The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

"Rape Penalty"

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 10 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,110 times Debate No: 17770
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (10)

 

thett3

Pro

Full Resolution: If proven to be 100% effective in preventing recidivism, eye for an eye implementation of a "rape penalty" I.E. raping rapists, would be a just punishment.


One of the most common anti-death penalty arguments I have heard is that "we don't rape rapists, so why is it ok to kill a killer?" The reason being, of course, that a "rape penalty" would not be as effective at deterring recidivism as the death penalty is. However, what they are implying here is that there is something morally perverse about a punishment like this.

So now, I offer my challenge. In accepting this debate, my Opponent is accepting the full burden of proof. The Con side must argue convincingly that a rape penalty would not be a just punishment. Just is defined as "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair: 'a just society'."[1].

In accepting, my Opponent is also agreeing to finish this debate no later than 7 Pm central time on the 7th of August. I'm going on vacation from the 8th-15th without internet access. If my Opponent posts an argument past this time, all seven points are coneded to me. If My Opponent posts a new argument in the last round, all points are conceded to me. I have the right to cross-examine my Opponent.

The first round is to be used by my Opponent to state their opening argument, not acceptance. If my Opponent only uses the first round for acceptance, than they forfeit the conduct vote.

Thank you to whoever accepts, and I hope we both have an excellent debate.


1. http://www.google.com...
bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the intriguing topic thett3.

"In accepting, my Opponent is also agreeing to finish this debate no later than 7 Pm central time on the 7th of August."
--Sure, I agree to this, except I cannot control how quickly my opponent posts, so hold him accountable if he takes a long time to post his arguments.

I accept my opponent's definition of "just" as "what is morally right." I will use the moral system of utilitarianism, i.e. achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

==My Argument against raping rapists==

1) Who will do the raping?

Forcing average law abiding men or women to rape a dirty, smelly rapist is unjust, violating our right to a trial before punishment, since the average law abiding citizen doesn't enjoy rape, especially of a disgusting sexual deviant who can't get laid the normal way. You thought jury duty was bad? This goes beyond the call of our civic duties to help society punish criminals.

2) Not a real punishment

Most rapists are extreme sexual deviants who may enjoy being raped. If the only punishment were rape, the deterrent effect would be destroyed, since rapists could rape a woman on the street, get raped themselves, and be free the very next day to rape again, creating an endless cycle of recidivism with no real punishment for these sexual deviants.

Also, if a rapist drew Megan Fox to rape him (it would be random, right, like jury duty) then this would actually create huge incentives for rape.

3) Circular

Rape, by definition, is a crime. When a rapist is raped, this creates a brand new rapist, i.e. the person raping the rapist, who now also needs to be punished by another person, who by raping that new rapist, also becomes a criminal and also needs to be raped, going on ad infinitum until we've turned our entire society into rapists.

4) Unconstitutional

The Constitution bans "unusual" punishments, which the Supreme Court has often defined as flouting "common standards of decency." Capital punishment has been practiced since the dawn of time, but rape is certainly "unusual" and against common standards of decency. I'd take my grandma to witness a capital punishment; she could handle seeing some guy getting a needle stuck in him. But I certainly wouldn't take her to watch a rapist being punished in the way my opponent would like him to be punished.

5) Kritik

I'll wait to see how my opponent responds to my first points, then I'll run my kritik.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

Thanks for a speedy reply. Also, if we go above the allotted amount of time due to my error, than by all means vote for my Opponent. I should have specified that.

Interestingly, bluesteel chooses utilitarianism as his moral system. So I will now show how the benefits of the rape penalty (henceforth referred to as RP.) are for the publics wellbeing.

Anywhere from 64-96% of rapes are estimated to go undetected[1]. According the the Bureau of Justice statistics, 2.5% of those released after serving time on a rape charge are re-arrested within three years. Since massive amount of rapes are not detected, using the statistics I've provided, between 6.9-41.7% of rapes would be prevented by the RP. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2008, over 200,000 rapes were committed[3]. This means that we could be preventing between 5000-83400 rapes using the RP. (Using a 2.5% to 41.7% prevention rate.)

