The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Raped Women Should Be Euthanised

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,540 times Debate No: 62059
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (1)




*Leave a message in the comments if you want to accept*

Note to voters: 2,500 ELO, and conduct may not be rewarded just by virtue of the debate topic at hand. Points should be rewarded according to Ragnar's DDO FAQ.

I thought perhaps the linked debate could have been done better... The BoP is shared in this debate.


Rape: Forced sexual intercourse against the will of the victim

LD Format, 10,000 characters, 48h

R1: Acceptance
R2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)
R3: Rebuttals to opening arguments
R4: Defense of your original arguments


I accept the duel.
Debate Round No. 1


I am in thett3’s debt for accepting this most important debate.


I intend to show that on balance it would generally be better for society if we euthanized rape victims, not only does rape induce long-term negative well-being on the victim, but negatively affects society on a whole with the woman’s maintainance. Euthanizing rape victims would effectively free the state’s financial and medical resources and provide a net positive effect on society.

Negative Effects of Rape


The negative physical and mental effects of rape cannot be understated, they are both broad and diverse. The physical effects of rape frequently include, and are not limited to vaginal bleeding, dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse), hypoactive sexual desire disorder, vaginal inflammation, urinary tract infections, chronic pelvic pain as well as sexually transmitted diseases especially HIV/AIDS.[1]

Many of these physical consequences inevitably leads to a lower quality of life, and lower well-being, since the female generally experiences reduced sexual satisfaction within her life (due the related mental and physical effects) which is extenuated by infections that occur at a significantly increased rate due to the lower use of contraception amongst rapists.

From physical effects alone it is clear that women generally lead lifes of reduced well-being but these are but a fraction of the issues that result from rape.

Another serious physical consideration is of course, rape induced pregnancy in female victims, which is undetectable for several weeks after rape has occurred and leads to serious ethical, and legal dilemmas of choices between aborting the child or giving birth to a baby with the rapist’s genes and the social stigma attached. On one hand a baby may be aborted, but often leads to long-term emotional side-effects of the mother, who willingly killed her foetus, as well as the community that are aware of this, or the other hand with the mother having to raise her rapist’s child, an obvious long term physical and emotional burden. Then there is the social stigma associated with such a pregnancy/abortion/birth.

“Women who raise their rape-conceived children depart from the prototype and are, as a result, viewed with suspicion”

Moreover, special cases end up being needed to be made in law if the mother chooses to raise such a child, since not only must the mother tolerate her bastard child, but also the father’s custodial rights

“Without such laws, in most states, a man who fathers through rape has the same custody and visitation privileges to that child as does any other father of a child. M”[2]


The mental effects of rape also cannot be understated, a review of several studies on rape preclude:

“Rape victims were found to be significantly more depressed, generally anxious, and fearful than control subjects.”[3]

Of course this is over simplistic, other effects include self-blame complexes, increased suicide, depression, anxiety, PTSD, increased shame, lack of motivation, empathy, self-harm, anger, aggression and increased suicide rates. All of these negatively impact the person’s well-being, but just as importantly affects their ability to work, and be productive for the economy. Anxiety and depression for example demands extensive accommodation, and hence directly reduces the productivity per capita (more on this later).[4,6]

Self-blame and anger are directly related, Tagney states:

"In day-to-day life, when people are shamed and angry they tend to be motivated to get back at a person and get revenge."[5]

Moreover, self-blame (‘shame’) leads to increase isolation (akin to the effects of anxiety), and generally victims cannot be convinced emotionally that it’s “not their fault”. Generally self-blame complexes need to be treated with cognitive restructuring therapy, which itself is costly and of limited availability.[6]

Self blame (‘shame’) is also connected to eating disorders, substance abuse, and other moral complexes. Indeed the latter leads to increased legal trouble for the victim.[6]

Several studies also conclude that the victims are significantly more prone to committing suicide, which raises the question, if they are going to kill themselves anyway, then why not in a hospitable and sterile environment and manner?[7,8]

To quote Jonathan Davidson:

“Subjects reporting a history of sexual assault were more likely to be female, younger, and to report higher rates of lifetime suicide attempt and posttraumatic stress symptoms; no differences were found in the number of chronic medical disorders, major depression, substance abuse or substance dependence, or panic attacks. Nine (14.9%) of the 67 index group subjects reported a suicide attempt, 4 of whom reported their first sexual assault as occurring before age 16 years.”[8]

Furthermore, as alluded to earlier, rape causes significant stigmatization in several cultures, including highly developed western cultures, especially in cultures of high religiosity (known as secondary victimization). The victim is frequently seen as ‘damaged goods’, for good reason considering the aforementioned physical & mental health effects, but also because of:[9]

  1. 1. ‘Unclean’ Loss of virginity
  2. 2. Sex outside of wedlock
  3. 3. Taboos

Such victims may suffer isolation and disownment from friends & family, and may have known-on effects for marriage, especially in Islamic societies including within Western countries.[10]

Financial Cost

Several studies have concluded the tremendous financial burden that rape victgims have on the united stated, the figures given below neglect a few considerations, but speak for themselves regardless

“The National Institute of Justice estimates that rape and other sexual assaults of adults

cause an annual minimum loss of 127 billion dollars, or about $508 per U.S. resident. This

includes tangible losses such as initial police response, medical care, mental health services,

property damage or loss, and loss of productivity; and intangible losses, such as loss of

quality of life, pain, and suffering. These costs do not include the costs of investigation,

prosecution or incarceration of offenders. This figure makes sexual assault the costliest

crime; even higher than murder.”

