The Instigator
Blob
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Hardcore.Pwnography
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Rapists should have their penises cut off.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Hardcore.Pwnography
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,454 times Debate No: 23452
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

Blob

Pro

I will be arguing that rapists should have their penises cut off as a standard part of their punishment when convicted. Con will be arguing that rapists should not have their penises cut off if convicted.

4000 characters.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

I assume first round is acceptance
Debate Round No. 1
Blob

Pro

First, I will assert that rapists get off too easily. Usually, the penalty does not reflect the magnitude of the crime (at least in the western world). For example, convicted rapists in the US in 1992 spent on average about 5-6 years in prison for their crime [1]. The figures are the same for Australia (Victoria) over the period 1999 to 2008 [2], with one in ten convicted rapists serving a wholly suspended sentence [1]. I suspect the figures are similar for Europe too. I think it is safe to say that in general, victims are not satisfied with the penalties imposed on their attackers. Likewise, prosecutors and the general public tend to think that the penalties for rape are too light, rather than too heavy, or just right. I have not ever heard a member of the general public complain that rapists don’t deserve such heavy penalties, but everyone has seen a story in the news where the opposite complaint is being made. Therefore, there seems to be a general consensus that the penalty for rape should be heavier.


I propose that the penalty for rape would be adequate if rapists had their penises cut off as a standard part of their punishment. This would ensure that they are punished and degraded. An additional major benefit would be the prevention of recidivism [3].


I look forward to Con’s arguments as to why willy chopping should not be carried out.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://www.heraldsun.com.au...

[3] http://www.springerlink.com...

Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

I really only have to make one argument to make this debate.
Now, PRO assumes that all rapists are male. That is false.

http://www.voanews.com...

If you look at the link above, we see that there are female rapists, although uncommon.
Now, females don't have penises. So how can we cut off their penises? We can't. Therefore, if the punishment for rape is to cut off penises, there would be inequal punishment for males and females, and in the democratic society, we value equality. This would go against our fundamental pillars and beliefs.

Because PRO groups all rapists as men, he has lost this debate. There are female rapists too, and PRO fails to recognize that. Therefore, PRO has lost this debate.

Once again, as female rapists do not have penises, rapists should not have their penises cut off, as that would equal unequal treatment.

Vote CON
Debate Round No. 2
Blob

Pro

...if the punishment for rape is to cut off penises, there would be inequal punishment for males and females...

Con has misunderstood the resolution. I never said that penis chopping should be the only punishment for rapists. Indeed, we could also legislate for clitoris or vagina chopping. In this case, females would not undergo penis chopping, but males would not undergo clitoris or vaginal chopping.

Thus, there would not necessarily be unequal treatment for males and females if rapists had their penises cut off. Unequal treatment would only occur if females did not also face an equivalent penalty. However, this is not, and never was, the resolution.

Vote Pro.
Hardcore.Pwnography

Con

Now, PRO has not said anything about unequal treatment, so I assume that means he agrees that everyone should be treated equally under the law. This will be useful later.


Con has misunderstood the resolution.

I disagree. I fully understand the resolution. The title of this debate is "Rapists should have their penises cut off", not "Rapists should have their genaltilia dismembered from their bodies."

PRO obviously thought only males commit the crime of rape, which is false. As such, PRO has lost this debate.

I never said that penis chopping should be the only punishment for rapists. Indeed, we could also legislate for clitoris or vagina chopping. In this case, females would not undergo penis chopping, but males would not undergo clitoris or vaginal chopping.

PRO keeps trying to change his proposed legislation. First it was that all rapists must have their penises chopped off. Now it is females must have their vagina/clitoris chopped off and males their penises. Now this is where I have caught PRO.

Believe it or not, there are transsexual women, who have the male sex organ, the penis. I must remind you that these people are women, literally, with penises. The opposite is also true for males, they have vaginas.

http://en.wikipedia.org...;

The term for this is a hermaphrodite, or intersexual human.

Now, PRO just explicitly said that females would not undergo penis chopping, and males vaginal chopping. But some females have penises and some males have vaginals. Therefore, unequal treatment would occur here, and as I said, it goes against our fundamental beleifs. I already have established that PRO does not believe in unequal treatment.







