doing things half-assed.
Debate Round No. 1
yodaddyo

Con

Well, I don't really see how the justice system is letting rape continue by doing things "half-assed." From what I see, the legal system handles things well about 99% of the time. It analyzes the facts, and presumes innocence until there is enough evidence brought against the accused rapist. There has to be proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the suspect has performed the crime. This is why it is so hard to convict a rapist in a hearing of marital rape. There is no way to PROVE that the person has raped their spouse. One partner can come forward and accuse rape, but how are you to prove it? Couples have sex on a regular basis all the time, so there's really no way to know it was rape in one specific instance if there were no reports of screaming or any actual evidence to prove the rape happened.
I fail to see a huge problem with "victim blaming" in this country. To ask questions such as, 'What was the victim wearing," or "Was the victim drinking before" does not imply the rapist was justified. It's GOOD to ask questions when this happens. After all, how are we supposed to lower the rates of rape if we don't know ways to stop it? If you get drunk and then go to a crazy college party with a bunch of stupid college students, then wake up the next morning realizing you were raped when you were unconscious, that would be a good opportunity to look back on that decision and think about what you could have done better. Maybe you shouldn't have gotten drunk at a party with people who were also drinking and were likely to take advantage of you. If someone told you that you shouldn't have gotten drunk, does that mean that they are saying the rape is ok? I think not! Pointing out solutions to problems that increase chances of rape isn't validating the rape, it's helpful. It is actually more harmful to say that people shouldn't have to worry about their conduct or decisions they make in social events or wherever they be getting raped, because then there is less focus put on preventative measures, and thus less reinforcement to stop people from getting raped. I lock my door at night because I don't want anyone to break into my house. If a robber comes into my house at night and burglarizes my property, and then I tell the cops that I didn't lock my door that night when I tell them the details of the robbery the next day when I report it, they will probably suggest to me locking my door from now on, not because the robber was justified, but because robbers exist, they will exist no matter what, and locking my door is a good preventative measure.
Sometimes, people claim rape when it didn't happen. I don't know how often it happens, since there are so many cases where it is hard to say, but it happens nonetheless. There have been several cases, most famous of course the Rolling Stone article, in which the supposed "victim" was never actually raped.
Rape is taken very seriously in this country. Rape cases are handled with such severity as other cases for the most part, and rapists get hefty jail sentences. Just think about the societal taboo associated with sex. Mentioning rape is even more uncomfortable for most people than mentioning murder, and sometimes rapists are even thought of as worse than murderers. It's highly irrational.
A lot of people like to say that a big cause of rape culture is the rape rate on college campuses, which is supposedly 1 in 5 women. These statistics have been found to be completely bogus, and the rate is in fact much lower. Even so, there is no way to pinpoint an exact number, because so many cases have no evidence. This, of course, doesn't mean that cases in which there is a lack of evidence, that a rape didn't happen, but you can't prosecute a person based on something they may have done. Proof should be required. A threat to the great notion of innocent until proven guilty in this country's legal system is new Yes Means Yes laws being promoted on campuses in some spots of the country. These laws require proof of consent for sex to take place legally. This is ridiculous, as saying "yes" over and over again to various questions before having sex is obviously not the way people have sex, but also forces the accused rapist of proving their innocence rather than their guilt having to be proven. It's a very dangerous idea. Imagine a country where anyone who accused someone of murder was automatically believed no matter what, and the person who was accused of the murder had to prove they DIDN"T do it rather than proof being needed to show they DID do it. It would be total chaos. It sucks that a lot of people who get raped will see no justice due to a lack of needed evidence, but that is the way it must be. It would be wrong to send people to prison whenever they were simply accused of a crime.
It is often said that 1 in 4 women will be the victims of sexual assault in their lifetime. This is not necessarily true, as the actual result of these studies is that 1 in 4 women claim they have been victims, and the wording of the questions asked by the interviewers is very suspect. In addition, there are lots of different studies conducted by different organizations, some of which are governmental and some of which are NGOs. All of these studies have conflicting data. Some say more men are raped annually than women, some say more women are raped annually. Some claim entirely different numbers of rape. It is also hard to factor in when someone has actually been raped, as it is hard to say when someone simply claims it has happened with no evidence. The numbers are just far too ambiguous to say whether or not more men are raped than women, and whether or not a large number of women or men are actually assaulted. There is no better way to investigate this either. With the social taboo of sex, the lack of evidence of some people's claims, not knowing the number of people who lie about being raped, not knowing the number of people who were raped and never report it, and the conflicting studies, to throw out so many hard numbers as fact like so many of these organizations do is to be taken with a grain of salt, I believe.
All sorts of claims made about rape are unfounded, especially claims that support rape culture. It doesn't exist in America. I'd believe it if I saw some concrete evidence, but as of now, I see none, and the genders are treated pretty much equally in America, thank goodness.
DynEco