Therefore, my Opponents ethical system massively supports my side.

Now, onto refutation!


1) Who does the raping?

First, this fails to address the resolution. What he's raised is a question in regards to how practical the RP is, not if it's ethical. Secondly, his claim that citizens would be forced to do the rape is logically false, seeing as how everyone involved in the punishment of our criminals from executioners to prison guards are willful participants, there is absolutely no reason to believe that people would be forced to do the act.

2) Not a punishment

Even if this is true, so what? How can our desire for revenge outweigh the thousands saved from the horrors of being raped? Furthermore, nowhere in the resolution does it state that the RP would be the only penalty for rapists. If our justice system demands it, than they will do time after their raping as well.

3) Circular

Not really. While I concede that in this case, there are physical similarities between crime and punishment, that does not, however, constitute a moral similiarity. The punishments for other crimes have physical similarites to the initial misdeed as well. Take kidnapping for example. Kidnapping is the forced taking of a person by another person, for thhe benefit of the taker, to a place of the takers wish. Imprisonment is the forced taking of a person by the justice system, for the benefit of the public, to a place of the justice systems desire. While the physical aspects between these two are remarkably similar, morally they are complete opposites. Same with the RP.

He also states that rape is a crime. That is true, because there has never been a justification for forced sexual intercourse. A 100% recidivism prevention rate would be justification for forced sexual intercourse, and thus rape could ethically be used for this purpose.

4) Unconstitutional

This also fails to address the resolved. Yes, he has presented a legal barrier to implementing the RP, but that does not address the ethical aspects of it. All arguments based on practicality fall, simply because this is a resolution that would never happen (hence the "if".).

He also states that he would prefer to take his grandmother to witness capital punishment, rather than the RP. I agree, so would I. However all that shows is that the RP is not pretty. This utterly fails to address any moral aspects.

5) Kritik

I look forward to it!

In conclusion, the only objections of note brought up by Con are objections based on the practical/legal aspects of this penalty, which fail to address the resolution. Thank you so much to my Opponent for his quick, and insightful, response and I greatly anticipate his next round.

Sources


1. http://www.innovations.harvard.edu...
2. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...
3. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the quick reply thett3.

==What does the resolution mean?==

My opponent is essentially trying to argue in his previous round that he merely needs to prove the validity of his if-then statement, meaning he can assume the "if" is true, i.e. that the rape penalty has 100% deterrence. However, when I accepted the debate, this is not what I thought he meant, since as debaters we are asked to prove conclusions, not test the validity of logic statements (unless otherwise specified). If the resolution said "the following statement is logically sound: ‘if A then B,'" then the debate would be about logical validity, but otherwise, it's usually implied that we're proving a conclusion. So my opponent should have to prove his conclusion – that the rape penalty is a just punishment, which means he should also have to prove that it can be a 100% deterrent. Otherwise, the logic statement is useless because its condition will never be met.

If the resolution were "if we can create cold fusion power plants in the next 20 years, then the worst effects of climate change will be prevented," most debaters would think that it is valid to negate this by saying that cold fusion will not be viable within the next 20 years, but my opponent's tactic would be to say that we have to assume the first part is true to test the validity of the logic statement. If this is how he wanted to debate, he should have specified because that was really unclear.

To show why this makes no sense, let me form the contrapositive of his logic statement. [For the statement "if A then B," the contrapositive, which is supposed to be the same logically equivalent statement, would be "if NOT B, then NOT A."] So for this if-then statement, the contrapositive is "if the rape penalty is unjust, then it is not a perfect deterrent." Therefore, supposedly, by arguing that the rape penalty is unjust, I'm merely affirming the resolution by meeting the condition of the if statement. This makes no sense.

However, in the spirit of debate, I'll also offer additional moral systems to show how even 100% deterrence is not a sufficient reason to show that the rape penalty is just.

==Responding to my opponent's case from the previous round==

My opponent cites statistics on the large number of unreported rapes, supposedly to show that if the rape penalty were a perfect deterrent, then none of these unreported rapes would occur. However, my opponent never proves that the rape penalty is a perfect deterrent, and I would assert that it is not. We have to remember that deterrence is a function of (the probability of getting caught) times (the magnitude of the punishment). For 100% deterrence, either the probability of getting caught is 100% and the magnitude of punishment is large enough to prevent everyone from committing the crime OR the probability of getting caught is non-zero and the magnitude of punishment is infinite.

