The Instigator
fdsaBIG
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JohnMaynardKeynes
Con (against)
Winning
65 Points

looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

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 10 votes the winner is...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,371 times Debate No: 59810
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (10)

 

fdsaBIG

Pro

looking at someone for more than, at the most, 10 seconds should be considered rape. The reason is because it is discusting to look for any longer. People in fact have no reason to look at eachother at all. remaining eye contact is even worse than looking upon someone. looking into peoples eyes should be illeagal, and infact is in most intelligent countries.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I accept.

My opponent, in affirming the resolution, bears the entirety of the burden of proof.

I'd first like to define what "rape" is as this is crucial to our resolution: "the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse." [1. http://tinyurl.com...]. Pro's BOP is to describe how "looking at someone for more than 10 seconds" -- let's say, even 11 seconds -- should be considered rape in accordance with the definition of rape.

I'm now going to rebut his arguments.

Pro states that it is disgusting to look at a person for longer than 10 seconds. Why is this so? Why is it not disgusting to look at a person for 10 seconds, but disgusting to look at a person for 11 seconds or 10.5 seconds? Where is Pro's proof that this threshold in fact exists? He not only ought to provide some evidence that this act is objectively disgusting, but why, even if we could say that some people (subjectively) view this as disgusting, why it should be considered "rape." I consider cheese disgusting, for instance, but I wouldn't call cheese "rape." A lot of "disgusting" things are legal or are simply not considered rape or on par with rape.

Pro claims that people have no reason to look at each other at all. This is silly. If you don't look at anyone, how can you hold a conversation? How can you tell people apart? How can you interact? Is Pro suggesting that we ought to go through life without interacting or socializing at all? Humans are social creatures, and we know from plenty of research, particularly conducted by Robert Putnam [2. http://tinyurl.com...], that people benefit from social connectedness, whereas lack of interaction provides a significant, debilitating drain on society. For instance, people are less likely to start a business, to help their neighbors, or to invest in an environment in which they aren't well-acquainted. People won't form ties with one another and learn from one another. Without this form of interaction, we are effectively stuck in our own heads. Not only would this be maddening and destructive to mental health; but we would never be able to take in other's perspectives.

Pro states that keeping eye contact is worse than looking at someone. However, this is wildly absurd. This is how people hold conversations. In fact, you know you can trust someone if he or she is able to look at you in the eyes. If they're looking award, it may signal uncertainty, doubt, or nerves, which we may be inclined to associate with, given the circumstances, lying.

Pro states that looking into other's eyes should be "illegal" and is in most intelligent countries. It's hard to conceive of a more harmful, barbaric thing for any developed country to codify into law than something of this nature. Frankly, I would love to see his evidence that any country has this as a law on the books, because I haven't seen yet a single one. Certainly no economically developed country would ever even consider a law of this nature. Looking in someone's eyes is merely a harmless way to build trust and hold discussions; there is no victim, and thus no crime. This in no way fulfills the definition of "rape." Pro's contentions fail to establish his BOP.

With the remaining characters I have, I'm going to offer contentions:

C1) This would erode human contact and social connectedness

I explained this earlier with the Robert D. Putnam piece

C2) This does not even remotely fit the legal definition of rape

I discussed this above when I provided a credible definition of "rape."

C3) Cost of enforcement

Any law tends to be expensive to enforce. Therefore, we shouldn't waste tax dollars enforcing an arbitrary law with absolutely no benefits. Moreover, if you can't look at and identify people, how do you enforce a law?

C4) Trivializes Rape

Rape does in fact occur, and is a significant problem, particularly on college campuses. Defining "eye contact for more than X seconds" rape, my opponent is mocking a very serious problem.
Debate Round No. 1
fdsaBIG

Pro

So are you saying people with autism are lying, nervouse, or unsure of theirselves, because many people with autism will not look into someone's eyes. you have obviously not done your research about countries where it is considered rape to look somone in the eye. with our technology now days, it is possible to talk to someone when you are not face to face. you could also cover your eyes with a cloth when speaking to someone, if you do wish to talk face to face. also, you shouldnt take everything so littereally, about 10 seconds is what i ment. sorry about my slight miss wording. thank you for your opinion, but i just plain dont care what you think. the facts are what i am talking about, and with technology today, what i am saying is very realistic. also, try not to write so much, i am tired, and wish not to read so much, seriously, it is very annoying.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

I will now rebut Pro line by line.