“The acute, immediate outcomes of a rape include non-genital trauma for 25-45% of survivors, genital trauma in 19-22%, sexually transmitted diseases in up to 40% and pregnancy in 1-5% that’s an estimated 32,000 rape-related pregnancies a year among adult women in the U.S. (Holmes). These and other ongoing medical concerns mean that, compared to before the assault, survivors' visits to physicians increase 18% in the year of the assault, 56% in the year following, and 31% in the second year following the assault (Koss, 1993). Average medical costs for an assault survivor during a one year period average $89 to $239 higher than those of non-victims”

Reasons for Euthanization

By euthanizing women who have been raped, we avoid virtually all of these consequences of rape on both the victim and society. We both reduce the resource footprint the rape victims have, which allows for more healthy, non-raped children to be born and thrive, also it frees up resources spent on medical care for more economical allocation. New nurseries, healthcare, etc can be provided with the money saves, which would positively affect the well-being of more people than would be the case for mitigating rape, which is of limited efficacy anyway.

The victims of rape consequentially contribute significantly less to society as a result of the mental health effects, and as such by allocating the recourses that person would have consumed on to potentially healthy individuals, we provide a more economical environment, with higher productivity per capita.

The case for euthanasia is multiple-fronted and as I see it, not insignificant. I wish Con best of luck in his opening round.



2. [



5. Tangney, June Price and Dearing, Ronda L., Shame and Guilt, The Guilford Press, 2002









Thanks, Envisage.


a) The resolution goes two possible ways. The first is the way of realism--we look at our world and try to apply the resolution to it. Under this interpretation, euthanizing raped women would have to be involve some kind of state mechanism identifying women who had been sexually violated and exterminating them. The second way is idealism, where we could assume some mystical pie in the sky mechanism that affirms the resolution. We should prefer the former interpretation for debates as it evens the playing field and allows for better policy analysis--if my opponent wants to claim an impact, he should be able to prove that it would actually happen. Since Pro did not specify which country is implementing this policy, we can assume that he wants it done in every country and we should analyze the impacts on a global scale.

b) A shared burden of proof merely means that both parties are obligated to explain to the judges why a world on their side of the resolution is preferable as opposed to only one side having this obligation. To fulfill my burden, I only have to prove that my world better solves for values my opponent and I agree on. This is, after all, and LD debate according to Pro and as such I agree to his (implied) value of minimizing suffering and will prove throughout the debate why my position is superior in this regard.


I. Gendered arguments

Before anything else, reject the resolution because arbitrarily basing policy on gender when there is no compelling reason to do so is discriminatory. Pro must prove not only why euthanizing rape victims is good, but why we should only implement this policy for people with a specific set of genitalia or identify with a certain set of traits we consider to be feminine. This debate is not an actual policy testing ground and as such the effects of the policy are not real, however the effect of language is real and immediate--the judge is obligated to act by their conscience to reject sexism and discrimination in all its forms, including debate resolutions. The resolution also offers no explanation for what action we should take when dealing with individuals who are hermaphrodites, transgendered, or biologically male but identify as female and as such assumes a heteronormative framework, which harms sexual minorities. AsYep, Lovaas, and Elia explain[1]:

"Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others."

Thus a vote for Pro is a vote for sexism and heterosexism--since the policy impacts discussed in the round aren't real but the impacts of sexist and heterosexist language are, they have to be preferred as they affect the real world. We should reject discrimination by voting Con.

Even if, at the end of the debate, you buy all of Pro’s arguments and don’t buy any of mine, you still vote Con until he shows a unique link between his impacts and the female gender because I can just turn them by suggesting we implement the policy except for all genders instead of just women.

II. Realism

Before getting to the nitty gritty analysis of why this resolution is an abomination, it’s worth noting that even if you buy everything Pro says you still have to vote Con because he isn’t going to access any impacts in the real world. The only possible way the state apparatus could know which women had been raped is via the justice system. What this means is that if we implemented a policy of summary executions for rape victims, we wouldn't actually minimize any suffering because as very few of these victims want to die, they will not report being raped. Not only does this destroy whatever arguments my opponent chooses to makes, but it shows how the resolution actually increases suffering because what will actually occur is handing rapists a blank check as they know their victims are incredibly unlikely to actually report their crimes. The streets will become unsafe for women as roving bands of monsters and vagrants seeking to ravage them reign free. The only way to check the widespread unreported rape epidemic that will occur is through vigilante justice as women and their families take revenge into their own hands the only way they can when the system fails them, but vigilante justice is inherently unstable and dangerous. Moreover when women do defend themselves and maim/kill their attackers, if there was any sexual contact of any kind (including mere touching) they will have to lie about their reasoning lest they be executed for the crime of being raped. Thousands of innocent women will be unjustly thrown into prison, eating away at budgets.

I'm not allowed to directly engage Pros case in this round, but no matter what arguments he chooses to make this is a direct solvency takeout as nothing he argues will happen actually will. Instead we'll have a minor societal breakdown.

III. Practical concerns

If we want to reduce suffering, murdering thousands of women is not the way to do it. Since after implementing the policy reports of sexual assault would abruptly stop, the only women executed would be those who have already reported their sexual assault. The statistics vary, but most research suggests that in the United States something around 20% of women experience rape in their lifetime[2]. In 2008 alone, over 160,000 women in the United States reported being victims of some kind of sexual assault (which falls under my opponents definition of rape) according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics[3]. Even if we're going to completely ignore their rights and judge based off a utilitarian calculation, these women do not exist in a vacuum--they are mothers and daughters, sisters and aunts, friends and doctors and lawyers and taxpayers. The negative effects of exterminating somewhere around 1/5th of the female population would outweigh by hundreds of orders magnitude whatever benefit it garners as their loved ones suffer emotional and financial loss and their economic production is completely ended. Moreover a worldwide demographic crisis would occur with much fewer women than men, leading to far less children being produced and no one to pay into the welfare state system, causing it to collapse. It's a dubious prospect at best to believe that the world economy, already on the brink, could survive a sudden and enormous population drop. The shock alone as virtually everyone in the world loses someone close to them would be enough to drive us over the edge.

