Rapists should have their penises cut off.

PRO obviously thought only males commit the crime of rape, which is false. As such, PRO has lost this debate.I did not at any time state that only males commit rape. The statement "Rapists should have their penises cut off" doesn't contain within it any assumption that only males commit rape. 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." Thus, the fact that some rapists do not have penises does not mean that the resolution can only make sense or be physically possible under the assumption that all rapists are male. Con's entire argument regarding my supposed assumption that all rapists are male is flawed and should be vigorously rejected. PRO keeps trying to change his proposed legislation. First it was that all rapists must have their penises chopped off. Now it is females must have their vagina/clitoris chopped off and males their penises. 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. In fact, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Con is actually the one who is guilty of trying to change the resolution for his benefit. As for vagina chopping, I merely used this scenario to show that willy chopping would not necessarily result in unequal penalties for male and female rapists. Now, PRO just explicitly said that females would not undergo penis chopping, and males vaginal chopping. But some females have penises and some males have vaginals. Therefore, unequal treatment would occur here, and as I said, it goes against our fundamental beleifs.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. This definition (albeit in a less simplistic form) is used in some countries to determine the legal gender of transsexuals [1], so it is perfectly appropriate in this context. Even if PRO somehow magically manages to refute my concrete arguments, he must be reminded that dismemberment of human body parts is a cruel and inhumane treatment and punishment, capital punishment...Implementing this legislation would go against our fundamental beliefs again.If someone is in a car accident and requires their leg to be amputated, do we refuse to amputate the patient's leg because it would be "cruel and inhumane"? No, because we do not do it in a cruel and inhumane way. Willy chopping would be cruel and inhumane if we did it in a cruel and inhumane way, but again, I never suggested this. Rapists could be anesthetised, and have the operation performed by a professional. Rape, however, is cruel and inhumane. Willy chopping will help to deliver justice, which is at the core of our values. SUMMARY1. In Round 1, I argued that rapists should have their penises cut off. I gave reasons, and I pointed to several benefits for victims and society as a whole (e.g. prevention of recidivism). Con did not ever disagree directly with any of my arguments, and so it can be assumed that he accepted all of them. 2. Con's main argument (unequal penalties for males and females) is based on a misunderstanding of, or deliberate attempt to change, the resolution. I never said that all rapists are male, and I never said "all rapists" should have their penises cut off. 3. Con's fallback argument (inhumane and goes against our fundamental beliefs), is based on certain assumptions regarding the method used to chop. I showed that willy chopping can be done in a humane way, and that in fact it caters well to our fundamental values. I have refuted all of Con's arguments (without the use of "magic"). The resolution has been upheld. Vote PRO [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...