"So are you saying people with autism are lying, nervouse, or unsure of theirselves, because many people with autism will not look into someone's eyes."

This is a complete strawman. Never once did I say ANYTHING of the sort. Notice that I said that we "may be incline to associate with, given the cricumstances, lying," A circumstance in which we WOULDN'T make this deduction is if a person if autistic, socially awkward, anxous, etc.

"you have obviously not done your research about countries where it is considered rape to look somone in the eye."

Pro has the BOP, so I'm waiting on his evidence, sources, or reasons as to WHY we should enact such a policy or the benefits of it.

"with our technology now days, it is possible to talk to someone when you are not face to face"

This is true. So? How does this advance the point that we should BAN eye-to-eye contact? Internet encounters, for instance, tend to be much more impersonal than face-to-face encounters. Why should we ban personal relationships?

" you could also cover your eyes with a cloth when speaking to someone, if you do wish to talk face to face."

This is positively absurd. In other to communicate AT ALL in person, you'd need to carry a cloth. So, to make sure you don't look at anyone, you'll have to put a cloth on your eyes and hope you can cross the street safely. Not to mention, more people would need to buy cloths, thus driving up the price of cloths and distorting the market by draining resources that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.

"you shouldnt take everything so littereally, about 10 seconds is what i ment."

Excuse me, Pro, but your resolution says "more than 10 seconds," not "about 10 seconds." You cannot say, after the fact, "that's not what I meant." This is the resolution we are debating. Do you intend to retract your earlier remarks, and thus concede the debate?


Pro then says that he "doesn't care what I think," which is fine, since he doesn't have to take my word at face value; we are on opposing sides of a debate, after all.

He goes on to say that the facts are "what I am thinking about." That is not the definition of a fact. A fact is "something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence" [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. Facts are not subjective or subjective to our own whim, but OBJECTIVE. As the old saying goes, my opponent is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

He then says that, with technology today, this is very realistic. That is utter nonsense, and he provides no evidence for this at all. If we can't even look at people without wearing a cloth over our eyes, which by the way is the only way he has suggested that we could communicate in person, how in the world are we going to survive? Moreover, why SHOULD we do this? He has provided no reasons as to why we should enact such a policy, or why it should be considered "rape,"

He then asks me not to write so much. My apologies, Pro, but this is a debate. If you were tired, you should not have begun a debate on a debating site.

My definition of "rape," my burden analysis, and my four contentions along with much more have been dropped. He must be able to adequately respond to these points in order to fulfill his burden of proof. Moreover, he needs to provide us not only with a way that such a policy would be practical, but why we would WANT such a policy: that is, why SHOULD we enact this policy, or why should it be considered "rape" when the actual definition of rape is much different. So far, he hasn't provided us with a coherent case.


Debate Round No. 2
fdsaBIG

Pro

really? you make me laugh, but anyways how are you, because you sound very stressed. btw, you have great typing skills! whats your favorite color? mine is blue! tell me, why do you like debating? because incase you didnt know you are not making a difference so chill out. i think its great you are supporting the eye rapists of the world, defend what you wish, be your own person! way to go. i am on this cite becaus i am bored, wbu? i dont like debating seriously, because its boring when beating everybody, because realy i am the best there is, but you keep trying, okay? good luck. oh and btw there is no judge so you can just refer to me as you, he seems so indirect, which is basically what you are against, indirect conversation. which, incase you didnt get, i mwnt by technology was cell phones, computers, ipods, ipads, laptops, and all sorts of other things which have internet, which, sence you obviously didnt know, you can talk to people on them. well now its your turn to talk, so i give you my permission to respond.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

My opponent has failed thus far to uphold his BOP, and much of his argument is utterly irrelevant -- e.g., asking me what my favorite color is. In fact, I actually find much of his argument insulting, but I am glad to see that he is amused. I will now respond to the relevant aspects of his argument. It warrants mention that my opponent is dropping my contentions and rebuttals left and right.