Moreover, implementing this policy would literally destroy the state. Large amounts of lives would be unjustly taken--rebellion and civil war in virtually every country would swiftly follow leading to millions if not billions of deaths as governments of various levels of authoritarianism crack down on their protesting populations. No matter what, governmental legitimacy and the idea of the rule of law will be forever destroyed as even the most well developed governments commit a veritable holocaust.

IV. Morality

Even knowing full well that my opponent is not being serious in this debate, the entire idea makes me uncomfortable because by debating a policy that robs these women of their lives without their input we are inherently treating them not as human beings but rather as objects to subject to policy analysis, and that just isn't right. We shouldn't trivialize the suffering these victims go through by making them a means to the end of the greater good and they at least deserve a compelling defense of their rights as individuals.

Indeed, my opponent has quite the mountain to climb to prove that these victims have so few rights as people that we can debate the merit of murdering them with the same cool headed, cost benefit analysis as a corporate meeting. Unfortunately for Pro, we aren't businesspeople discussing Oatmeal packaging, we're dealing with real people and their lives here and so the kind of analysis Pro wants this debate to be judged on simply isn't persuasive in this context. Like the user dirkson pointed out in the comments, in this round I'm essentially limited to "Mostly a longwinded way of saying, "Hey. Don't kill people."" It's Pros burden to prove incorrect the fundamental moral axiom of murdering people being wrong, not my burden to prove it correct. Although it's worth noting that any moral system which values human well being but doesn't value life itself is incoherent because at the end of the day there's no point in minimizing suffering if we don't care about the individuals who's suffering we're minimizing.

Pro may attempt to circumvent my argument by exploiting the suffering of these individuals and saying that this outweighs the utility they get from life, but this analysis will fall flat because if these women wanted to die, they could commit suicide. There's no reason to *murder* them just because we arrogantly believe we know better than they do if their lives are worth it or not. Shame on my opponent for thinking this way.

The resolution is, quite frankly, disgusting and completely negated. Vote Con.


1. Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45 pp. 18

Debate Round No. 2



Con in his opening has referred to the resolution as “disgusting”, an “abomination” and has attacked me directly and accused me of not taking this debate seriously. These are subjective and a form of ad homenum, hence voters should take this into account when voting on conduct. Pro equivocates euthanasia with ‘murder’ equivocates several times in his round, here is the definition of murder:

to kill (a person) in a deliberate and unlawful way : to commit the murder of (someone)”[1]

The debate would establish lawfulness, hence I kindly ask Con to stop slipping in presuppositional word swaps and other pot-shots in his rebuttals.


This is not a public policy debate, this debate addresses the truth of the ‘ought’ value of the resolution, “Raped Women Should Be Euthanized”. Thus the pragmatics of the implementation of this resolution are off-topic, as this resolution is akin to ‘We should find a cure for cancer’, or ‘We should prevent murders’, such resolutions may or may not be practically feasible to accomplish, but it is an objective fact of whether or not the ‘ought’, or ‘should’ stands, regardless of whether it practically follows.

Hence, I am not obliged to follow Con’s routes of ‘Idealism’ and ‘Realism’ in affirming the resolution; I have made my presuppositions explicit enough anyway. Indeed the ‘we should’ part of the resolution affirms that we should do what is within the interest of society, which ultimately links back to morality and overall public interest. Pro’s affirmation of ‘minimizing suffering’, while a contributing factor, is not the only consideration that must be made , and is just a case of Con trying to change the parameters of the debate. Indeed one of my major justifications for euthanasia was that it would allow more of a nation’s resources (person-hours, emotional resources, as well as physical and monetary) to be put towards other people leading happy and content lives.

Gendered Arguments

There is nothing within the resolution that prohibits the same resolution applying to male or transgendered people, it’s just that this debate doesn’t extend that far. Moreover Con does nothing to affirm why that’s a bad thing anyway. There are obvious practical reasons, namely that we do not have as many statistics on male-rape as we do on female-rape, moreover males have different sets of hormones, and are affected differently by the secondary effects of rape (anxiety, depression, etc).[2]

Thus, if it is a fact that men generally do not suffer the same secondary, or physical effects as females, especially if a significantly reduced amount then a strong case can be made for justified differential treatment of men and women.

I am not stating we should discriminate in this case, I am stating that this resolution doesn’t intend to, and even if it did lead to such discrimination it would be for objectively justifiable reasons (and it would be Con’s burden to establish why we should ignore such, which completely ignores the sociological, psychological and biological issues at play). Hence Con’s point hits thin air on both fronts, and Con’s presuppositions actually need substantiation.

“…and as such assumes a heteronormative framework, which harms sexual minorities.”

This is false, the resolution doesn’t preclude an equal treatment of men & women, and even if true, the “harming of sexual minorities” doesn’t necessarily entail (bare assertion by Con).


“… you still have to vote Con because he isn’t going to access any impacts in the real world.”

