The Instigator
jsgolfer
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points

Should sex be allowed to be considered rape if one of the participants is drunk?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,649 times Debate No: 65747
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

jsgolfer

Con

No. I am a college student, and I firmly believe that if a guy or girl has sex with someone else because they were drunk, they can't cry rape the next day solely based on the fact that they were drunk and could not make decisions to the same ability that they could while sober. The responsibility for your decreased judgement is placed solely on your shoulders (unless you were drugged unknowingly). I do understand that in some circumstances, especially if the woman or man was injured or clearly abused during the intercourse, sexual assault could reasonably be charged.
Debate Round No. 1
jsgolfer

Con

How drunk is "too drunk" to give consent? Legal limit? Certainly not. Many people can make decisions just fine with BAC's of over .08. To assume all people have lost the ability to consent or not to consent to sexual intercourse at a certain BAC is not justified. If a girl has high alcohol tolerance to alcohol and consumes say five beers, her decision making may be "impaired" slightly, but she is by no means "mentally incapacitated". Can she then DECIDE to have sexual intercourse, but afterwards claim that she would not have done such a thing if sober, and claim that she has been raped? I would argue that in this type of scenario, the other party was not exploiting her, and it is unfair to call it rape, even though it often is.
Mikal

Pro

Resolved - Should sex be considered rape if it occurs while one participant is drunk

We need to review the framework of this debate, because obviously drunken sex is not rape. People can get drunk and have sex all they want to, and that is perfectly acceptable. The issue we are going to be discussing is being drunk to the point of non coherency. Alcohol can and will affect someones thought process in a way where they have no control over what they do[1]

Basically we are discussing situations in where alcohol impairs one judgement to the point where they do not offer consent. Lack of consent by definition constitutes rape. So getting someone drunk to where they cannot offer consent is rape


[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
jsgolfer

Con

Assuming drunken sex is not rape is a fallacy of definition. "Drunken sex" is actually quite often called rape. See Occidental case (2013) [1]. In this case, the man was expelled from the university for sexual misconduct when both parties were "More drunk than they have ever been." Forcing someone to drink until they can no longer reasonably give consent IS rape. That is not being discussed here. The argument is whether a woman should be allowed to accuse a man of rape based solely on the fact that she had consumed enough alcohol to have her decision making impaired, which is not the same as being unable to offer consent (which can be considered "non coherency")

1 http://www.businessinsider.com...
Mikal

Pro

Con mistakes drinking a beer or taking a shot for actually being drunk. Drunk per the definition is when one

" affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behavior. "

So lets define the two types of drunk. When we say drunk a person is often not really drunk but just tipsy, but when someone is actually drunk they lose control over their own body and their are literally impaired. If someone were to get someone drunk with the intent to have sex it deletes any consent out of the equation because they are literally impaired due to the alcohol. If con thinks sex when someone is impaired is not rape, he would have a hard time justifying forced sex on people with mental issues. Same concept.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Min is 500 characters lol.

You can't research an entire topic when sources take up 30 percent of the character allotment. Debate me on anything and ill be happy to beat you <3
Posted by PimpinMunky 2 years ago
PimpinMunky
That was barely 150? You sound pretty bad and your groupies give you a god complex. Research your topics and learn debate basics. Debate 101.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
Try arguing with 500 words lol, I missed the word count
Posted by PimpinMunky 2 years ago
PimpinMunky
You two ruined that debate. It was more of a debacle. I cannot tell who is who. You both ramble the same words in tbe neutral zone. Where is the strict pro or con? Where is tbe passion to get a 18 boy locked away for the rest of his life as a sex offender because he was drinking with his 17 girlfriends? Where is cons argument that people take aspirin and Tylenol that affects them but they are still able to fight and call 911 during or immediately after and not 10 hours later, waking up to someone uglier than they rememeber the night before. Most woman who claim false rape end up returning to said rapest for more. Given the term rape of passion.
Now I am not arguing and am neutral at this point. So I will admit violent rape, date rape drugs, etc have already been established illegal. If you wanted to argue this in an educated fashion, you would have researched case law on rape today. Not just the victory stories but the acquittals too.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
== RFD ==

This was a really bad debate. I thought I was voting Con until I re-read the resolution. Con is basically arguing that sex should not be considered rape *merely* because one party is drunk. Pro argues that sex can be considered rape if one party is drunk beyond the ability to actually consent. At some level of drunkness, the person's free will essentially becomes overridden and that person doesn't really know what is happening. I think Pro wins that sex should not be considered rape merely because one party was drunk. I find his example particularly troubling: I think if both parties are equally drunk, you can't really blame either party. I think Con wins that sex can sometimes be rape though when there is seemingly consent, in the sense that one person is so drunk they can't move much or object coherently.