"think its great you are supporting the eye rapists of the world, defend what you wish, be your own person!"


This is an insulting strawman. Of course I do not support rapists. I am merely contesting the resolution that "looking at someone for more than 10 seconds" is rape, or that eye contact should be illegal.

"which is basically what you are against, indirect conversation. which, incase you didnt get,"

This is another strawman. Never once did I say that I am AGAINST indirect conversation. Let me put this differently since I have a lot of space.

Indirect conversation = I
Direct conversation = D

My opponent supports I, but wants to ban D. I don't want to ban D. Therefore, my opponent is defending I and his opposition to D, whereas my support is for both I and D. I don't need to oppose one to support the other. My opponent's burden of proof is in providing that D should be banned.

"mwnt by technology was cell phones, computers, ipods, ipads, laptops, and all sorts of other things which have internet, which, sence you obviously didnt know, you can talk to people on them."

I'll cross-reference my last argument. I do NOT oppose indirect communication. This is not my end of this resolution. I simply don't want to BAN direct conversation.



Conclusion


My opponent has not thus far fulfilled his burden of proof. He needs to explain to us WHY we should ban eye contact after 10 seconds or, per his later remark, ban eye contact. If he cannot explain that to us, he cannot win this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
fdsaBIG

Pro

oh so what you are saying you like the D. okay i get it now. and so you wont compalin about proof here you go: "My opponent supports I, but wants to ban D. I don't want to ban D."
lol ya i think that staring at someone for more than 10 seconds is weird, and direct i eye contact for so long is also annoying, like look up down somewhere else, i cannot maintain eye contact for much more than a second. you are very funny btw. and if i did something to offend you, its okay, i understand that you are threatened by me. and btw to who ever is reading this; whats up, hey, come debate with me any time. but i think that what i said whould be illeagal because its creapy, and makes people feel unconfortable and want to hide. some people are very shy, and think that when people are looking at them, they are judging them, why would you want to do that to a person? my wording may have been a little intence so ill fix it. starring at someone for AROUND 10 seconds should be illeagal, or at least some sort of assult. and in my opinion eye contact is weird for even over 5 sceonds. i know you r going to copy and past what i am saying, and say: my opponent cannot change what she said, but there is no judge, no jury, and we are not lawyiars, so idc what you say the rules are, i am breaking them :) and next time can you send me a smiley face, i love getting them! PLEASE!!!!!
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

"lol ya i think that staring at someone for more than 10 seconds is weird, and direct i eye contact for so long is also annoying, like look up down somewhere else,"

Simply because Pro believes -- and, mind you, this is merely his subjective opinion, and by no means fact -- that "staring" at someone for more than 10 seconds is weird or annoying, does not make it so, nor does it justifying banning it or deeming it "rape."

"like look up down somewhere else, i cannot maintain eye contact for much more than a second."

Simply because Pro doesn't feel that he can maintain eye contact for a certain amount of time does NOT mean that it should be illegal or deemed rape; in fact, even if this view were universal, this would not fulfill Pro's BOP.

"but i think that what i said whould be illeagal because its creapy, and makes people feel unconfortable and want to hide. some people are very shy, and think that when people are looking at them, they are judging them, why would you want to do that to a person?"

We don't deem things illegal simply because one perosn believes that they are "creepy" or could make people uncomfortable, or some people may be shy. If this were the case, we could make a case for banning social networking sites because some people may be too shy to friend their crush.

"starring at someone for AROUND 10 seconds should be illeagal,"

This is not what our resolution is about, and even if it were, Pro has provided no reasoning as to why this ought to be so.

"or at least some sort of assult. and in my opinion eye contact is weird for even over 5 sceonds."