Pro

The justice system is half-assed because the accused are getting their fair shake but the accuser is not. By dividing rights, privileges and expectations along inborn differences, like gender or race, we forgot our human rights which everyone who abides by the social contract should expect, such as not victims of sexual violence, and which we all have a vested interest in protecting from being violated by anyone against anyone else. We've come a long way since the days when anyone could be a slave to a point where nobody deserves any LESS than anyone else. But as it stands, victims can"t even expect verbal/emotional support without everyone and their mother giving them unsolicited advice. Right now, their rights as humans aren't being protected and they are getting less than a fair shake. Meanwhile, the courts are doing their due diligence by the defendant who is accused of rape or sexual assault. The defendant will get justice IF they go to trial, the victim must face a trial just to get the defendant to their trial. However, with roughly (1) 60% of cases unreported and only 27% of assaults meeting the legal definition, often they fail to get their day in court, let alone justice. The judge can"t sentence criminals who aren't brought before them so they serve justice ultimately to about 3% of the estimated total number of rapists. Considering 33% of women and 16% of men report being victims of sexual assault, 3 in 100 rapists caught is quite upsetting to the 25 in 100 victims (both genders) who report being violated. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions but the numbers compel me to wonder if there are more criminals that should be caught who aren't because something prevents them from ever getting to court (which is the middle step in the justice system, between identifying/capturing and serving sentences). Namely, victim blaming and a small but relatively unchecked rape culture (more on that later).

Another reason I would say the justice system is doing things "half-assed" is that it"s relying on a precedent developed largely from old English common law to old Roman Empire law that never had to deal with emotional and ethical sorts violations, considering people as property that could be damaged or stolen. The justice system is not up to date or well prepared to handle these modern problems, but to determine guilt through a strict process. However, those judgments are made only after meeting a (1) strict definition of rape and sexual assault. Why can"t people who feel they endured a destructive violation of their human rights even get a fair judgement? A trial only does right by the people who can make it there but most people are turned away at the door. Getting to trial is an ordeal in itself (medical exams, repeating statements, preliminary hearings that could last months or years) but is not guaranteed to get their grievance heard. (2) The justice system alienates victims from justice for the sake of reducing their own workload. Defendants have their rights constitutionally protected along every step of the way. More trials only results in more paperwork, not less justice for people accused of sexual violence. We have learned in recent decades that the evidence required to seek trial is often obscured by the time victims recover enough to contact the authorities and seek trial. The lag-time between crime and reporting which is unique to sexual violence is different from robbery, murder, and property damage. The half-assed part is not considering what we've learned about sexual violence and victim psychology to improve our pre-requisites for reaching trials to ensure that everyone has a chance of getting justice. With penalties for false reporting, the (1) 98% of people who tell the truth will finally get justice they deserve.