1. Infinite magnitude

Firstly, my opponent never answers my argument that some rapists would enjoy being raped (especially if it is by a woman), so the rape penalty is an incentive, not a disincentive for them. In addition, even death is not an infinite punishment, since people still commit crime even in death penalty states. Communist regimes would often kill a person's entire family for treason because the threat of individual death was not a sufficient deterrent.

2. 100% probability

In my opponent's hypothetical world, which he assumed into existence, where the rape penalty has 100% deterrence, my opponent has also assumed into existence a perfect police force and perfect victim reporting systems where every rapist would get caught. The perfect police system my opponent assumes is what solves the problem, not the rape penalty. In fact, if the rape penalty would not be a sufficient deterrent for some, even with 100% probability of getting caught, then under utilitarianism a harsher punishment, like death, would be better as a deterrent. Under utilitarianism, if the death penalty creates more deterrence, it would be deemed moral and the rape penalty immoral, since it does not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Infinitely Regression

Immanuel Kant created the Categorical Imperative to show that we should not use humans as a means to an end, which is one of the foundations of our 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the retributive theory of our justice system (that criminals should get their just desserts, but should not be punished for MORE than the crime they committed). If deterrence is the ONLY factor we look to in the justice system, we would conclude that the death penalty for every crime, even petty theft, would be moral. We also conclude that killing a rapists entire family going back 5 generations (approximately 100 people), quartering him, and feeding his genitals to a bald eagle while he watches would be a just form of punishment. Our justice system does not believe that we can use extremely harsh forms of punishment merely to scare other citizens away from committing crime, since it treats that individual criminal as a means to an end, denying that person his or her humanity.

==Looking back to my own case from the previous round==

1. Who does the raping?

My opponent does not even attempt to answer this question. Prison guards are often willing to administer lethal drugs to an inmate, but this does NOT mean that they would be willing to rape that same dirty, smelly, ugly inmate. My opponent never answers if the rapists would be a woman or a man, which might affect inmate pleasure levels and deterrence. And if the State must compel a prison guard or private citizen to rape the rapist, then this violates our right to self-ownership, the very right that makes rape a violation/crime in the first place. The State forcing a prison guard to rape an inmate or lose his/her paycheck has equal moral culpability as the original rapist.

If the State is merely sanctioning a rapist raping another rapist, this makes it still a crime, meaning the new rapist must be raped as well, leading to the infinite regress discussed in my third point.

2. Not a punishment

My opponent responds to this point by saying that if it saves lives (through deterrence), then who cares if we don't consider raping a typical punishment. This is NOT what I meant by "not a punishment." I meant that some or even most rapists would enjoy being raped (particularly if their punisher was a woman, which my opponent has still failed to specify). If they ENJOY being raped, the rape penalty is not a penalty, is it a reward.

My opponent says that rape may not be the only punishment, however the resolution says "an eye for an eye implementation of the rape penalty," which means that the punishment must fit the crime and nothing more. An eye for an eye cannot be interpreted to mean "well if an eye for an eye isn't deterrent enough, we could do an eye for (an eye AND a leg)." The resolution HAS to be interpreted as rape is the only punishment, otherwise my opponent is debating about a different style of implementing the rape penalty, not an "eye for an eye implementation."

3. Circular

State sanctioned crime is still crime. Just because Japan sanctioned rapes in China during WWII doesn't mean that we recognize the State's right to perpetuate crime as legitimate. If the State can sanction the rape of a rapist, why can't it sanction the military raping citizens as a legitimate tool of war? The Constitution was meant to check State power so that the State could not unjustly perpetuate aggression against citizens, which is why the 8th Amendment exists. Without the 8th Amendment, even under utilitarianism, we would live in a world of Patriot Acts and torture of all the accused. If all we care about is deterrence and punishment, why have rights for the accused? Torture is a much more efficient and easier way to solve crime than is police work. Why even bother caring about the innocent? If we kill a few innocents, that won't hurt society all that much, and we can justify this as long as deterrence is maximized and more lives are saved – or so the logic of my opponent goes.

