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

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 connectednessI explained this earlier with the Robert D. Putnam pieceC2) This does not even remotely fit the legal definition of rapeI discussed this above when I provided a credible definition of "rape." C3) Cost of enforcementAny 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.