I agree with my opponent that asking questions is good in COURT. It would be negligent not to interrogate both parties thoroughly. That"s the court"s JOB. But what reason does society at large have to ask those same questions? What do they gain by asking? They aren't blank slates and don't trust the courts to tell them the results. They would rather make their own judgement. Doubting one and not the other only justifies their prejudice. They want to know if the victim incited their own harm, which is already a mindset that focuses on the victim"s credibility (which the court acknowledges) and responsibility (which they do not have because they cannot control others). So I have a few questions: Why do the alleged criminals get a fair trial where they are innocent until proven guilty while spectators or common folk immediately start questioning whether the alleged victim is somehow guilty until proven somehow innocent? How is it that this dynamic happened? Does being in a "dangerous" situation (like a party) mean you give up your right to safety? (No matter how "provocative" an outfit someone wears or how much skin they expose, not even being naked would justify rape. Being drunk or being dead doesn't justify another person"s actions against your body. That"s like deserving murder because you sat on the train next to a serial killer "punishment for proximity.) Does riding a shopping cart off a roof mean that an idiot is not entitled to medical treatment when an arm gets broken? Should people live their lives deciding what they are allowed to do based on the potential risk involved? And if there is a risk of harm (being taken advantage) from others, is it reasonable to expect people to defend themselves from others rather than expecting others not to harm people in the first place? If it"s the former, then people who don"t carry weapons are allowed to be murdered. If it is the latter, people should expect to get justice in return for the harm they unduly bore from another person"s actions against them that they did not expect or desire. When taking into consideration that (1) 65%-85% rapes and sexual assaults are done by people the victim knows, it becomes quite unsettling and unrealistic to expect everyone on the planet to be on guard against their friends and loved ones.

To some extent, I agree with my opponent that exact crime statistics will not be readily available to judge how effective any tactics are in combating sexual violence. It"s true that the numbers on rape and sexual assaults are blurry because of under-reporting and false claims but nevertheless deserve some weight in our broad measurement of social welfare and safety. The fact that in anonymous surveys (1) 25% of respondents (33% of women and 16% of men) report experiencing sexual violence over the last year should be concerning enough to take greater collective measures against it. Current measures don"t seem to do it. We aren't in nature any more, we have laws and a social contract specifically to protect the weak from the strong who would take advantage of others using their natural power.

Rape culture is more than playful jokes, it"s broad social tolerance of victim blaming and sexual violence as normal. (3) Victim blaming fosters fear of judgement for speaking out. Whatever the real numbers are on rape of ANYONE, the underlying assumptions are what is dangerous and implies that a rape culture exists within the US. The US has a culture comprised of many different cultures and beliefs that all coexist. It would be incredibly wrong and fallacious to say that "American culture is a rape culture," as one commenter put it. However, it would be accurate to say that "a rape culture exists in the US," which is the resolution for this debate. It would be hard to believe that the US does not when considering the sheer volume of cultures, beliefs, ideals and behavior in the US. Many cultures which, I might add, were founded on similar ideologies and prejudices about gender and sexual violence.

(1)https://wearawhitefeather.wordpress.com...
(2)Personal observation from legal side
(3)https://pbs.twimg.com...
Debate Round No. 2
yodaddyo