.







Even if PRO somehow magically manages to refute my concrete arguments, he must be reminded that dismemberment of human body parts is a cruel and inhumane treatment and punishment, capital punishment. As a western society, we don't do this anymore. This is the whole reason we don't have the death penalty anymore. This is the whole reason we don't cut the hands off of thieves anymore. This is the whole reason we have developed into a civilized nation. Implementing this legislation would go against our fundamental beliefs again.



.


PRO has obviously lost. I see no way for him to come back. Vote CON
Debate Round No. 3
Blob

Pro

PRO obviously thought only males commit the crime of rape, which is false. As such, PRO has lost this debate.

I did not at any time state that only males commit rape.

The statement "Rapists should have their penises cut off" doesn't contain within it any assumption that only males commit rape. Imagine there are three rapists, two male and one female. If we cut off the penises of the two male rapists, then the result is that "rapists had their penises cut off." Thus, the fact that some rapists do not have penises does not mean that the resolution can only make sense or be physically possible under the assumption that all rapists are male.

Con's entire argument regarding my supposed assumption that all rapists are male is flawed and should be vigorously rejected.




PRO keeps trying to change his proposed legislation. First it was that all rapists must have their penises chopped off. Now it is females must have their vagina/clitoris chopped off and males their penises.


Con has made an unforgivable mistake here. NEVER did I say that "all rapists" should have their penises cut off. Con has repeatedly made the mistake of reading "rapists" as "all rapists" (three times so far). Con's suggestion that I am trying to change the resolution is completely unfounded. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Con is actually the one who is guilty of trying to change the resolution for his benefit.

As for vagina chopping, I merely used this scenario to show that willy chopping would not necessarily result in unequal penalties for male and female rapists.




Now, PRO just explicitly said that females would not undergo penis chopping, and males vaginal chopping. But some females have penises and some males have vaginals. Therefore, unequal treatment would occur here, and as I said, it goes against our fundamental beleifs.

This depends on how we define male and female. As these terms have not yet been defined, I will define them now.

Male: a person with a penis.
Female: a person with a vagina.

This definition (albeit in a less simplistic form) is used in some countries to determine the legal gender of transsexuals [1], so it is perfectly appropriate in this context.




Even if PRO somehow magically manages to refute my concrete arguments, he must be reminded that dismemberment of human body parts is a cruel and inhumane treatment and punishment, capital punishment...Implementing this legislation would go against our fundamental beliefs again.


If someone is in a car accident and requires their leg to be amputated, do we refuse to amputate the patient's leg because it would be "cruel and inhumane"? No, because we do not do it in a cruel and inhumane way. Willy chopping would be cruel and inhumane if we did it in a cruel and inhumane way, but again, I never suggested this. Rapists could be anesthetised, and have the operation performed by a professional. Rape, however, is cruel and inhumane. Willy chopping will help to deliver justice, which is at the core of our values.



SUMMARY

1. In Round 1, I argued that rapists should have their penises cut off. I gave reasons, and I pointed to several benefits for victims and society as a whole (e.g. prevention of recidivism). Con did not ever disagree directly with any of my arguments, and so it can be assumed that he accepted all of them.

2. Con's main argument (unequal penalties for males and females) is based on a misunderstanding of, or deliberate attempt to change, the resolution. I never said that all rapists are male, and I never said "all rapists" should have their penises cut off.

3. Con's fallback argument (inhumane and goes against our fundamental beliefs), is based on certain assumptions regarding the method used to chop. I showed that willy chopping can be done in a humane way, and that in fact it caters well to our fundamental values.


I have refuted all of Con's arguments (without the use of "magic").

The resolution has been upheld.

Vote PRO


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hardcore.Pwnography

Con


Imagine there are three rapists, two male and one female. If we cut off the penises of the two male rapists, then the result is that "rapists had their penises cut off."

First, PRO is twisting the definitions of words unreasonably.

PRO says that if there are 3 rapists, 2 male 1 female, and we dismembered the penises of the two male rapists, the end result would be that rapists had their penises dismembered.

This is true, but is completely unreasonable logic.