If true, then so what? This debate is whether or not we should euthanize, and a moral case enough to affirm the ‘ought’ or ‘should’ outright (see ‘Presuppositions’). Even if we do not have an effective system that would discover women who have been raped (reporting), then a further case can be made that such a system needs to be developed and installed for weeding out rape victims for euthanisation. We already have such systems in place for animal abuse, where countless animals are inevitably found and euthanized each year after suffering physical abuse by their owners. Hence current pragmatics doesn’t preclude the truth of the resolution.

Pro asserts that this would ‘hand the rapists a blank check’, but on the contrary such a policy would significantly increase rape awareness, and also would obviously lead to renormalization of the state punishments anyway. Rape is clearly intended to encompass sexual assault with sexual intercourse, hence Pro’s ‘touching’ arguments are outside the scope of this debate. Moreover the resolution doesn’t entail throwing women into prison, it entails euthanizing them, which is substantially cheaper than incarceration (~$35). [6]

Practical concerns

Con overstates the prevalence of rape in his own source (18.2%, not 20%), which is a cherry-picked statistic. While this misses the point of the debate (see ‘Presuppositions’), it also self-defeating, since clearly we should be jailing/executing all rapists without exception anyway, which according to Pro’s statistics number ~ 10-20% of the male population. The incarceration rate within the US for any crime is just 0.716%, so in order to fulfil the ‘should’ on incarcerating rapists, we should also be incarcerating an additional ~10% of the US population. Which would leads to exactly the same economic effects that Pro complains about for my position.

This is clearly special pleading. To formalize (modus tollens):

P1. If we shouldn’t euthanize all raped women for familial/economic reasons, THEN we shouldn’t incarcerate/execute all rapists for familial/economic reasons

P2. We should incarcerate/execute all rapists despite family/economic reasons

C. “We shouldn’t euthanize all raped women for familial/economic reasons” is false

The defence of P1 is for the exactly the same reasoning Con gave for the familial/socio-economical reasons why it’s impractical to euthanize 10-20% of all women, since the impact of incarcerating/executing these men would be pretty much the same.

Con asserts that the suffering induced onto the families and economy would outweigh the benefit by “hundreds of orders of magnitude” (that is >10100) and gives zero justification for this. The number of atoms in the universe are <1082, so suffering outweighing this number is physically impossible and seems to be another example of Con exaggerating his case.

While the emotional downfall of the families does need to be accounted for, we fails to consider the overall positive effect of:

  1. 1. Removing an individual with likely long-term suffering from society
  2. 2. Adding a new individual without these long term suffering into society (with the freed up resources)

A utilitarian/relative calculation would clearly benefit my position.

Pro asserts a demographic crisis (without substantiation), to refute this I will cite China, who is now the world’s leading economy yet has a strong male/female bias (exceeding 1.1:1 and approaching 1.4:1 in some regions) and are growing and maintaining population just fine. Hence Con’s welfare fear mongering is pure fantasy.[3]

Pro baldly asserts rebellion and civil way, and the destruction of state, which is prima facie fantastical and with zero evidential support. Moreover even if this is true Con needs to actually demonstrate that this would outweigh the benefits already listed.

IV. Morality

Con’s arguments here are fuzzy, and are mostly emotional appeals. Con has made no effort to demonstrate it would be moral not to euthanize raped women, especially in spite of the enormous and appalling degree of suffering they, the state and their families endure that I have demonstrated so far. We clearly see fit to euthanize people as capital punishment, and animals who are under sufficient levels of suffering and stress. Moreover Pro doesn’t at all affirm or even suggest what rights women have as individuals that would mitigate the resolution, hence I have nothing to argue against.

Why shouldn’t we see humans as a means to a greater good? On utilitarianism, and societal egoism, and many other moral philosophies this would clearly be the way to go. Concessions need to be made to have a maximally good society and Pro’s only affirmation to the contrary is:

“….but rather as objects to subject to policy analysis, and that just isn't right”

A bald assertion if I have ever seen one.

I see fit to reject universal human rights until Con can actually demonstrate they do and should exist, since universal human rights is synonymous with moral objectivism, which is clearly runs into philosophical problems, such as ignorance in biological and psychological differences, and the evolution of moral values over time.[4]

“It's Pros burden to prove incorrect the fundamental moral axiom of murdering people being wrong, not my burden to prove it correct”

  1. 1. This is a shifting of the BoP, this is Con’s claim, he needs to support it
  2. 2. The resolution doesn’t entail murder

Only a limited number of moral systems take this as axiomatic, moreover there are many systems in which suffering outweighs the threshold of the benefit of living (e.g. antinatalism).[5] Con defence of the ‘axiom’ entails that an individual should remain alive despite being under the maximal possible excruciating suffering imaginable, since there is “no point in minimizing suffering if we don’t care about the individual who’s suffering we are minimizing”. This is prima facie absurd.

It is precisely because we care about the individual’s suffering, and the overall societal benefit that we should euthanize them. Pro’s suicide option concedes the resolution (we should euthanize), and the pragmatics of it is absurd, especially given they have effects and consequences that extend beyond themselves (resources, care). Similarly we don't wait for murderers to hang themselves/turn themselves in.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.


Thanks, Envisage.

I'll refute Pros case in this round although most of this will be through highlighting where it clashes with my case--I'm not going to argue against Pro's point about rape being bad for example.


In his strategy, Pro explains that he's advocating the position that it would be better for society as a whole if we euthanized rape victims. This means I've won the framework debate--we have to look at pragmatics because that's the only way to measure what is on balance beneficial. If Pro wanted to argue that the pain these people suffer is so terrible that we ought to put them out of their misery he shouldn't have made his initial arguments consequentialist.

