The Instigator
Sitara
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
kruupy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Rape and murder in a rational society are inherently wrong.

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...
Sitara
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 935 times Debate No: 37731
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Sitara

Pro

Okay, my last two debates on this were not done in the right way. Rape is defined as forcing someone to have sex or sex without consent. Murder is unlawful killing. I intend to prove that rape and murder in a rational society are wrong because they present a civil rights violation. I will use references this time. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." What this means is that people have the right to live, feel safe, etc. Rape and murder violate these rights. Article 5 says: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Rape is just as traumatic as torture, and I know this because I was raped. Many fellow rape survivors agree on this. I would also like to point out that many murder methods are very frighting and painful. My point? Rape and murder violate this right as well. Article 6 says: "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." To allow rape and murder is to deny the personhood of the victims. Article 8 says: "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law." This enforces the right of rape victims to seek justice and the obligation of the government to punish murderers. I believe that I have laid out a fairly logical case with proper references. Let me know if I need to clarify anything.
kruupy

Con

First of all I would to thank my opponent, Sitara for initiating this debate. I would also like to say that this is my first debate on debate.org and I am very much looking forward to being a regular contributor to many discussions in the future.

Obviously a topic of this nature can spark many emotional reactions from readers. The idea of rape and murder is an appalling thought for most people, myself included. But we must all ask ourselves, why is the idea of rape and murder so appalling to us? " My opponent has already cited passages in the Declaration of Human Rights, indicting that every individual has a "Right to life, liberty and security of person" and that "To allow rape and murder is to deny the person-hood of the victims". I completely agree with these sentiments, however I want to take this definition a lot further and make the generalisation that all individuals have a right to the ownership of their own lives(and hence the bodies that they use in which to live their lives).

Rape and murder, taken under my opponents definition is a direct violation of this natural right of the ownership of oneself. People recognise this right inherently as a fundamental, natural human right that makes logical sense. It is for the same reasons that the vast majority of society are also against slavery, because it too is a violation of an individual"s right to the ownership of their life.

During the course of this debate I intend on proving to the audience that Rape and murder in a rational society is not inherently wrong because there is no such thing as a rational society. Therefore concluding that the whole topic is null and void. I will illustrate this fact by arguing:

1. There is no society that upholds the natural right of self-ownership in all cases. Therefore all societies are irrationally hypocritical when is comes to upholding natural rights. This begs the question as to why rape and murder should be judged as"more severe" over other self ownership issues such as slavery, gay marriage and torture?

2. Modern day societies, and their representative governments sanction murder as being morally just in cases that "protect" the self interest of the society. Such a society must either be irrational (as defined by the debate topic) or a rational society that has determined that murder is inherently right.

After detailing these arguments, I will be able to demonstrate the case that either there is no such thing as a rational society OR I will be able to take the view that modern societies are rational however they believe that murder is inherently right. Either one of the two conclusions prove that the topic should be closed in the negative.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 1
Sitara

Pro

Cons says: First of all I would to thank my opponent, Sitara for initiating this debate. I would also like to say that this is my first debate on debate.org and I am very much looking forward to being a regular contributor to many discussions in the future.
I say: welcome. :)
Con says: Obviously a topic of this nature can spark many emotional reactions from readers. The idea of rape and murder is an appalling thought for most people, myself included. But we must all ask ourselves, why is the idea of rape and murder so appalling to us? " My opponent has already cited passages in the Declaration of Human Rights, indicting that every individual has a "Right to life, liberty and security of person" and that "To allow rape and murder is to deny the person-hood of the victims". I completely agree with these sentiments, however I want to take this definition a lot further and make the generalisation that all individuals have a right to the ownership of their own lives(and hence the bodies that they use in which to live their lives).
I say: agreed so far.
Con says: During the course of this debate I intend on proving to the audience that Rape and murder in a rational society is not inherently wrong because there is no such thing as a rational society. Therefore concluding that the whole topic is null and void. I will illustrate this fact by arguing:
I say: I can agree to this. I speak of a rational society if such a thing is possible.
Con says: 1. There is no society that upholds the natural right of self-ownership in all cases. Therefore all societies are irrationally hypocritical when is comes to upholding natural rights. This begs the question as to why rape and murder should be judged as"more severe" over other self ownership issues such as slavery, gay marriage and torture?
I say: The right to live and not be raped or tortured is more important than the right to gay marriage.
Con says: 2. Modern day societies, and their representative governments sanction murder as being morally just in cases that "protect" the self interest of the society. Such a society must either be irrational (as defined by the debate topic) or a rational society that has determined that murder is inherently right.
I say: a rational society does not say that rape and murder are right. That would lead to chaos.
kruupy

Con

kruupy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
Sitara

Pro

Sitara forfeited this round.
kruupy

Con

kruupy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Sitara 3 years ago
Sitara
Good point Atrag. You wanna set up the debate?
Posted by Atrag 3 years ago
Atrag
More interesting would be: is rape and murder wrong in an irrational society. It surely doesn't depend on the society as to whether the it is right or wrong.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
SitarakruupyTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con forfeited so conduct goes to Pro. The Con had grammar issues so S/G goes to Pro. The Pro stuck to the topic and made clear and precise arguments. The Con really didn't debate the issue as it was presented. No sources were used. Next time the Pro debates someone who forfeits the Pro should keep posting arguments and points until the end, or at least post something in your round like arguments extended. Never forfeit a debate even if you opponent does.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
SitarakruupyTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct is tied to both sides FF. Arguments goes to Pro since his arguments were on-topic while Con wanted to debate whether or not a "rational society" EXISTS, which doesn't effect what it would be if it did.