4. Unconstitutional

I explain in my previous point how the Constitution ties into ethics because from a utilitarian perspective, without it, the State will abuse its police powers. In addition, we have rights above and beyond what maximizes societal happiness.

5. Kritik

My opponent assumes that rape is punishment, assuming (I'm assuming) that rape would be a male-on-male act of domination/submission, and violater/violated. This reifies typical modes of male domination as a form of punishment. And as Spike Peterson, a political scientists at University of Arizona points out, "gendered identities are key to manifestations of violence . . . cultures vary significantly in how they construct masculinity (hence, war-making and rape are not universal), and second, that more violent societies evidence more systematic cultivation of gender polarity, rigid heterosexism, male power in physical and symbolic forms, and ideologies of masculine superiority." So the way my opponent constructs masculinity, as something that inherently dominates and punishes, and constructs femininity, as something that is bad, i.e. the criminal being raped feminizes him and he is thus punished, reinforces the very same negative gender constructions that contribute to a culture of domination and rape in our society in the first place. Only by breaking free of this mode of representation can we help break down the cultural identities that contribute to rape as an act of domination and subjugating the feminine. If we continue to view rape as the ultimate form of subjugation, we only make it all the more attractive to would-be-emasculated-rapists. Empirically, rape is more about subjugation than sex. Shame on my opponent for perpetuating this view of rape.
Debate Round No. 2
thett3

Pro

First, I'd like to thank my esteemed Opponent for debating this topic with me. Now I will clarify a few things, and hopefully show you why you should vote Pro.

=The Resolution=

While I greatly respect my Opponent, and after viewing his debate record believe that in most debates he would roll right over me, in this debate he shows a lack of understanding towards the resolved, which I must express my dissapointment about. My Opponent continually posts scientific or legal arguments against the RP, however I made it very clear in my opening round that I wanted a moral debate. This can be found in the resolution itself, which states "would be a just punishment". I also specify that that my Opponent must "argue convincingly that a rape penalty would not be a just punishment". While in his latest round he introduces a few moral arguments, which I will address, the vast majority of his arguments do not address whther or not said penalty would be just, only if it would be practical.

The resolution itself states if and while my Opponent has pointed out numerous times, the scenario in which the RP prevents recidivism 100% is unlikely, the objection is extra-topical. Again, recall that the resolution states both "if" and "would". He tries to attack the resolution itself, saying that as debaters it is our job to prove the logical validity of the resolution. Unfortunately, the framework set by me in my opening round calls for a moral debate based on a fictional scenario, not a logical debate. So please, only vote for my Opponent if you feel that he convincingly argued that the RP would be unjust (as I called for in my opening round.)

=My Opponents extra-topical arguments=

He states that I never responded to his argument about rapists enjoying being raped. I did however, when I stated that these arguments are not enough to outweigh the recidivism prevented (IE, when I asked who cares). Again, the resolution pre-supposes that a 100% prevention effect would be observed. Thus his objection that the deterrent effect would be lost does not meet the scenario specified by the resolution.

1. Who does the raping?

Again, he says that I did not answer his argument, when I did. Those doing the raping would logically be volunteers (a fact he does not respond to), and he continues to make arguments about the pleasure level/deterrent effect ect. However this, again, does not meet the resolution.

He states that this would violate our self ownership, however this is false because those doing the deed would be volunteers.

Not a punishment

He again argues that the rapists may derive pleasure from being raped, and that its a reward. Unfortunately, this cannot outwiegh the thousands saved from the trauma of being raped just to satisfy our desire for vengaence. Again, this resolution presupposes a complete prevention of recidivism, and my Opponent has not shown an impact anywhere close to outweighing this.

As for the "eye for an eye" implementation, eye for an eye punishment is defined as "The meaning of the principle, an eye for an eye, is that a person who has injured another person receives the same injury in compensation."[1] Nowhere in that definition does it specify that the injury given in compensation is the ONLY penalty so my Opponents objection is not only outweighed, but also invalid.