Con

I see both the accuser and the accused getting their fair shake. In court, all evidence is examined, and if there is enough evidence, the rapist will go to prison and the victim will see justice. If there is a lack of substantial evidence or no evidence at all, then the accused will walk free, rightfully so. From what I can tell, men don't get off with rape any easier, white people don't get off with rape any easier, it's fair towards all and doesn't discriminate based on things like age, gender, ethnicity, etc. I'm not saying racism doesn't exist in America, but I think that if a black man commits a rape, he is not necessarily going to get more time than a white man who is convicted of the same kind of rape. Although black people are much more often accused wrongfully of crimes, I think, but that's a different topic altogether. And victims will get unsolicited advice, yes, that is life. People will be judgmental no matter what, it doesn't only happen to rapists. They will never be a society entirely composed of nice people. To throw out a number of how many rapes go unreported each year, while you did say it was a rough number, is still not super reliable. There's no way to know how many cases of rape go unreported. It may be possible to get a VERY rough number, perhaps within 40%, but to say roughly 60 percent of rapes go unreported is not validated. It could be 40 percent, it could be 80 percent, there's no way to know. All rape is a crime in America. Even before laws were changed many years ago to specify many more kinds of rape, rapists that didn't commit crimes based on that limited definition still got charged. But, definitions were changed, and all kinds of rape are a crime now. Another thing people who believe in rape culture like to throw out is the fact that a rapist can sue for custody. Yes, the rapist CAN sue for custody of the child, but he will not get custody of the child. It's obviously an oversight. The people who wrote the law probably didn't think about the fact that a rapist doesn't deserve rights to a child. I probably wouldn't have thought of that either if I wrote the law, it just doesn't come to mind. I have not discovered a single case in which a rapist actually got custody of a child. Some rapists do try to get custody, very rarely, although it happens. It never gets them custody, though. I think the law should still be changed just to avoid wasting court's and people's time and money, but people have enough common decency not to allow a rapist custody of a child. To say that 3 percent of rapists get justice is not factual. It is hard to say. No one knows how many cases go unreported, how many times a person falsely claims rape, and how many times people were raped, but see no justice due to lack of evidence. The way the courts are set up handle rape cases fairly well, I think. All get a fair judgement. There is also no "strict" definition of rape. If it's rape, it's illegal. You can't rape people over the Internet, you can't rape people by looking at them funny, you can't rape people by harassing them. Rape is forced sex, it's as simple as that. Getting a trial for rape is quite an ordeal, I agree. It's hard to get a trial for other things too, like murder or grand theft auto. That's the way it has to be. If you want to send a person away for twenty years or thirty years for rape, I would hope a substantial amount of paperwork and evidence is required. I wouldn't want an innocent man spending half his life in prison for something he didn't do. Defendants have their rights constitutionally protected, and so do the accusers. The lag time between the crime of rape and the reporting is an issue, I agree. It makes it harder to have a case that goes anywhere. It's sad that people don't want to report it, and I totally understand why, but that's not the court's fault. If the person is afraid of being judged, that is sad, but that will happen no matter what. There is no society in which no one will be mean to you or judge. People bully you in the real world, it's a sad reality. Mean people exist, I don't like them, but they are not unique to America or any other place for that matter. Society shouldn't necessarily be so concerned with asking questions about the rapist or the defendant, especially when most the time they don't even know any of the facts of the case. But, that sort of stuff is very popular. The OJ trial was huge, and I doubt most people watching that had really fully researched all of the facts. That sort of thing is not unique to rape cases. There will always be judgmental people. Being in a dangerous situation, like riding a shopping cart off a roof, doesn't mean you give up your right to safety or medical treatment. It is, however, stupid. They definitely deserve to go to the ER if they break bones or suffer any other sort of injury when they fall off the roof, but it was still a bad decision. I think most people would realize that's pretty stupid, and people wouldn't start calling that "victim blaming." If you're doing stupid stuff like that and you get hurt, it's your fault. Everyone knows riding a shopping cart off of a roof is dangerous and will probably injure you. It's not exactly the same type of deal as rape, but it's similar. It would probably be a bad idea to get in a car with a man you just met and go to his house. If a woman did that and got raped, I would not say that the rapist was not at fault, he of course was. However, some better decision making could have been made on the woman's part. It is common sense that it is not a good idea not to go home with a person you just met. I think it is reasonable to expect people to make decisions based on the risks involved. I wouldn't go to Chicago with a nice car and just leave it parked unlocked. I understand that bad people exist, and they will try to steal my car. The car-jackers would still be at fault, but it is common sense that Chicago is a crime ridden town and you don't leave valuables unattended with no security measures. I wish things didn't have to be that way, but this is reality and bad people exist. People should expect to get justice in return for the harm they unduly bore from another persons actions against them that they did not expect or desire, and they DO. If you commit a murder, you go to prison. If you steal from people, you have to pay for what you stole. The main reason government is set up is because the people understand that people are not all saints. Some people do bad things, and there need to be punishments in place for those who commit crimes. To expect that it would be possible to eliminate rape entirely or even mostly would be ridiculous. It will never happen. People get murdered each year, quite a few actually. Roughly one third of murders go unsolved. Do we have a murder culture? I think not. The one third of murders that go unsolved are not a result of society saying it is okay to murder. It is just that it is very complicated, takes a lot of work, and often times there is a substantial lack of evidence. It is sad, but that's reality. The fact that most sexual assault is perpetrated by someone the victim knows is what makes so many of these rape cases difficult to solve. If a spouse rapes their partner, there will most likely be no evidence. Therefore, nothing legally can be done. It is sad, but it is wrong to send someone to prison simply on an accusation. I went to that article you cited on wearawhitefeather. It was complete nonsense, not to mention one of the articles that lady linked to counted digital rape as a form of rape. So, I am not sure that is exactly the most reliable source. The article also claimed that men rape because they have been taught that they have a right to claim women's bodies. I don't think I even need to explain why that is complete nonsense.
Anyway, thanks for contributing to the debate, I appreciate it.
DynEco

