Rapists should have their penises cut off.

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 chromosomeFemale: 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 PunishmentRunning 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.