The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Rape should not be a ground for divorce

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,061 times Debate No: 14773
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Mr. Schitter arrived home from work at 7p.m. as usual, but unusually, his wife was not waiting at the door to greet him with a kiss.

Furious, Mr Schitter let himself in, cursing his wife for not being there to hang up his coat and to pour him a drink and for not having his dinner on the table.

Seething with rage, Mr Schitter phoned his wife's mobile ‘phone to demand an explanation, but there was no reply. Just then, there was a knock at the door and Mr Schitter answered it to find a policeman standing on the doorstep.

"Mr Schitter?" asked the policeman.

"Yes, what do you want?" replied Mr Schitter.

"I'm afraid I have some bad news. How can I put this? Your wife went out into the street to give some poor little doggy a bone, but as she bent down, a nonce came around and gave her a bone of his own."

"What, you mean she was raped?"

"Yes, I'm afraid so sir, she's currently making a statement down at the police station. The good news is that we caught the perpetrator: one of your neighbours witnessed the incident and called us but, unfortunately, by time we arrived on the scene the culprit was on his vinegar strokes and it was too late to stop him spending his wad. Sorry."

"Oh no! She was a still virgin when we got married and she's been a one-pr1ck princess ever since. Now she's gone and got herself raped she's ruined as far as I'm concerned."

"But surely, sir, she's hardly going to have a minge like a wizard's sleeve just because of that one incident, is she?"

"No, but I can't put my pecker where some other man's spunk-encrusted todger's been, can I?" The very thought makes me want to retch. No, I'll have to divorce her – I can't live with her now that she's been got at by another man. Now, if you'll excuse me, officer, I have to phone my lawyer."

Mr Schitter's not a very nice man, is he boys and girls? You'd think he'd be more concerned about his wife's welfare, wouldn't you?

But, he is entitled to kick her out and get a divorce because he can prove that his spouse has had sexual intercourse with another person of the opposite sex and state that he finds it intolerable to live with his spouse as a result. [1]

However, I think that's a bit harsh on the woman, who is, after all, merely the innocent victim of a serious sexual assault, and that's why I believe that rape should not be a ground for divorce.

Thank you.

[1] http://www.lawpack.co.uk...
vardas0antras

Con

||Introduction||
While I don't think what Mr. Schitter did is moral, I am not playing the devils advocate by disagreeing with the resolution. Also, Good luck, Brian!

||Definitions||
All definitions are from Dictionary.com

Rape:
"the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse."

Should:
"must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that."

Divorce:
"any formal separation of husband and wife according to established custom."

||Arguments||

o Rights
This is an important argument since it improves (more or less) the other argument.

1. Marriage is a right every individual(s) has.
2. Just like with the right of having food to eat, we can disagree with how these rights are used but unless what they're doing is illegal, we don't have a right to do more than advice and rebuke.
3. Divorce is legal

o Faulty example
The resolution is "Rape should not be a ground for divorce" and not "Rape in this instance should not be a ground for divorce".

What does tis mean? This means that my opponent has to argue that one should stay married to a rapists even if the victim is you!

1. Marriage involves having a healthy relationship.
2. Marriage with a rapist isn't healthy.
3. Hence, it is reasonable and admirable to divorce.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

If a woman’s husband rapes her, she can report him to the police and duly obtain a divorce on the ground of “unreasonable behaviour”.

Similarly, if a woman’s husband is a rapist, but only rapes other women, she has a duty to report him to the police and, again, can obtain a divorce on the ground of “unreasonable behaviour”.

However, if the woman is raped by another man, in many backward cultures and religions around the world, the husband will declare the woman “unclean” and demand a divorce.

In western countries, immigrants from these antediluvian societies achieve this by exploiting a legal technicality: the husband will be granted a divorce if he can prove that his wife had sex with another man; whether the intercourse was consensual or not is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

Thus, a woman who will be highly vulnerable and most in need of her husband’s support as the result of being sexually assaulted, can be cast asunder: thrown out of her own home in the most cruel and heartless of fashions; and yet the law would support her pitiless husband in his ruthless abandonment of his wife.

This surely has to be wrong and that’s why I reaffirm that rape should not be a ground for divorce.

Thank you.
vardas0antras

Con

||Important||
Notice, my opponent has conceded the debate.

"Similarly, if a woman’s husband is a rapist, but only rapes other women, she has a duty to report him to the police and, again, can obtain a divorce on the ground of “unreasonable behaviour”."