Imagine this statement.

The wheels on the bus turn as the bus is moving.

Now, the reasonable interpretation would be that all 4 wheels are turning. PRO would, like his previous example, twist it unreasonably. Yes, it could mean that only two wheels turn while the bus is moving, but the logical and reasonable interpretation would be that all four wheels turn while the bus is moving.

Therefore, PRO's analysis is unreasonable and should be completely disregarded.

Even if PRO does manage to convince you that he was thinking about female rapists while he made the resolution, please be reminded that he has not proven why the benefits of penis dismemberment outweigh the detriments.


Con has made an unforgivable mistake here. NEVER did I say that "all rapists" should have their penises cut off. Con has repeatedly made the mistake of reading "rapists" as "all rapists" (three times so far). Con's suggestion that I am trying to change the resolution is completely unfounded.


Again, CON is trying to unreasonably twist the resolution into his favor with semantics.

Consider the statement "Murderers should be sent to jail."

Any reasonable person would interpret that as ALL murderers would be sent to jail, not some murderers sent to jail, others hung, males sent to jail only, or whatever. This is because male murderers, female murderers, etc. all fall under the classification of murderer. Thus, the reasonable interpretation of this resolution would be that ALL rapists should have their penis cut off, as female rapists, male rapists all fall under the classification of a rapist.

As males and females could fall under the classification of a rapist, they are both included when you have the punishment of penis chopping. If this were legislated, the law does not distinguish between male offenders and female offenders. Thus, both sexes would udnergo the punishment of penis chopping, just as both would serve life for murder. However, as stated, females do not typically have penises and we have gender biased and unequal treatment here, which is against our rights and freedoms.

This depends on how we define male and female. As these terms have not yet been defined, I will define them now.

Male: a person with a penis.
Female: a person with a vagina.

Lol? See what PRO does here is establish new groundwork to work in his favor in the last round of debate.
Obviously PRO is grasping at straws to save himself from a crushing defeat.
Please understand that it is not fair nor is it sportsmanlike to establish new groundwork halfway through the debate.

As PRO has brought up the definition of male and female, I will challenge it to a more suited definition.

Male: a person with XY sex chromosome
Female: a person with the XX sex chromosome

http://en.wikipedia.org...

This definition is more suited and encompasses all people, including intersexual people.

I also find it funny how PRO goes on to say: "... is used in some countries..."

Is this legislation taking place in "some countries"? As PRO is from Australia, it is reasonable to assume that he meant for this legislation to be instilled in Australia, where you go by your birth sex, unless you get sex change surgery, which means altering your chromosomes. Therefore, PRO's definitions are invalid.

Capital Punishment

Running out of space, but amputation of leg is not comparable, it would not be a punishment. Willy chopping is cruel and inhumane, which is the whole reason we did away with the death penalty, even though it was done cleanly.

Vote CON


Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cdaddy 4 years ago
cdaddy
Majority of rapists are men, not majority of men are rapists. Ha sorry.
Posted by cdaddy 4 years ago
cdaddy
CON's dismissal of PRO's initial argument by getting specific and trying to account for all possible people are why nothing meaningful gets done in this country. Everybody has to be accounted for. Well I think that is garbage. THe point is that the majority of men are rapists. When men rape, they should get their penises cut off. We can set typical rules for women or transsexuals or dolphins (south park reference) or whatever people want to call themselves today, but in an attempt to deal with the main cause of the problem, if men had the fear of getting their penis cut off i dont think they would rape. Just as in the same sense, yes maybe a few innocent people get killed with the death penalty, but in overall gain we probably save alot of lives. Think of it economically
Posted by Blob 4 years ago
Blob
Con says (below): "PRO attempted to argue the resolution that rapists should have their penises detached, and wants to make this a standard of punishment for ALL rapists."

I'm pretty sure I addressed this point in the debate. Where did I say that willy chopping should be the punishment for ALL rapists? Nowhere.

In response, Con says (last round of debate): "Consider the statement 'Murderers should be sent to jail.' Any reasonable person would interpret that as ALL murderers would be sent to jail, not some murderers sent to jail, others hung, males sent to jail only, or whatever."

