Rape (Pro) vs. Genocide (Con), Which is more Beneficial for Society?
Debate Rounds (3)
I am challenging Envisage, then opening it up if he declines.
I really want to debate this topic. Look, I've been playing FATAL with some friends, and the realism spoke to me. That is why I'm doing this.
Well, Envisage didn't want to do it.
If you want, you can debate it now.
Rape: Forcible sex against consent.
Genocide: Systematic eradication of a population, or race.
72h, 3,000 characters
1. Rape traditionally leaves the victim alive.
2. Rape is an isolated instance, and the persons or organizations carrying it out have to operate in secret, lest angry people rip them apart and/or send them to prison. And you know what they do to sex offenders in prison...
Genocide, while having the benefits Con outlined, means that the supply and demand would contract, skewing the economy.
Rape brings people together to hunt down whoever did it, which means that people can put their differences aside to beat down on the guy who went after their friend/relative.
There is also the personal aspect. Rape is, as stated before, an isolated instance, usually done by individuals. That means that the faceless mass that is the rest of humanity is more likely to be targeted instead of an individual. A genocide kills off the entire faceless mass, or at least a large enough portion, to possibly include the individual.
Rape also unites a society against an organization as well, easily. To provide an example, followers of a radical political ideology are being killed while demonstrating, while in public. Meh, business as usual. Now, those same followers are being raped for demonstrating, in public. You can bet outrage will be sparked, uniting society in universal disgust at whoever carried out the act. Society would come to beat down the people doing it so fast their heads would swim.
Rape is also beneficial because rape victims are a renewable resource. Genocides are one and done. A rape victim can be re-used.
Rape, according to an alternate view, may be the lesser of two evils, because of the reasons above.
His first argument on how Rape leaves the victim alive is both factually wrong and insignificant to society. This is factually wrong because many examples like the New Delhi rape case shows that obvious physical harm is being dealt to the victim. On the other hand, in societies where genocide occur, the economical productivity of the victim would already have been low in the first place as discrimination already reduced job opportunities and productivity of said victims. We don't see why leaving the victim alive is good, instead, the logical argument would instead be that leaving the victim alive is bad. This is because there would already have been emotional trauma dealt onto the victim, as such, this victim would already have lowered productivity and thus would be a burden on society. According to the rape trauma syndrome discovered by Ann Wolbert Burgess, such victims would be in a state of complete mental breakdown, leading to things like suicides or revenge killings on the society that this victim thinks is the cause of his/her being raped. This not only puts a burden on mental institutions, it also endangers other members of society. Genocide on the other hand is a systemical eradication of a group of people, thus they receive less pain compared to the painful process of rape.
Pro's second argument on uniting the people could also extend to genocide, which only happens because the society itself supports genocide. With rape, this isn't true because individual rape victims are of no concern to most members of the public. The ideal world in your argument where individuals unite to chase after the criminal doesn't happen in the real world. Furthermore, there are still many instances of rape culture in LDCs because of the sexism present in such countries. Thus people do not unite during instances of rape. More people unite during genocide because there are no longer racial/religious divides in the society. Also, the argument on supply-demand is nonsensical because people don't actively want or have a desire to commit genocide. The rationale behind genocide is because of a difference(race/religion/gender) and thus once genocide has happened, there is no longer a desire for more because society is now united. Even if society unites against the rapists, there will not be any gain for society because this does not result in economic or social benefits for society.
As such, to prevent our society from descending into violence and bloodshed, genocide is required to reduce social divides and give more economical gains to society.
Forthelulz forfeited this round.
BrainBomb forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.