Pro

I'd like to address 12 things you mentioned, starting from most central to this debate to least. I'll abbreviate or skip extraneous points if I need to save space.
Let's start with addressing some assumptions. The criminal justice system (1) is not just the court trials, it includes the prisons and police. Wiki has a nice chart depiction. It has slacked on the dark blue step right after entry and before adjudication. (If it discriminates is a different debate.) One example of this slack is made clear by USA today's article (2). Failing to produce the evidence for trying a criminal is difficult when there are no laws requiring collected evidence be tested, let alone submitted. It may seem like common sense to us but sadly common sense isn't all that common.
What we call common sense is actually a combination of hindsight bias and assumptions. Every day we act on long held assumptions unconsciously. Most of the time we're fine but sometimes our assumptions lead us to mistakes because we don't question them, we ASSUME them to be true. We trust our friends without thinking, we trust authority, and yes we even trust "strangers" because we assume they mean no harm. But the truth is your friend can give you some old food that makes you sick without meaning to, you can believe your parents will protect you from everything when they can't, and yes you can accept a ride from your teacher that ends horribly (do you really know your teacher?). We don't expect or desire these things to happen, so we don't prepare for them. Then when it happens to someone else we say that avoiding those things are "common sense" even though we would likely also rely on our similar assumptions in the moment, unconsciously. This is hindsight bias. We objectively realize the error when we have the results and aren't relying on our assumptions because the facts are given. Common sense is a myth.
My religion teacher asked, "What does the holy cross and an electric chair have in common?" It's not hard to see why people make simple mistakes when we know our brains fill in what we don't know. These false memories and information help us form more assumptions to guide us. For example, my childhood friend thought a Yoo-hoo milk box would bounce on carpets and tested this in my house, he assumed incorrectly and it popped to my father's dismay. "What were you thinking?!" is a question we often ask others and ourselves. The answer is "I wasn't." He didn't consider the risks because he assumed it would work. We lack info and rely on assumptions. Is it any surprise that people make all kinds of mistakes? If rather than rushing to find answers, we instead stopped to consider questions, maybe we could give ourselves a chance to think clearly. My religion teacher answered, "they're both tools of execution. Sometimes we forget that this 'symbol of salvation' was used to torture criminals." We have nothing to lose from questioning what we think is true. If it's true, there's nothing to worry about and we are satisfied knowing we're right. If our assumption is false, we can find a truth to replace it. We have much to gain if we hold our beliefs to the fire and see what survives: a revelation that even a symbol of death can be one of hope and salvation. Look at the good happening because we questioned the systems we long had faith in (2). The article shows how we can update and grow when we step back to reevaluate what we know and think is true. As things keep changing, we must reevaluate what's true and what's not.
"Rape is forced sex, it's as simple as that." Here's a good example of a simple assumption or conclusion that can misguide us. It's not the legal definition of rape (3) but it's not a terrible rule of thumb. However, it's inaccurate, vague and oversimplifies the concept. Meeting someone who describes it this way wouldn't set off alarms because it's "close 'nuff." We don't know if they think ONLY forced sex can be rape. You might not mean it that way, but that's how one quickly gets jailed for rape because s/he misunderstood. Now we sit mocking their lack of "common sense" or good judgement/morals. Even though we also jump to conclusions, make assumptions and over-simplify for convenience. Our understanding of the world is like a ship in the night and we pass others steering blindly. The only difference is who's more unlucky to hit an iceberg first, and then we can say we wouldn't hit something so obvious.