Indeed, Pro is not arguing from a deontological perspective and saying that we have a moral obligation to kill these people, but rather is arguing from a utilitarian perspective and as such arguments relating to the implementation of the policy are more than fair they are absolutely critical. If Pro really wants to quibble about the nonarguments points, you should vote him down on conduct for crafting a policy based resolution and framework and then shifting the goal posts in the very next round to make this a question of what we "ought" to do. This attempt to stifle my impacts is far more egregious than whatever conduct violations I've committed as it directly links to and harms the debate itself.

=Aff case=

The biggest flaw with Pro's case is that his arguments don't really link to his impacts. He spends his entire round talking about how terrible rape is for the individual and society and then spends four sentences arguing the most critical part of the resolution--why should we kill these people?

Remember as well that Pro has the burden of proof to show why we should take away the right of these women to live--the burden of proof for the entire debate may be shared, but we can still allocate the burden on specific arguments. Murder is, and has been, a crime in literally every country for the entirety of human history because we, as humans, typically believe that killing another is wrong. I do not have to prove that killing is *objectively* wrong on some abstract metaphysical level--the fact that I'm defending what's been a common sense moral position for millennia shows who has to prove what here. Killing is only permissible in certain scenarios, the boundaries of which societies decide based on their own moral experience, such as combat, capital punishment, or self defense. Pro has to show why his impacts justify mass killing. It's rather ironic that Pro wants the debate to be judged on the impact of this on society and yet doesn't acknowledge that the response of society to this policy would be disgust, outrage and suffering as a fundamental moral principle, subjective or not, is violated. The very fact that society disapproves of killing to the point where executing vicious antisocial murderers or shooting vagrants robbing your house are considered contentious issues shows just how deep the instinct not to kill a fellow human runs--if we want to judge this debate by how it affects human society at large, we should at least judge it by the principles society would want its leaders weighing. For this reason, killing should be considered immoral and Pro is obligated to show how his impacts outweigh.

Throw out his argument about how rape is destructive to the individual for four reasons: Firstly, Pro wants this debate to be judged by the effect this policy has on society, not on the individual, so we shouldn't allow him to access any impacts that directly contradict the way he intends to win the debate. Secondly, the contention is completely turned by my case--what would occur if we started executing rape victims is a widespread rape epidemic because women, fearing for their lives, wouldn't report rape. This stacks the deck ever higher in favor of the rapists trying to violate the woman as she loses the defense of the law. Pro tried to refute this in the last round by arguing that it would increase "awareness" of rape, but this is a literal assertion and forcing every woman who was raped to keep quiet or die is just about the worst way of raising awareness for rape I can possibly imagine. There's a reason after all that rapists often threaten their victims with death if they report them.

Thirdly, if we're going to value the suffering of the individual we should look to these women's families and friends who would be forced to witness a loved one murdered by the state and have to suffer a painful loss. It's hard to even imagine how much suffering Pro's argument would cause as just about everyone in the world loses someone close to them. Fourthly and most importantly, this falls for one obvious reason and that is that if these women wanted to die they could take their life by their own hand. The very fact that the policy has to be forced proves that for the vast majority--according to Pro, 85%-- of these victims their desire to keep living outweighs their suffering--Pro gives us no reason why we should override their choices.

The only possible way for Pro to win the debate at this point would be for him to have impacts so large that they outweigh the general impermissability of killing. Does his case do this? In a word, no. Even if you ignore all of my solvency takeouts showing how his case wouldn't even access his impacts, his impacts simply are not that great.

Pros economic impacts (the only ones he has) shouldn't be considered viable because he offers no trade off analysis, IE use X money for Y. Pro says that rape costs the average US resident about $750 (508 + 237) per year, if I'm being generous. What POSSIBLE service could the government provide for $750 (his impact) a year that could come even CLOSE to replacing a lost loved one? As a comparison to the costs my opponent brings up, a study from the National Institutes of Health[1] looking at the costs of crimes on society found that the cost murder imposes on society is somewhere between "$4,144,677 to $11,350,687". Most of these costs are not tangible costs like trial and prison expenditures but rather intangible calculations based on estimates of the statistical "value" of the average life and the effects the loss has on the family and community. These studies may be wildly imperfect, but the point is that life is so valued by society that we can assign with a straight face this kind of dollar amount. Even IF Pro argues that the "value" of the life goes down because the rape makes it of lesser quality, unless he proves it's worth less than $750 he loses. The fact that these women are willing to continue living and endure such suffering shows that life must be very valuable indeed and the lowest estimate given in asocial study attempting to address the question found that life outweighs Pro's savings by, well, about 5,526 times. If Pro wants to throw out thousands of years of moral experience and focus on mere numbers, I still outweigh him by several orders of magnitude. There may be a multiplier effect for government spending but I doubt that it's a multiplier of five thousand, five hundred and twenty six.

Even without looking at my case I win because I have enough offense coming off of the turns against his case.



Debate Round No. 3



I got tangled with the LD Format, which I thought only governs the structure of the rounds (1. Proposition cases, 2. rebuttals to propositions, 3. defence of own case). In any case I made my values statement in ‘Strategy’ (pseudo-framework) explicit enough “Euthanizing rape victims would effectively free the state’s financial and medical resources and provide a net positive effect on society”. Just what I meant by ‘positive effect’ I made explicit later in the round, where it would allow for the same number of living beings without the suffering effects, and lower employment, as well as economic impact on society to be realized. Those are the values I have affirmed and Con has not contested these.