My opponent has conceded by saying that "rape should not be a ground of divorce" is untrue. Now, I would have no problem with this admission if my opponent had challenged the idea that he has to defend all instances of rape. He had not done this.

||My opponents argument||
Sadly, my opponent has not helped his case this time either. My opponent focuses on the law and not the individuals.
1. My argument focused on the individuals
2. My opponent had said nothing about the individuals
Therefore, my opponent has conceded my argument.

Now, here comes the best part!
1. Marriage and divorce is a matter which is decided by individuals
2. The law may influence the individuals but it may not control the idndividuals
Therefore, my opponents argument is irrelvant.

So what if its unfair? It is still is a right of every individual to divore for any reason. You have never properly addressed this and hence you lose.
Debate Round No. 2
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thiswebsiteisgay 6 years ago
thiswebsiteisgay
Brian eggleston may in fact be the antichrist. Congratulations on being a complete freaking sicko. I hope they save a room for you next to Hitler.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Calls Roy for hints for such debates*
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
I agree with Grape, just consider :

"The resolution is "Rape should not be a ground for divorce" and not "Rape in this instance should not be a ground for divorce"."

If something is grounds for action, that does not mean in every single case the action is warranted, it merely means that you can make a case for it. Note that Brian became very clever in the end when (ok the entire argument is in poor taste anyway) he argued that if a woman was raped then she could be divorced for adultery that is obviously wrong and thus rape can not be grounds for a divorce.

Note that argument from Brian commits a multitude of logical fallacies but it is intentional, the entire argument is supposed to be absurd while appearing to be logical on the surface. He does this fairly well, easily one of the stronger debaters of this type on the forums. If you are going to beat him you have to be deadpan and strong like Kenyon, or be even more absurd and just top the sillyness. But you won't fare well with a semantic contention about is/all/every - unless the presentation is perfect.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
*sigh* I see I should have never bothered with you
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
Arguments and Conduct Vote: Brian made it very clear that when he said rape, he meant the wife being raped by another man. Otherwise, you could just argue that a random person in another part of the world being raped is not grounds for divorce. That's not a flaw in Brian's argument, it's a flaw in your interpretation of it. The resolution was strongly implied and you chose to adopt a counter intuitive interpretation of what Pro was talking about. Your argument had nothing to do with Pro's actual case; you just talked past him on purpose and avoided any communication. That kind of response is sometimes warranted and even correct when someone writes incoherent debates. Pro was not incoherent, his argument made a great deal of sense even though it was presented informally.

Just because Pro does not adopt a formal debate style like yours (which by the way is really unpleasant to read) and doesn't use incoherent syllogisms doesn't mean that he hasn't done plenty to demonstrate that you're simply not making sense. He has exposition; you have a list of bullet points that don't logically follow from one another. However, you seem to think that not making sense and talking past your opponent is a form of argument. It's not. It's a bad way to conduct a debate and it doesn't convince anyone of anything.

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh in my criticism. Everyone makes mistakes, but unlike a lot of people I recognize and accept when I have clearly been beaten. Some people are utterly blind to their own faults. Brian absolutely won all 7 points in that debate.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
" without addressing Pro's argument at all."
I do believe that I have addressed it. Or, did I call my own argument "irrelevant"?
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Also Grape, its just that you dont understand the hidden meaning of that argument.
It makes your 7 point vote biased.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
BTW, sorry for being a bit disrespectful though the surprise factor should be considered.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"Con made a semantical argument that made no sense"
The reasons you just lost all of my respect and good attitude towards you. Just WOW. A semantical argument? "no sense"? *head explodes*
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"instead of just accusing me of having some bias against you"
Well, its a rather hard thing not to do (seeing how it's obvious)! Okay, why did you give him the conduct vote?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
brian_egglestonvardas0antrasTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Brian set a pretty clear scenario with his opening argument, which an established interpretation of the resolution. Vardas tried to ignore this. Brian's arguments went unrefuted, and Vardas' were irrelevant.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
brian_egglestonvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Grape summarized it well. It also seems that Vardas has not read enough of Brian's debates to understand that the entire 1st round is the resolution, basically.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
brian_egglestonvardas0antrasTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
brian_egglestonvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was a more articulate writer and cited the only actual source in the debate. Con made a semantical argument that made no sense to try to win the debate without addressing Pro's argument at all. Clear 7 point victory to Pro.