"To expect that [it's] possible to eliminate rape [...] even mostly would be ridiculous." Here I thought Con was arguing that rape culture doesn't exist in America, by whatever criteria Con used. Now there is a sudden turn where it's here to stay? I can't understand what happened. Please explain clearly. "-ridiculous. It will never happen." I'm sure the Wright Brothers got that a lot. We thought the same when seeing Yuri Gagarin was in space. However, once we set our minds to it, 8 years after Russia hit space, we hit the moon. Even athletes understand that "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" (W. Gretzky). There is no penalty for trying and failing, just ask Edison. Giving up before you try is more worthy of ridicule "more ridiculous. A persistent flow of very little water can carve the highest mountains into the deepest canyon. So before saying "it will never happen," maybe we should TRY first. That's what those before us did, and I can't recall anyone who said "it can't be done" being mentioned kindly. "You'll sail off the earth," they said. "Slavery will never end," they said. Can you believe these guys, yucking it up while assuming things wouldn't change? What helpful advice from unfounded, untested assumptions: I'm so glad we ignored it! Instead of giving them cheese for all that wine, we put it into hamburg patties and made them truly American. I'm sure they complained that would ruin the taste.
Before concluding, to briefly address some things Con mentioned:
That we have government because "[we're] not all saints," I'd say there are no saints or sinners. There are just people, choices, actions and consequences. That's why I find it absurd people might even entertain the idea that one poor decision can amplify or lessen another person's poor decision. Honestly, how does deciding to go to a party affect deciding to rape someone who's half-awake or passed out? Someone is deciding to take an opportunity. "Most people would realize that [decision is] pretty stupid." Why going to a party becomes a poor decision depends on the ever-present risk of being assaulted is beyond me. Why going to the movies or school becomes a poor decision when a guy decides to bring a gun is beyond me. Why living in groups becomes a poor decision when there are 1,000 ways to be killed is beyond me. "-stupid, and [...] wouldn't [call] that 'victim blaming.'" How anyone could assume a victim somehow provoked another person's actions (and such assumption is wired into our language: "provocative dress") is beyond me and indicates that rape culture is very hard for us to notice when it's so pervasive, masked in our daily lives. What we believe is "normal" is an assumption we've accepted without question.
Do we have "murder culture"? We certainly have a culture of violence which may lead to murder. If we can condone any violence or get pleasure from another's pain, then we are not far from people who go beyond "acceptable violence" and go to its logical extreme. People who can enjoy watching people in pain are not far from people who get pleasure from causing pain to people (see round 2, #3).

Thank you for your courage to start a debate questioning our core assumptions. I'm glad we could argue in a way that challenges everyone who reads this. Let's teach everyone a lesson, that we're all human and that there's always room for doubt which will make us stronger.

(1) http://www.dictionary.com...
(2) http://a.msn.com...
(3) http://www.dictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 3
yodaddyo

Con

yodaddyo forfeited this round.
DynEco

Pro

In summary, although there are issues that seem black and white, once we dig into the details an issue may be more unclear than we originally realized. In this debate, we addressed some inadequacies of the justice system, unconscious psychological biases and assumptions, and broad human rights within a governed society.

Though the justice system has strong procedural and adjudicative capabilities, it lacks accessibility to justice and can fail to give equal levels of due process to both victims and defendants. Outside of trials, the justice system lacks the resources and/or the resolve to diligently complete the chain of evidence, let alone uphold justice without bias. Although not mentioned above, the system is over-crowded, over-worked, and under funded leading many cases to be settled outside of court or with pre-negotiated plea deals (among other practices) that circumvent due process (which harms both parties, ultimately).