Hence the framework, while not ideal, is not something Con has attempted to attack, while I have challenges his in ‘presuppositions’, hence this portion is still very much in contention. I have defended the moral obligation take on the resolution in the last round, and even assuming pragmatics are an issue I have addressed these in the previous round positively regardless.


The main bone of contention in this debate is Con’s repeated assertion that euthanasia = murder, and murder = bad. However essentially all of Con’s arguments have been gross exaggerations and fear mongering. Con continues to assert that these women have a right to live, yet provides zero reason to accept why this is the case (without even considering my positive reasons why we should reject this), especially given that our euthanization of these women is indeed justified.

Con continues to equivocate the proposition with “murder”. As far as the proposition stands, women do not have an inherent, or intrinsic right to live, and most certainly no more right than any other living being, such as animals. Affirmation that women have some sort of special right to live appears to just be a case of special pleading by Con. Given he has refused to support this right (at least in a way I can challenge it), we should reject all such arguments and assertions of his out of hand.

Con concedes there are circumstances in which society finds killing other people is permissible, which seems pretty clear evidence that there is no ‘fundamental axiom against ‘murder’, or whatever Con defines euthanasia as. Hence all these arguments are just more special pleading by Con. My arguments come from our society’s moral experience, and are objective in their answers. I have already addressed the problems of moral objectivism which is what Pro implies with his repetitious “murder is wrong”, assuming taking a life to be absurd leads to ridiculous propositions where situations of extreme universal suffering are outweighed by a single saved life. We forfeit lives every day since every sum of money spent superficially (e.g. entertainment, or other non-essentials) goes some way to sacrificing lives of others, since that same amount of capital can be used to raise/save other lives (childbirth, medical care). Thus society is clearly not against balancing the books with people’s lives on the grand scheme of things.

Moreover society strongly disapproves of the points of suffering, societal well-being and liability made in my affirmative case (which Con has not attempted to refute).

Pro is commits the fallacy of hasty generalization in arguing that because one subset of killing people is wrong, that the entirety of killing people is wrong, he has refuted himself by arguing that there are instances where it is seen as permissible, and hence cannot make this generalization.

To formalize:

P1. If killing is morally wrong, then all killing of other people is wrong

P2. Not all killing of other people is wrong

C. Killing other people is not morally wrong


Con uses a classic salesman tactic by taking the small-incrimental figure and comparing it to the one-off cost of a murder of a different type to make the difference seem significant. He compares the per-unit untangable cost of murder (virtually all >95% of the costs were non-tangable from his own study) against the per US Citizen/annum tangable cost of rape, and then gloats about an alleged ‘5,526x’ discrepancy between the cost of rape and murder. Well of course you are going to obtain wildly different values by comparing apples to oranges! This is just absurd form from Con on this. From my opening round I gave a cost of ~$127 billion *VICTIM* impact of rape on the US (higher than murder, which doesn’t include the tangable increase medical costs per victim which are obviously lacking.

To cite the horrible inaccuracies in the numbers Con presented for the intangible ‘costs’ of murder, the following logic used:

“… that does not mean anyone would voluntarily exchange their life for $1.9 million. Instead, that number is arrived at by estimating the incremental amount that individuals are willing to pay for a reduced risk of death, where the commodity is “risk of death,” not death itself... if 100,000 people would collectively pay $30 each to reduce their risk of dying from 1/100,000 to 0, one would say that the group values the “statistical life” that is likely to be saved by $3 million”

Such studies assume a linear no threshold theory (hugely problematic in real-world applications), and such sums arise from very little if any relation to actual monetary cost, and has little in any relevant to the intangible impact of murder anyway.[2]

Further, Con ignores that death necessarily entails zero tangable victim cost, zero victim medical cost, and additional space on the job market, whereas rape entails extensive medical and therapy costs, continued and persistent victim and family suffering because of the compromised mental and social state of the victim. ‘Murder’ simply does not entail these long-term negative social well-being and economical impacts as well as reduced work productivity.

With the money saved (an excess of $127 billion), we can afford to breed 31 million new children every year (assuming a $4020/annum cost/child per annum), many times greater than the number of women that are raped in the US every year (160,000 according to Con).[1] Even accounting for improving the quality of upbringing of these new people the value of removing the costs associated with maintaining raped women are easily outstripped by the benefits of breeding new people without the trauma.

Con attacks my case for lacking impacts, which I thought were readily apparent anyway (discussed later), yet there are no impacts to compare my case to of his own, no impacts of not implementing the policy, no comparison of the negative financial consequences of implementing the policy over not implementing it. As such on financial impacts alone you should vote Pro.


Contrary to Con’s complaints of a lack of impacts of employing the policy, most of my opening round WAS the impacts. The affirmation of the negative effects of rape on both the victim, economy, family, employment, workforce are all impacts of what would happen if we did not implement this policy, I see no reason to accept that they will be any different. A 180O on these impacts of not implementing this policy would be realized if the policy was implemented. The economical backlash would be reversed; there would reduce suffering, and more room for more viable employment prospects.

…We avoid virtually all of these consequences of rape on both the victim and society”

Pro argues that society’s response to this policy would be “disgust & outrage”…. so what (even if it’s true)? How does that negate the arguments given, it is not clear how anger and contempt affirm that we should not euthanize, since people’s reaction isn’t inherently linked to well-being, I would find it difficult to do any sort of moral calculation based on this, and it prima facie has no effect on economics, and other social issues.

Pro argues that the resolution would create a culture in which women would refuse to report their rapes and consequently hand rapists a ‘blank check’. Now only does he provide no substantiation for this, only speculation, he also ignores the current statistics which entail only a 40% current report rape and only a 10% conviction rate of the reported rapes. Essentially, rapists already so have a ‘blank check’, yet we do not see a ‘rape epidemic’. Furthermore I argued last round how the opposite would in fact be true.