To add context to this, he is stating that he believes staring at someone for around 10 seconds should be considered "assault."

Let's define assault: "a violent physical or verbal attack" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]. Pro has provided no analysis as to how looking -- notice that our resolution doesn't say starring; to "stare" means to " To look directly and fixedly, often with a wide-eyed gaze" [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] -- at someone for even any amount of time should be deemed assault, or illegal.

Again, stating his subjective opinion that eye contact is "weird" does not fulfill his BOP. We don't simply say that anything that one person deems weird is worthy of being illegal.

" know you r going to copy and past what i am saying, and say: my opponent cannot change what she said, but there is no judge, no jury, and we are not lawyiars, so idc what you say the rules are, i am breaking them"

We do have a judge and jury. Our judges and jury are our audience and the site moderator.

I'm going to consider this a concession.

"and next time can you send me a smiley face, i love getting them! PLEASE!!!!!"

Sure, :)


Conclusion

My arguments continue to be dropped, and Pro has not provided adequate reasoning or evidence to substantiate his points. As a result, he has not fulfilled his BOP.
Debate Round No. 4
fdsaBIG

Pro

fdsaBIG forfeited this round.
JohnMaynardKeynes

Con

Extending. My arguments have been dropped and my adversary has not fulfilled his BOP.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Forte 2 years ago
Forte
Pro is an obvious troll; all of his posts after the first are attempts to get emotional reaction out of Con.
Posted by 1814Username 2 years ago
1814Username
What moron would actually think this way? Plus the assumption is that when someone looks at you, they desire you. That is quite arrogant and America is fat as hell. When I look at a lot of people, I think of how I wouldn't want to have sex with that person.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
Cringeworthy arguments by Pro. Excellent counters by Con.
Posted by Micaiah 2 years ago
Micaiah
There is nothing sexual about staring at someone, unless you are staring at inappropriate and private places. Eye contact is essential for the reasons stated by JohnMaynardKeynes. The instigator has done poorly in responding and has asked irrelevant questions that do not pertain to the debate in any way.
Posted by Micaiah 2 years ago
Micaiah
Pro has definitely not successfully defended his statement therefore he has lost the debate. He also is changing his original deceleration and has not given any evidence for it. He is clearly a poor debater.
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
@T_Parkour I stare at trees a lot too
Posted by T_parkour 2 years ago
T_parkour
There is nothing rape-like about staring, although it is generally considered rude or creepy. I stare at trees occasionally (don't ask), does that mean I rape trees?
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Did someone really replace the facebook like button with a narwhal, or is it me?
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
I agree with pro it is very rude to stare for a long time, but calling it rape is a bit too far.
Posted by T_parkour 2 years ago
T_parkour
That was sarcasm, by the way.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not fully give his best and FF a round. All points goes to Con.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 2 years ago
Bennett91
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't even try to meet the BoP. I think the way Pro debated was purposefully trolling, trying to defend an already ludicrous position with no evidence and bragging about how good of a debater he is. Also there may be no judges or court rooms for this debate, but there are voters.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was rude and hostile, Pro didn't even try to defend their case and did not meet their burden of proof. Spelling and grammar on pro's side was horrible; constantly leaving sentences uncapitilized. Only con used sources
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's debate went...a little sideways: "oh so what you are saying you like the D. okay i get it now." LOL
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: Pro gave a complete refutation of Pro's (rather unsubstantial case), Con's points regarding trivialization of rape, and erosion of human contact are clear winning contentions. Moreover pro was rather condescending and dropped a round, so conduct too. PS Noob Snipe!
Vote Placed by SocialistAtheistNutjob 2 years ago
SocialistAtheistNutjob
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued far stronger, gave the only sources, did not forfeit, and structured their sentences correctly. Full 7-point win.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit; S&G for admittedly minor errors; Arguments because PRO didn't even come close to fulfilling his BoP; Sources because CON offered sources which supported his points.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
fdsaBIGJohnMaynardKeynesTied
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: ff and pro never said why the resolution is upheld