We all make small choices every day and often do not realize we are relying on assumptions, such as picking up a glass of water we assume is cool so it won't burn our hands. Usually unquestioned assumptions like these are harmless and positively influence our actions. However, sometimes our unconscious assumptions can lead us to trains of thought that can become victim blaming. "If the defendant is innocent until proven guilty of sexual violence, does that mean the victim is guilty until proven innocent of lying?" There is no reason to assume they are both guilty, which is unfair. There is no reason to assume only one is innocent, because it is unfair to the other. Therefore, are trial can only proceed under the premise they are both innocent. Should there be too little evidence, they will stay that way in the court's eyes. However, this is rarely the position of society on these matters. A trial of this subject usually ends in one or both parties having a ruined reputation or an increased risk of danger.

While we live in a society and government which guarantees its citizens certain rights and protections, it is unjust to accept that people should be responsible for potential safety risks beyond their control. It is our own fault for assuming a glass of water is cool when it is hot, and scalding our hand when we grab it. However, we do not choose whether someone throws water (even unintentionally) and scalds us. People can and should be held responsible for their actions, hence why negligence suits exist for "accidents" and for intentional harms we call crimes. We cannot and should not be held responsible for preventing uncontrollable factors and unpredictable risks which are inescapable or pervasive. The govt doesn't withhold aid from hurricane victims because they should have prepared better for disasters or not moved there in the first place. The whole reason rape even IS a crime is PRECISELY because a person should NOT be prepared for it or just not go anywhere with anyone in the first place. No human should be the object of another or be subject to another -that's what this country was FOUNDED on and at once sought to create for ourselves. Recognizing that the erroneous responsibility to defend one's self from others is widely assumed and propagated in our society, and creates an undue burden for victims, supports the Pro argument that rape culture exists in America.

I'd like to thank Yodaddyo for creating a challenging debate and his insightful arguments. I'd also like to thank the readers for reading our debate!
Thanks for everyone's time and patience!
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by yodaddyo 10 months ago
yodaddyo
Thanks to DynEco for participating in this debate.
Posted by SolonKR 11 months ago
SolonKR
(4/4)
Decision
Conduct- Because Con forfeited a round, this goes to Pro. It is always advisable to give one"s opponent respect by continuing to the discourse one commits to by starting a debate.
S&G- Neither. The S&G significantly hurt the readability of both sides" arguments. Please consider making use of the enter key more often, and splitting your arguments up into sections with bolded headers wouldn"t hurt.
Arguments- This was messy. There were heaps of tangential information on both sides. Ultimately, the burden of proof rested on Pro to show that there"s a culture in which "rapists are validated". Her arguments regarding the seemingly uncaring nature of the US justice system--especially with the evidence about rape kits, which was by far the strongest she had--holds, as does her argument that there is broad social acceptance of victim blaming. With those, the BoP is fulfilled, and arguments go to Pro.
Sources- Pro was the only one who actually used them, and while they could have been much, much stronger, they significantly helped her arguments compared to the source-less Con.

As advice for future debates, you ought to have a clear idea of what you"re arguing before you type it. Find the evidence first and then make the arguments; that"s the much easier way to start out when it comes to arguing.

Feel free to contact me with any questions or codes for magazine discounts.
Posted by SolonKR 11 months ago
SolonKR
(3/4)
R3-
Con rehashes his court argument--problem is, he doesn"t address Pro"s counter that courts are by nature biased against rape victims. He says the courts aren"t racist, but that"s irrelevant to the issue at hand. Con states it isn"t possible to get valid statistics on rape, so Pro"s should be discounted, but because he doesn"t say WHY it may not be possible, Pro"s point stands. Con addressed Pro"s criticism of the definition being too strict by providing a definition--forced sex. Con says that people not reporting to the court isn"t the court"s fault; it"s the people"s fault. He also says that the system being the way it is protects innocent lives. Con criticizes Pro"s first source on the grounds that one of the studies counts "digital rape" as rape--I think Con may have misunderstood that "digital" refers to the fingers, but in either case, he doesn"t justify it. Pro"s source stands.