Furthermore, I am proposing a systematic program of cleansing raped victims from the population, ‘for the greater good’, if such a program was installed it would be on the presupposition that those who do not want to submit themselves to euthanization would be doing to at the expense of the community, and hence would be stigmatized anyway for not submitting themselves for euthanization. There would be hence moral coersion of the rape victims to turn themselves in, as well as social stigma against those who do not. The same investigation and conviction of the perpetrators can occur regardless, hence Con’s points are bunk.

Con argues that the families and friends would suffer as a result, but ignores that they suffer significantly anyway while the rape victim lives, and once the rape victim is euthanized, the grief is only a temporary set-back in well being, if at all.

Con also argues that my statistics entail that 85% of women don’t want to commit suicide, but this is just false, just before 85% of rapes women don’t commit suicide, doesn’t mean they don’t want to commit suicide. Just because less than 1% of people own a Ferrari, doesn’t mean 99% don’t want to own a Ferrari, this is horribly fallacious reasoning by Con, and is partially the reason why this resolution sets to euthanize (assisted suicide) rape victims.


If you share the value in healthy, human lives, with excellent well-being, if you oppose the emotional, physical, mental and monetary penalty that rape inflicts on society as it stands, then please vote Pro.

  1. 1.


Thanks, Envisage.

=My case=

I. Gendered arguments

Pro drops the warrant that we should prefer the impact that come from language because it's real and immediate whereas the policy impacts discussed in round are imaginary, so if I win the kritik I win the debate. Pro has completely failed to answer the kritik--basing policy on sex without warrant to do so is inherently sexist and judges should act with their conscience and vote down all forms of discrimination. Pro asserts that male rape victims should not be euthanized because they don't suffer the same way, but he doesn't explain *how* these differences in suffering justify a policy difference, nor does he cite in round what these difference really are so they can't be considered--reading his source is doing his work for him.

Pro says that the resolution doesn't preclude executing male rape victims as well, but he doesn't understand that resolutions that explicitly mention a specific demographic are necessarily exclusive. Pro's argument here is akin to me making a resolution entitled "black people should sit in the back of the bus" and justifying it by saying "well white people should sit in the back of the bus too because the back of the bus is fun". That would be a bad argument because there's no reason to specify black people in that resolution if you aren't going to be making race specific arguments, just like there's no reason to specify women in this debate if you aren't going to make sex specific arguments.

Thus since Pro dropped the warrant that we should prefer the kritik over the other arguments and failed to demonstrate why the policy should specify women you can vote Con here.

Pro completely misunderstands how he's being heternormative--by assuming peoples genders can be neatly categorized into little boxes he is ignoring sexual minorities. The impact of a heteronormative mindset has already been explained and Pro still never explained what happens to transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and other sexual minorities that could arguably be categorized as women. Indeed, Pro doesn't even dispute the point and doesn't even explain who falls under this broad, sweeping category he calls woman. How on Earth Pro expects you to agree to kill an entire demographic without knowing exactly who they are is beyond me.

II. Realism

Pros response here falls completely flat. Pro eats away at his economic impacts by arguing that we should implement some complex mechanism for rooting out rape victims after the initial wave of executions. What's going to happen is that the government is going to track down and exterminate those who have reported rape in the past and after that there will be no more reports. When rapists know that they can do whatever they want and there is no legal recourse to stop them, the amount of rapes will vastly increase. The streets will devolve into a mad scrum of vigilante justice with the government powerless to stop the madness. Pro responds that rape is rarely reported in the status quo--this is true and a major issue. Preventing rape from ever being reported would serve only to make things worse. The cost-benefit analysis is completely changed when the rapist knows they will never be caught.

I don't think Pro understood the incarceration impact: when women do defend themselves by killing or maiming their rapists, they will have to lie about their motivations lest they be executed which would lead to thousands of women being unjustly thrown into prison. Pros definition for rape is so broad as to include things like groping. So much for Pro's economic savings. Pro's claim that murdering all rape victims will somehow raise awareness for rape is so absurd as to be laughable--that he's seriously arguing that killing any victim who speaks out against their attackers is a good way to raise rape awareness is as good an argument to vote Con as any I could've come up with myself.

You should vote Con here because this is a direct solvency takeout: Pro's plan leads to more rape and more expenses. He has literally no impact whatsoever that stands the test of realism. I can't emphasize this enough: his argument about how much rape victims suffer is completely turned by the fact that rape would increase.

III. Practical concerns

Pros arguments to this rebuttal are ridiculous: that he seriously expects that society would benefit from terminating something around 20% of it's female population is an extremely dubious claim that he's provided no real justification for. The impact of exterminating such a vast amount of the population would be so vast and so unprecedented that it's almost impossible to imagine the impact but it's a safe bet that it outweighs at most $750 per year. The suffering incurred by the loss of a loved one is extreme and anyone who has lost someone they care about can relate--Pro's analysis simply fails to persuade here.

Pro accuses me of "special pleading" for arguing that rapists should be imprisoned but rape victims shouldn't be murdered however he's merely strawmanning my argument here and I suspect he knows it. That Pro pretends to not understand the moral difference between punishing the perpetrator of a crime and the victim and how this factors into our decision making is so ridiculous as to defy belief.

Pro seriously contends that a welfare system based upon the earnings of the young subsidizing the wealthy can survive a 20% female population loss and to defend this he cites China. Unfortunately for Pro, the male-female disparity in China has been a *huge* cause for concern and has led to abolishing the one child policy in many cases if the first child is a girl[1].

