The Instigator
RationalMadman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
yuiru
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Rape is okay unless you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 3 votes the winner is...
yuiru
Started: 9/8/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,297 times Debate No: 25511
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

RationalMadman

Pro

Let me just explain what I mean.

If you aren't being raped, you will like it no doubt. I will NOT EVER be rapist advocate. I'm just saying that it's horrible only if you are being, have been or are immediately about to be raped.

All definitions I shall allow my opponent to decide. All must be sourced and not stupidly ridiculous.
yuiru

Con

Okay lets examine your argument:

First you assume, rape is okay.

Rape:
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.

Then you argue, it is only okay when it isn't okay when it isn't happening to you, hasen't happened to you, or isn't about to happen to you.

But that is fallacious thinking.

Firstly, other people can be, and have been raped.

Second, rape is absent where it is absent, that is to say, no rape is not rape.

If you are not being raped, haven't been, or are not about to be raped, there is no potential, prestent, or history of rape, therefore there is NO rape.

Something that is OKAY is present, something that WAS okay happened, something that is GOING to be okay is HAPPENING.

Okay only applies to a thing that is, something that isn't can't be okay.

Rape can not be okay if there is NO rape at all.

Finally, back to "you are not the only one"

There are other people, for something to be okay, it is APPROVED.

Just because you are not, have not been raped, doesn't many other people haven't or aren't.

Is similarly murder okay if its not happening to you?

Scenario:

You have never been raped

Someone is being raped in front of you.

Based on your argument:

You are not about to, have been, or being raped, therefore this rape is okay for you.
Debate Round No. 1
RationalMadman

Pro

Rape is forced sex (as defined by my opponent) but what I am about to reason to most humans will seem disgusting, abhorrent and immoral in every sense of the word. The issue is that if i were to walk down the street, see a rape happening, especially a gang rape with a ton of buff bodybuilders, I wouldn't think twice about walking by pretending to notice nothing, no in fact I would mos tlikely walk the other side of road and run. There are two reasons I would not bother to call the police and one reason why I wouldn't try to sotp the rape itself. As for the police, the moment the rapists heard sirens they'd just grab the girl and run (most likely a strong man could carry an already bruised and weakened woman away in time). Thus, my call would be deemed a hoax and me a crminal for wasting police time. The second reason not to call the police is that I would have to give sworn testimony in court and if someone is doing a crime as violent as rape, what kind of contacts do you think they'd have outside prison to come and kill me, or maybe my spous and/or family? Why I wouldn't try to stop it is simply because I'd probably be raped too, I consider myself a bit of a nerd, meaning o study more than I work out, this guy raping her probably works on his body a huge amount of the time to make sure he can fulfil his rape fantasies (I say his and not her because over 92% of rapes are done by males, the rest are almost all female pedophiles) if my opponent wishes to counter this then he must supply data and source it) so to avoid getting beaten up and perhaps raped myself I would stay back.

So why is it okay to me (or anyone) in the scenario (NOT OUTSIDE OF THE SCENARIO) that there is a rape occuring, having occured, or about to occur. If you were to ask the parents of the girl, it would seem not okay at all, the posisble spouse and/or friends would say the same. HOWEVER There is nothing to suggest that the rape was not okay, only the fact that the person they know HAD A TERRIBLE THING HAPPEN TO THEM! Essentially, the rape is okay, in fact the entire process of the rape which occured, the forced sex, the damaging of the body and the memories it left behind are all only harmful and terrible and wrong to the victim of the rape. To others the rape is barely an issue, when the girl would describe it to them they wouldn't be horrified or angry at the rape but only at the RAPISTS! So essentially, being a rapist and harming a person is not okay, but rape itself it okay unless it's being done, having been done, or about to be done to you.
yuiru

Con

Okay, nothing in your rationalization of being a bystander says anything about a rape being okay, I can see you are simply employing the fallacy of distraction:
https://www.google.com...
.
Also you say you would have an aversion to the rape, people are not okay with things they fear. So... what are you attempting to prove?

Also you don't seem to understand the definition of okay, or the implications of what you are saying here.

"There is nothing to suggest that the rape was not okay, only the fact that the person they know HAD A TERRIBLE THING HAPPEN TO THEM!"
That is total rubbish, the "TERRIBLE THING" that happen is called RAPE! Something is not both a TERRIBLE THING and OKAY, that is contradictory like everything you are saying.

When you say "essentially" rape is okay, you are saying its nature is okay, yet when you describe the nature of rape nothing about it is okay.

"To others the rape is barely an issue, when the girl would describe it to them they wouldn't be horrified or angry at the rape but only at the RAPISTS!"

That is shockingly asinine
First off, how do you know this? You are saying people think, "Rape is fine ...but a rapist is horrible!"
But that is completely contradictory, do you know what a RAPIST is?

Rapist:
Someone who forces another to have sexual intercourse!
What is rape?
Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
What is a rapist without rape? NOT A RAPIST.
What is rape with out a rapist? NOT POSSIBLE.
They are not separate in anyway.
Rape is an ACTION, actions do not exist unattached from actors of said action.
Therefore, to say something so absurd, you would have to believe rape is not an action actually an entity.

You have failed to give any valid or substantial justification for your position that rape is acceptable (yet not?) or countered any of my previous arguments.

You also display the inability to comprehend that rape is an action, since you continue to accentuate that such an action is okay as long as it is not being an action. Which is why it can not be stressed enough how this entire debate is just complete bollocks.