3. Circular

Con once again argues that a "state sanctioned crime is still a crime" and cites Japanese war rapes as an example. A profound difference exists however, in the fact that the RP would be a penalty handed down for a crime, not a state sanctioned raping of an innocent. Using my Opponents logic, ALL punishments would have to be banned! Now my Opponent also argues that if deterrence is the only basis we use for enacting punishment, than immoral things such as torture wiretaps ect. could be justified. However he has not shown the RP to be in and of itself immoral, and doesn't his appeal to emotion by trying to show this as cruel undermine his objection about it not being a punishment? Either it is too cruel of a punishment, or it is not one, it cannot be both, so these points must be dropped.

4. Constitutionality

My Opponent, sadly, has not justified the idea that the RP would be unconstitutional. Yes, it is unusual because it is not a penalty that is currently implemented, but if we take this to mean it's unconstitutional, then progress in the punishments handed down must stop, because all new punishments begin as "unusual". Special attention must also be paid to the "and" in the 8th amendment. My Opponent has NOT shown the RP to be cruel, in fact he has argued the opposite, so this point must be dropped.

5. Kritik

This is where I must stop praising my Opponent. Despite proving himself a worthy debater in every sense of the word, this kritik is nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack, which grossly mis-states my position. during this debate, all i have mentioned rape to be was forced sexual intercourse, you can see that in my round two rebuttal. Nowhere was anything implied here by my Opponent stated, and thus I ask the judges to completely drop this.

=My Opponents somewhat topical arguments=

1. 100% probability

My Opponent straw mans my position stating "The perfect police system my opponent assumes is what solves the problem, not the rape penalty. In fact, if the rape penalty would not be a sufficient deterrent for some, even with 100% probability of getting caught" This misses the point of the argument, because the resolution states that the RP prevents recidivism completely. Nowhere is it stated that there is a 100% chance of the rapists being caught, there is only a 100% chance of them not striking again. He also argues that the Death Penalty could be a better punishment than the RP. So what? This fails to address the resolution, because it states the the RP is a just penalty, not nesescarily the MOST just.

2. Infinite regression

My Opponent attacks a straw man here as well, implying that my position would support any punishment so long as it deters. Not so. The punishment suggested by my Opponent is one that is condradictory to my position. This would be a most excellent argument for the Con side, if he has proven the RP to be a cruel penalty. Sadly, he has not, as previously mentioned he has argued the very opposite! As such, this argument has no warrant so it must be ignored.

Conclusion

1. Nearly all of my Opponents arguments were non-topical.
2. My Opponent failed to meet his burden of proof to argue convincingly that the RP is unjust.
3. The practicality of the RP is not topical and must be ignored.
4. None of my Opponents objections can outweigh the thousands who are raped by prior rapists.

So, I respectfully ask you to vote Pro!

To my Opponent: It has been a pleasure debating this with you. You've given quick responses, yet they were also very good and insightful. I can only hope that we'll once again debate, because you're a worthy opponent who I'm proud to have debated against. Win or lose, I had fun and I have you to thank for that.

Source:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...





bluesteel

Con

Thanks for the debate thett3.

==What are we even debating about?==

My opponent says he wanted a debate about whether the rape penalty is just, and I agree – this is the exact debate that I wanted as well. However, there are a few areas of confusion.

Firstly, let's look to utilitarianism, which is the first area of confusion. My opponent keeps arguing that practical objections are not relevant. However, utilitarianism is a moral system that judges a policy's "justness" by whether it achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Practical objections tie into ethics as far as utilitarianism is concerned. If the rape penalty encourages rape (because rapists enjoy being raped), then it does not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. If the RP spreads STD's to everyone, it is not moral under utilitarianism. If there are not enough "volunteers" to do the raping and the State must force people to rape rapists, that would not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

Secondly, let's look to the hypothetical. My opponent shouldn't just get to assume that the rape penalty is 100% effective – that's not fair, as far as utilitarianism is concerned. If he wanted such a debate, he should have made clear in his opening that this was a debate about logical validity, not about the morality of the rape penalty. Consequentialist moral systems like utilitarianism look at the morality of actions by their consequences, i.e. results. My opponent does not give me access to any of these arguments if he assumes perfect implementation of his policy, which means it's not really a debate about morality.