So what am I to do. If I interpret the "spirit" of the resolution I would vote Con. But when I look at the actual resolution, it's whether we should ever consider drunk sex to rape. Under this resolution, it's easy to vote Pro. Obviously some drunk sex is rape. The resolution is the agreed upon framework for the debate, and I'm not going to alter it just because Con's argument seemed to be about something slightly different, since Con never made an argument that the resolution should be interpreted differently. It's sad that Con loses because he omitted the word "merely," but resolutions' wording is important. Con: word the resolution more carefully next time.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
I notice that alot of the votes for Con seem to lack real reasons as to why they awarded the points they did. I would highly recommend those voters re-evaluate their justifications, or lack thereof, for awarding points while leaving votes.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Mikal argues the resolution, whatever that is, is what he wil argue. If you meant to debate something different, reword the resolution.
Posted by jsgolfer 2 years ago
jsgolfer
Not sure if Mikal misunderstood the topic, but we do not ever appear to be arguing the same thing. Perhaps the topic was worded incorrectly. Several of my arguments are solid and never contested. Sorry, Mikal/all watching this probably my bad. I still think this is an important discussion.
Posted by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
Eh, I think Pro can do it. Most of the debates Mikal wins are all based off of people voting because they like him, not because he did better.
Posted by jsgolfer 2 years ago
jsgolfer
Question is not faulty. Was worded this way on purpose. Also, the answer does not have to be what is currently in law, Harold_Lloyd. This is a social debate, not a legal one. Sometimes laws need to change, you know.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Cermank 2 years ago
Cermank
jsgolferMikalTied
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: not that good of a debate. But con basically had two basic args, trying to define 'drunk', and differentiating between having judgement impaired and being unable to consent. As Pro pointed out, their isn't a distinction. being drunk implies having judgement impaired, which iplies that the consent is void. i vote pro.
Vote Placed by RevNge 2 years ago
RevNge
jsgolferMikalTied
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: What is it with newbies misinterpreting the resolution these days? Arguments to Pro because he effortlessly rebutted all of Con's arguments about "drunken sex." All he needed to do was to prove how drunken sex was not the same as rape, and overall, it was an easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by Linkish1O2 2 years ago
Linkish1O2
jsgolferMikalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- gos to pro for using proper definitions, rather then opinionated defintions. Pros lost grammar points in his last argument. But pro won with clear arguments, and proper defintions, using proper facts with sources to back pro up, rather then using opinions, then searching on the Internet for someone else's view to match yours.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
jsgolferMikalTied
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: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
jsgolferMikalTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Neither had poor conduct throughout the debate. Spelling - Tie. Neither had poor spelling or grammar. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to address the actual resolution which focused on the term 'drunk'. Since non-coherency is sometimes a result of being drunk, and was shown to be rape - Pro effectively maintained his BOP. Con needed to factor in all aspects of being drunk, and instead tried to build a gap between different degrees of drunkness which unfortunately didn't cover the full resolution. In the future, I'd recommend Con pay close attention to the key terms found in resolutions. Sources - Pro. In terms of quality, sources of the .gov caliber have a higher degree of integrity in most cases. For that, Pro is awarded sources.
Vote Placed by BLAHthedebator 2 years ago
BLAHthedebator
jsgolferMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's points were clear and powerful, and he easily crushed Con's points and the resolution. Con's points were a bit vague at times.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
ESocialBookworm
jsgolferMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- the phrasing of the resolution. Arguments- Con was unable to prove that a drunk person can consent and therefore no consent is considered rape.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
jsgolferMikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was unable to prove that being drunk would not affect ones judgement. Pro argued that being drunk impairs how people function, meaning they cannot properly consent to sexual intimacy. Although, as con argues, they can willingly become drunk, once in that state they no longer have control over what occurs. Con was unable to convince me that a drunk person can consent, therefore pros contention (that a drunk person cannot consent) wins--and without consent, it is considered rape.