Raped Women Should Be Euthanised

Thanks, Envisage. =My case=I. Gendered argumentsPro 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. RealismPros 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 concernsPros 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.1. http://www.economist.com...