I agree. That is the reasonable interpretation because all murderers CAN be sent to jail; it is physically possible. And yet, you seem to think that any reasonable person would interpret "Rapist should have their penises cut off" as "Rapists, even those without penises, should have their penises cut off"? Since when was it reasonable to choose the interpretation that is physically impossible? An illogical interpretation is not a reasonable one. A reasonable person would interpret it as "Rapists should have their penises cut off, if they have a penis to cut off". You are trying to have it both ways, choosing the reasonable interpretation only when it suits you.

Then, of course, we arrive back at your "unequal treatment" argument, but I already addressed that in the debate. Simpy, proposing a specific punishment for one group of people does not preclude other groups of people being punished in an equivalent way (e.g. clitoris chopping).

I think I won this debate, but it's all good.
Posted by induced 4 years ago
induced
perhaps trivial was the wrong word. i meant it was just a technicality. you knew what the spirit of the debate was about, but instead you took the title of the debate too literally, creating a straw man. if i said i favor abortion, it can reasonably be assumed that i favor the RIGHT to abortion, not abortion itself. saying that i want people to get abortions would just be a cheap way to argue against me, because you know that wouldnt be my position.

PRO even clarified his position, but you basically said that he was technically wrong by his opening statement, so it doesnt matter if he is right or not about his actual position. so you basically conceded he is right. i also agree with him that he wasnt technically wrong. saying "Rapists should have their penises cut off" does not mean that you are claiming that all rapists have penises.

i have much more respect for debaters who try to tackle the strength of someones argument, even if their opponent didnt articulate as well as they could have.
Posted by Hardcore.Pwnography 4 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
@ Induced

It is not a trivality, but a legitimate point. PRO attempted to argue the resolution that rapists should have their penises detached, and wants to make this a standard of punishment for ALL rapists. By definition, females do not have penises. There are female rapists. Thus, enacting this resolution would cause unequal and unfair punishment, as well as gender discrimination.

The analogy you bring up is completely unrelated. Rapists should go to prison. Okay makes sense. But you bring up "what about those who haven't been caught" or "have died". Firstly, if you haven't been caught, the police are probably after you, and after you have been caught, you will go to prison, as that is the punishment. Compare this with the current resolution. A female rapist is caught and will undergo the punishment of penis chopping. When they try to enact the punishment, they cannot, since the female has no penis. Thus, the female is exempt from this punishment and there is unequal treatment.

To make your analogy related to the current resolution, it must be edited. We'll stick with your example: Rapists should go to prison. To make your analogy similar to this resolution, it'd be like saying: what about those rapists who are impossible to detain in prison, for whatever reason. In this instance, like this resolution, these rapists will be exempt from punishment. In essence, your analogy does not create a loophole for certain rapists to escape. This resolution does. Therefore, your analogy is not comparable to this resolution.

With regards to your "have already died" example, it is also irrelevant. If you've already died, then it would be impossible to enact punishment of any form on you, and as such it does not pose any relevance to the issue at hand.

TL;DR you're a dumbass and you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by induced 4 years ago
induced
PRO made way more sense. CON brang up trivialities that he knew werent the point of the debate. it's like if i say that rapists should go to prison, and you say "what about those who havent been caught, or have already died?". what a jerkwad
Posted by Blob 4 years ago
Blob
Yeah, as soon as I posted the debate I realised that the resolution should have been "Rapists should be castrated".
Posted by coolshady10 4 years ago
coolshady10
Good point
Posted by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
Why not just cut their testes off? It would work just as well, and it wouldn't require the rapists to have to pee sitting down for the rest of their life.
Posted by coolshady10 4 years ago
coolshady10
why are you even debating about this, duuuuh they should have their penises cut off
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
BlobHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Flawed resolution presupposes existence of penis on rapists.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
BlobHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Well I guess woman can't lose a penis if they don't have one!
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
BlobHardcore.PwnographyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter last conduct vote. Winning in general is not a co duct plus. I will vote on args later
Vote Placed by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
BlobHardcore.PwnographyTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G and Conduct to Con for the win in general. Args because Con crafted their arguments quite well, and ran a wonderful kritik.