Pro doubles down on her criticisms of the criminal justice system. She cites US Today to show that many rape kits end up ultimately untested. Pro criticizes Con"s definition of rape as too strict and provides the "legal" definition" from dictionary.com" He criticizes acceptance that rape will always exist on the grounds that seemingly impossible things have been done before with dedication from society.

R4
Con forfeited, Pro concluded.
Posted by SolonKR 11 months ago
SolonKR
(2/4)
Pro says that legal system does things "half-assed", which validates rapists by not addressing the underlying societal issues. He states, "with roughly (1) 60% of cases unreported and only 27% of assaults meeting the legal definition, often [victims] fail to get their day in court". The source could be far more reliable than a blog, but at least the primary sources are easily located in the cited post. The underlying societal issues he identifies are "victim blaming and a small but relatively unchecked rape culture"
He also accuses the legal system of systematically ignoring rape cases, by making the definition too strict. Unfortunately, she doesn"t provide any indication of what the definition ought to actually be, and this seems to be more of an analysis of the justice system as a whole than rape cases specifically.
Pro says that asking questions like "What were you wearing?" are in fact bad because "[questioners] want to know if the victim incited their own harm, which is already a mindset that focuses on the victim"s credibility (which the court acknowledges) and responsibility (which they do not have because they cannot control others)." In other words, "innocent until proven guilty" puts an unfair burden on the victim. She states that there is "broad social tolerance of victim blaming and sexual violence as normal." She cites a popular Tumblr joke, which doesn"t exactly constitute evidence of broadness, and ignores that picture"s satirical nature, but if Con doesn"t criticize it, I have to let it stand.
Posted by SolonKR 11 months ago
SolonKR
(1/4)
I"m going to go a little in-depth on this, because these are the debates in which debaters can most benefit from a thorough RFD. I"ve tried to eliminate analysis of as much extraneous information as possible (and there was a lot of it)

Con defines the culture as one "in which, through various methods, rapists are validated"

R2-
Con"s logic is at many times hard to follow. His argument that it is hard to convict a married person of raping his/her spouse would seem to validate Pro"s perspective, not con.
He states that questions like "What were you wearing" are meant to help stop rape, not validate rapists, because they provide information about the conditions under which rape happens. He likens it to locking doors at night--a person is not responsible for being robbed no matter what, the robber is, but it makes sense for the person to lock their doors at night.
Con states that rape is taken very seriously, with enormous prison sentences.
His statements about rape on college campuses, the 1 in 5/1 in 4 numbers and potential "fakers" are completely irrelevant to the resolution; presence or absence of rape itself has nothing to do with society's attitude toward it.
Posted by Kalleth 11 months ago
Kalleth
Oh lol, I want to Devil's Advocate this debate so hard and just cite ALL THE SJW's videos. ALL OF THEM.

But sorry, I can't help but agree with you. Rape culture is BS.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Rape is never justified, however you do hear a lot of jokes about it and undermining it. For example Football coaches will often say "Your getting raped out there!" or such things similar. It is very common jokes about this, however just like there are race jokes, that doesnt make the culture of America Racist. So yeah I agree with Con aswell.
Posted by Stonehe4rt 11 months ago
Stonehe4rt
Rape is never justified, however you do hear a lot of jokes about it and undermining it. For example Football coaches will often say "Your getting raped out there!" or such things similar. It is very common jokes about this, however just like there are race jokes, that doesnt make the culture of America Racist. So yeah I agree with Con aswell.
Posted by TheOregonian 11 months ago
TheOregonian
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 11 months ago
fire_wings
yodaddyoDynEcoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by SolonKR 11 months ago
SolonKR
yodaddyoDynEcoTied
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 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: Comments.