Pro argues that we "should" be jailing all of the rapists anyway which removes them from society. First, the resolution doesn't specify tightening sentences for rapists so he can't claim this impact and secondly if he does he loses out on all of his economic benefits as the cost to imprison someone for a year is vastly more than $750.

Pro characterizes my argument that this policy would lead to a governmental collapse as "fantastical" and accuses me of having zero evidence, but he doesn't even attempt to address the warrant behind the argument. The government slaughtering huge amounts of citizens for no reason would certainly cause a backlash against the state--who would trust the government again after they exterminated your mother because some filth victimized her years ago? Pro's demand for evidence is unfair as his suggestion is entirely without precedent but it's fair to say that the psychological impact on the populace would be immense. Certainly the idea of rule of law would be thrown out the window as the state commits unspeakable atrocities in its quest to save us $750 per year.

IV. Morality

Reject Pro's position because he never made the argument for why we can override the right to life of these women--Pro tries to shift the burden of proof here but like I argued in my framework, a shared burden of proof means only that we're both obligated to provide reasons our world is better and we can still assign unequal burdens on contention level arguments. It was Pro's burden to prove that his impacts were so overwhelming that the commonly recognized right to life can be overridden. At this point I can win simply by appealing to the judge's sense of justice: a life is incredibly valuable, worth far more than $750.

Secondly, Pro wants the debate to be judged by a really weird form of utilitarianism where we look at only the societal effects he wants you to look at (money). Pro made did not overcome the argument that societal values like life should be weighed into our utilitarian calculations and has utterly failed to prove that his impacts are so vast that they outweigh the societally granted right to life. Human life is one a sacred principle in every society, it's strictly not utilitarian to ignore what brings society the most utility by ending the things they value in exchange for pocket change. Pro doesn't even win the economic argument--in the last round I cited a card explaining the heavy costs of murder on society. Pro's only real response is that it's intangible and we can't compare intangible costs to tangible ones, but this is simply wrong. Any student with a basic accounting knowledge knows that intangible assets like patents and goodwill are included in companies balance sheets at their estimated dollar value and we can do the same with life. Again, there's clear evidence that society values life extremely highly, far more than what amounts to Pro's drop in the bucket savings. Pro's attacks against the study are unsourced and therefore can be ignored, and there's absolutely no reason why the value individuals--members of society-- put on their own lives shouldn't be weighed in societal calculations.

Pro also never disputed the analysis that he gains no advantage because he doesn't say what to use this money for until the last round where he argues that we should just breed 31 million new children into existence every for....reasons? Through...mechanisms? Pro is just grasping at straws trying to cobble together some fancy looking impact to compensate the fact that his entire case is bunk.

Indeed, I just can't understand where Pro is coming from here at all. Under any reasonable utilitarian calculation, I come out on top due to the extreme reverence and value society puts on life. Under any individual rights argument I come out on top because I solve for individual suffering by invoking the status quo--women who want to kill themselves can. Pro's argument that this "concedes" to the resolution is bunk. There's no reason to take away the rights of the vast majority of victims who want to live and whatever suffering he solves for is outweighed by life or else these individuals wouldn't continue to live.

The resolution is negated.


Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Raperights 1 year ago
I would like to express that I am pleasantly surprised that someone would pose the same motion that I did for a debate. It shows that this topic is indeed worthy of serious debates.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
So Envisage, if a politician in your country said "I'm running for office to help the Americans", then backtracks and says "OH well, I want to help our country too. Where did I say I'm running ONLY to help the Americans?" You would be comfortable with that?

It just seems natural to assume that if you're specifying a certain group there's a reason for specifying them alone
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
That's pretty much what I said zmike.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
Basically it gets into the difference between language and logic.

say, for example, a politician says "black people should sit in the back of the bus". If he rebuts the outcry against this by saying "oh well white people should sit on the back of the bus too, my statement didn't preclude *everyone* sitting in the back of the bus" that would be logically correct but also extremely uncompelling as we understand that context defines meaning just as much as definitions do.
Posted by thett3 2 years ago
Yeah, Fuzzys vote is really bad especially considering I only made that argument in passing.

But to answer your question, zmike, resolutional analysis often transcends dry formal logic and goes into the psychology of it's crafting. Does the resolution, logically, preclude the executions of men as well? No, not really. However it *does* specify women so we should presume until shown otherwise that the framer of the resolution had a reason for making a sex specific resolution. Thus the affirmative is denied ground for equality until it disproves the assumption going into the debate: that the policy being enacted is indeed sex specific.
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
Fuzzy's vote makes nos ense...
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
I haven't read the debate, but from YYW's RFD...

How does the resolution say ONLY raped women should be euthanised?

I mean, if I say "All men are mortal, Porcupines aren't men, therefore Porcupines are immortal" this is invalid. So I don't see how saying "Raped women should be euthanised" means "ONLY raped women should be euthanised".
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Wtf fuzzy....
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Wait, nvm.
Posted by Envisage 2 years ago
Wtf, I thought debates with a ff round can't make frontpage....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
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: Normative resolution, equal burden. PRO argues that society benefits where raped women are euthanized, because it frees state resources to be allocated to other things. CON argues that it's not fair to only euthanize women who are raped, where men are also raped; that this might also encourage more raping; would result in the loss of innocent life and is morally wrong. When balancing the concern for social resources (a substantially small harm at best), against the protection of innocent life and the encouragement of crime which would result in further loss of innocent life, it is very clear that CON makes the more persuasive case.