I refuse to explain this to you again.
Debate Round No. 2
RationalMadman

Pro

Okay: satisfactory but not especially good.[1]
Satisfactory: fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.[2]

Let me just begin sayign that rape is not good, for the victim. It also is probably not good for anyone who knows the victim after they have been raped. However there is nothing to indicate the expectations and needs of others not being met (thus it meets my definition of satisfactory, in order to be 'okay') I would say that rape cannot occur without a rapist and perhaps I was wrong to separate the two. However, I think the point is that it's not good at all for the victim or those who know them, nor society. However, only the vicitms needs and expectations are being unfulfilled when a rape occurs.

Sources:
[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
yuiru

Con

"Let me just begin saying that rape is not good, for the victim. It also is probably not good for anyone who knows the victim after they have been raped. However there is nothing to indicate the expectations and needs of others not being met (thus it meets my definition of satisfactory, in order to be 'okay')"

Let me just begin with saying that's a load of reckless unjustified language. Even with your efforts to cherry pick definitions and recontextualization the usage of okay, you still fail to justify anything you are saying or been saying. In fact, I've already told you and explained it! Nothing you have even said is worth acknowledgement, its just blatantly total rubbish! So I'm not going to explain it again.

And where the funk do you get the idea there is nothing to indicate expectation and needs of others not being met? Hello anyone! Rape violates a person. Everything about rape indicates that very thing! And society's expectations OBVIOUSLY are not met by rape, why do you think there are laws in societies against rape? Do you think somebody thought rape was "satisfactory" but not good enough so now its punishable by law in societies??

"I would say that rape cannot occur without a rapist and perhaps I was wrong to separate the two."

Oh, perhaps you were wrong?
Wow, I would have thought you were too conceited to acknowledged even a fraction of the ignorance in your asinine statements.

"I think the point is that it's not good at all for the victim or those who know them, nor society. However, only the victims needs and expectations are being unfulfilled when a rape occurs."

Why are you even trying to rationalize this nonsense?
It is actually not just "unsatisfactory" to the person raped, its to their family, friends, and loved ones too.
Do you seriously believe people tend to think, "oh, the rape was OK' when they hear about a rape?

And what makes you think it has any room to be acceptable (or in the repugnant way you say it, "satisfactory") to anyone but the rapist?

Regardless, all this serves is as a diversion to what has already been explained.
Debate Round No. 3
RationalMadman

Pro

You merely say that I am creating a 'diversion' excep tit isn't a diversion it is the very assertion that is my resolution. You also calim that I am rationalising 'nonsense' I find this offencive since it actually is very sensible. The issue is that people don't find the rape okay but only to the victim of the rape was the rape truly not ok.
yuiru

Con

"You merely say that I am creating a 'diversion' excep tit isn't a diversion it is the very assertion that is my resolution."
It was pretty obvious you were trying to manipulate the meaning of what you were saying. But you are right, you didn't create a diversion, because you failed.

"You also calim that I am rationalising 'nonsense' I find this offencive since it actually is very sensible."
Awh, boohoo! You actually are trying to rationalise nonsense! There is nothing sensible about what you are saying,
your resolution alone is a testament to that.

"The issue is that people don't find the rape okay but only to the victim of the rape was the rape truly not ok."
Do you ever read what you write? First you say people are not okay with rape, then you say only rape victims are 'truly' not okay with rape. There is no amount of "not okay" that is less true than any other. Just because to a rape victim it may be a lot more traumatic, does not mean anyone else can not "truly" disapprove of rape.
Debate Round No. 4
RationalMadman

Pro

Actually I am wrong.
yuiru

Con

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smithereens 6 months ago
Smithereens
Lol, immortalise this debate please, lest we forget.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Quantum Overload, thanks.
Posted by yuiru 1 year ago
yuiru
I seriously hope this is all just a pathetic troll...
Posted by QuantumOverlord 1 year ago
QuantumOverlord
I ask you to simply Google any of his recent longer posts. The large posts are nearly always plagiarized. Consider his debate with Stephen on the person that knows themselves best is them-self. Each of his 4 posts (except the very short first one) were completely plagiarized, in one case from an online forum. Simply Google any of these posts to confirm it for yourself.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Quantum Overload. Never mind about the plagiarism comment. I found it myself.
Posted by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
DANGIT BLACKVOID I WAS ABOUT TO GRAB THIS ONE! GAH! Rats!
Posted by BlackVoid 1 year ago
BlackVoid
I nominate this for the Weekly Stupid.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 1 year ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
Rational Madman, you know I respect you. You've argued well in a lot of serious debates. But this debate seems to me to be a serious deviation from that.

You seem to be saying that rape is okay as long as it is not happening to you ("you" being whoever is the subject considering rape at the moment). Is that what you're saying? Are you defending some kind of egoism. If not, then please clarify, but I doubt you will get a contender either way.

QuantumOverload: This guy is not a troll. He's been in many serious debates. As for the charge of plagiarism, I do not know to what you are referring. I'm not denying that what you say is true, but you must provide evidence.
Posted by Manbearpanda 1 year ago
Manbearpanda
Quantum, he's not a troll; trolls are relatively intelligent, whereas IrrationalMoron has the intellect of an especially dull pet rock.
Posted by QuantumOverlord 1 year ago
QuantumOverlord
Do not debate this guy, he is a troll. If it is not clear enough from his debate challenge, consider his shameless plagiarism in another one of his recent debates.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 1 year ago
Sojourner
RationalMadmanyuiruTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Thankfully Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
RationalMadmanyuiruTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow.....that was offensive and god-awful on so many levels...I mean, it might at least be justifiable if pro had a decent argument. But alas, there was no such thing.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 1 year ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
RationalMadmanyuiruTied
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: Pretty much a concession by Pro. His arguments were fairly poor regardless.