Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

Having read my opponent’s opening round and rebuttals, I must say that I remain unconvinced of his position. Indeed, his entire last round consists of only one long straw man and a false claim. I will address these in a moment. For now, allow me to point out the critical flaws in his opening arguments.My Opponent’s Arguments 1. “[R]ape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and against their wishes, not necessarily because it causes personal harm.”Even if we used Pro’s faulty reasoning here, he’d still lose. Remember, one paragraph prior, he explained that we have a moral obligation to stop suicide. Is that because it lacks consent? No, that’s because it “causes emotional harm to those around you.” Well, so does rape! As I explained last round, rape causes deep and lasting emotional and social scars. Direct conversion, on the other hand, causes nothing of the sort. Pro’s own definitions prove that rape is worse! Boom. Myth busted. In addition, the fact that Pro acknowledges harm at all when considering the appropriateness of an act dismantles his entire argument. He isn’t saying that the removal of consent immediately constitutes wrong doing, he’s saying that removal of consent indicates the point at which we begin calculating the extent to which one is harmed. Not only is he conceding that harm itself is a valid factor by which to determine morality, he’s explaining that the very presence of harm in an act allows us to act to a greater extent to prevent it! This is obvious, as our society already uses degrees of harm to determine the appropriate punishment for crimes. I’d also be remiss not to point out that his attempt to base the morality of violence using soldiers and animals doesn't work here. Most people do believe that harm for the sake of harm is objectively wrong, regardless of the target. Pro’s implied and undefended exceptions, such as national defense or levels of consciousness, obviously do not apply to the harm caused to an innocent, helpless rape victim. 2. God’s intervention is done without consent and violates one’s greatest desire: control. So what if God doesn’t have consent? He’s God! He made us, owns us, knows what we want, and knows why we believe what we do. In addition, God knows what information we lack and how decisions based on our incomplete knowledge will impact us in the future, and thus would be acting on our behalf. Does a parent need a baby’s consent to give it a vaccination? Does a good samaritan need a pedestrian's consent to push them out of the way of a bus? Not only can God act without our formal consent because he has full dominion over us, but also because he is protecting us from eminent and extreme danger we are not aware of. When it comes to man’s greatest desire, Pro uses the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim that anyone who really wanted eternal bliss would be Christian. I’m sure he’d also agree that anyone who really wanted to quench their thirst would drink Fanta (that’s actually true). Sorry but this argument is insulting. By this logic, everyone should believe everything, lest they deny themselves the opportunity to desire some embedded claim therein. Doubting the validity of a school of thought does not immediately imply rejection of all positive attributes associated with belief, especially when the attribute is something as universal as wanting happiness. It is perfectly understandable to want eternal life and yet not be convinced of arguments for Christianity. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Using Satan as an example here is a non-starter. First of all, Pro agreed last round that it is logically impossible to want more than what heaven provides. Second, we’re discussing ignorant mortals who need God to avoid hell, not divinely powerful angels who lived during a time before hell existed. Third, this entire argument focuses on man’s desire for happiness (i.e. heaven) and completely ignores the equally, if not more, powerful urge to avoid pain (i.e. hell).3. Forced conversion is like forcing someone to love you.Did anyone else catch that Pro’s lovers example actually shows perfectly why rape is so terrible? As with rape, one person forcing another to love them through selfish psychosexual manipulation causes tangible emotional and social suffering. As with rape, the victim would not be experiencing the greatest possible joy and not being saved from the greatest possible suffering. As with rape, the attacker does not have ownership of the victim and does not have unlimited insight into the victim’s desires, knowledge, and future. Pro's argument is a total backfire. 4. Forced conversion is worse because it lasts forever. What lasts forever? Pro has not established any wrong doing here, so this is not an argument. The only things that last forever are the joy one would feel if God granted this gift or the suffering one would feel if he did not. My Arguments1. A Case for ConversionLast round, I explained that direct conversion is preferable to rape because it provides greater satisfaction, causes less harm, and prevents even greater harm in the future. To this, Pro stated that it is still worse because it is done without consent. But...that’s the whole point. They are both done without consent. We’re discussing which is worse. Like I said, conversion provides immeasurable good and prevents immeasurable harm at the expense of a worthless, wrong belief. Rape provides no good and causes incredible harm at the expense of the well-being of the victim and their loved ones for their entire lifetimes. This comparison is what the whole debate is about and Pro hasn’t even provided an argument yet. Pro is spending a lot of time talking about morality, sin, and choice but none of that has anything to do with the resolution. If direct conversion is guilty of anything, it is that it lacks formal consent. So does rape! We’ve established that. Now it is Pro’s job to prove that rape is BETTER. Rape, with all its additional physical, emotional, social, and psychological harm that Pro completely concedes, is BETTER. He hasn’t done this because it is literally impossible. He admits that it is impossible to want more than the greatest possible satisfaction, and that is what direct conversation provides. Do you think anyone cares about some pathetic false belief at that point? If so, Pro hasn’t shown it. He hasn’t even argued it. 2. Conversion vs RapePro wastes almost his entire round attacking a straw man. Specifically, my non-existent claim that rape is only wrong because it causes harm. Nope, never said that. Consent is obviously necessary or else it would just be rough sex and I would not have mentioned things like victimization, confinement, and being hopelessly subject to another’s selfish whims. Since both rape and direct intervention are, by definition, done without formal consent, the relevant question becomes what the impact of these acts are and whether, on balance, one is worse than the other. In this regard, Pro offers no defense whatsoever for rape and has ignored what is the most relevant argument in this debate. ClosingPro said something really interesting last round: “Christianity teaches that all of mankind is doomed to Hell because of their sin nature.” Think about that for a second. Everyone on Earth is destined for eternal, unimaginable torment and there is only one way out: God. Now, Pro claims that God swooping in and saving someone from this inevitable torment is bad because he’d have to change their mind. He’d have to CHANGE THEIR MIND! It’s almost funny how little anyone would mind that. They'd mind it less than rape, that's for sure. Remember, without him, we are doomed! It’s like pushing the pedestrian out of the way of the bus all over again. We may not know what’s coming, but if we did, you better believe we’d jump ourselves. If not, we’d definitely thank the guy afterward for the shove.