[He also drops my arguments about the contrapositive, showing how ridiculous his interpretation is because I'd be affirming the resolution no matter what I argued. And he drops my argument that since the RP will NOT be 100% effective, we are debating about something that would never happen, which is useless. And he drops my example about cold fusion, showing how a normal person would interpret his resolution. If you want an easy way to vote on resolutional interpretation, vote on these dropped arguments since they are conceded.]

Thirdly, I realized this just now, let's look to what recidivism means. Recidivism means reoffending, not deterrence. So even if you buy that we can assume 100% prevention of recidivism, this wouldn't solve the problem of unreported rapes. In addition, this leads to a really important new argument: under utilitarianism, it would be better to lock rapists in jail for life – this also has a 100% recidivism prevention, but without any of the other problems of the RP (like STD's and finding volunteers). Lastly, if the RP provides additional incentive to rape (because then a hot woman "rapes" you repeatedly in prison for the rest of your life), then we may be expanding the total pool of rapists significantly (frustrated male adolescents, anyone?), even if we reduce the pool of reoffenders to zero.

Fourthly, what does an eye for an eye implementation mean? By definition, it means receiving the exact same punishment as the crime. Otherwise it would be a policy of "one eye for two eyes" if the criminal is punished in excess of his crime. So we are debating about the RP being the ONLY punishment the rapist receives since that is the resolution that my opponent crafted and that was my understanding when I accepted.

==On to my case==

1. Who does the raping?

My opponent says volunteers. What if there are no volunteers? Do rapists go free, if we cannot find someone to punish them? What if a rapist hires an attractive hooker to volunteer to rape him? And by accepting random people off the street to volunteer, we are literally sanctioning rape in these circumstances, which leads to all my objections about the State not having the right to sanction crime, such as using rape as a legitimate tool of war. What would capital punishment be like if we accepted random volunteers off the street to bash prisoner's heads in? It sets the absolute wrong precedent – commit the crime without approval, you're a criminal; commit it with approval, you're scott free.

2. Not a punishment

Even if you assume 100% recidivism prevention, if you have Playboy Bunnies raping the rapists, you will expand the total pool of first time offenders, which is immoral under utilitarianism because it makes society worse off. But my opponent still fails to explain how this prevents recidivism if rapists enjoy the punishment. He also fails to explain how preventing re-offending stops all these unreported rapes from occurring in the first place.

4. Constitutionality

The RP is still unconstitutional since the Supreme Court defines things that are "outside the bounds of human decency" as violating the 8th Amendment. A vote Pro is a vote to throw away the Constitution and its protections against State power. We cannot sanction any punishment merely because it is effective in achieving deterrence because some punishments deny people their humanity.

5. Kritik

This is a double bind – either my opponent allows female volunteers (including paid hookers), in which case this is not much of a punishment, or he did in fact assume male-on-male rape, which is an act of penetration/subjugation (which is why we view it as a "punishment" in the context of this debate round). Look to the Spike Peterson evidence; he says that trumping up male power in its symbolic form is responsible for most rape and violence in society. If we view rape as the ultimate act of punishment, then we make it more attractive to would be emasculated rapists. Vote Con to reject this vision of rape.

Voting Issues

1. The RP is immoral because it will increase, not decrease, rape. Since it is a reward for some and allows circumvention for others (hiring hookers to volunteer), it will actually result in more, not less recidivism. The RP by itself (an eye for an eye), is not much of a deterrent. This makes it a bad policy under utilitarianism.

2. Even if we accept that it is 100% effective in stopping recidivism (which we shouldn't), but even if we do, firstly, the only reason it stops recidivism is all the former rapists keep raping, but this time the State sanctions it, as long as they only rape rapists in "service" to the State. Second, it would greatly expand the pool of rapists because they may want to be raped and it decreases deterrence drastically since they don't have to serve any jail time, only get raped once (an eye for an eye). If we greatly expand the pool of first-offenders, on balance, there may be MORE, not fewer rapes. This is also immoral under utilitarianism.

3. The kritik. Many kritiks in debate don't tie in very well, but this is one clear case where it does. Viewing rape as the ultimate act of subjugation/humiliation is PRECISELY the reason why so many people engage in rape. It really is problematic that my opponent thinks that being raped as punishment would be so humiliating that rapists would never re-offend. This gives rape the very power that makes it attractive in real life. Kritiks ask the judge to reject the rhetoric of the resolution, so whatever interpretation you choose shouldn't matter. Vote Con because of the way my opponent constructs rape as the ultimate act of humiliation/subjugation.

Thank you for reading and please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by nismo2009 6 years ago
nismo2009
lmfao
Posted by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
"Also, neither side considered the fact that rapists actually ARE raped when they go to prison. Not as a matter of law, but in practice they are."

lol F-16
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Reasons for Voting Decision (cont): Con makes a good point about whether being raped by a women would actually be a deterrent. Pro had a chance to rebut that but didn't take it while Con hammered it in. Another good point that Con makes is that finding volunteers to rape a convict is unlikely. Con also points out Pro's assumption of 100% effectiveness.
Sources: While Pro gives academic sources from the justice department, Con mostly gives wikis so sources go to Pro. Overall, very well fought by both sides in such a short time.
Also, neither side considered the fact that rapists actually ARE raped when they go to prison. Not as a matter of law, but in practice they are.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by randolph7 6 years ago
randolph7
thett3bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not prove or even address his premise in preventing recidivism. Con effectively argued that rape is not a just punishment.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
thett3bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that subjecting rapists to be raped themselves was simply barbaric and unnecessary. He supported this by pointing out that rapists were likely sexual "deviants" in the first place and wouldn't mind or possibly be motivated to commit rape as well as pointing out that rape violates the constitution seeing that rape absolutely qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
thett3bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Con presented many good arguments and refuted all of pro's. Sources: Pro used sources, con had none.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 6 years ago
darkhearth
thett3bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: .
Vote Placed by darkkermit 6 years ago
darkkermit
thett3bluesteelTied
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: It ultimately came down to how one interprets the resolution. CON demonstrates that he is right to question the validity of the "If" statement due to contra positives and unclearness. PRO should have clarified that 100 deterrence was assumed true in the resolution.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
thett3bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is that the rape penalty is just. Con makes a case that rapists are sexual deviants and may enjoy this penalty which Pro did not refute. An enjoyable penalty is obviously not a just penalty. Also, Pros "eye for an eye" rebuttal is insufficient. His own definition states that the perpetrator "receives the same injury in compensation". This clearly shows that the rape penalty would be the only penalty. Together these two points negate the resolution. S.G. for spelling mistakes.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
thett3bluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: interesting debate! There were some holes in Pro's arguments that Con addressed effectively.
Vote Placed by CGBSpender 6 years ago
CGBSpender
thett3bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting, but highly problematic debate. There was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. Con made the mistake of choosing utilitarianism to measure this when Pro was clearly looking for a categorical analysis of the act of rape itself. That's what made the Kritik so effective, but unfortunately, did not sync up with the utilitarian perspective he chose himself. All of the practical issues could be resolved by a machine doing the raping.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
thett3bluesteelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's slip in labeling pro cost conduct. Con was very aggressive from the outset. His case was the unfairness of offering benefit to rapists at the cost of people "doing the raping". Pro countered with the response of "so what, if less people rape." All other arguments weren't morally relevant so were ignored by me. Con was able to show the number of rapists raping with the rape penalty was at best uncertain, countering pro's counter. Note for next time: stats don't win moral debates. Neg win.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
thett3bluesteelTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Let me start off by saying that this was one of the most interesting debates I've seen. Hats off to thett3 for making such a topic. Moving on to voting, here are my RFD: Both competitors had good conduct and negligible errors in spelling and grammar so those are tied. As for arguments, I commend Pro for arguing an impossible topic. Con however effectively managed to poke holes in it with his rebuttals. Pro failed to convince me that it would be a deterrent. (continued in comments section)