THBT Marital Rape is Feasible

The resolution is clear: THBT Marital Rape is Feasible. I am Pro meaning that I am in support of this Resolution. I would like to immediately point out that even though I am Pro, my opponent was the Instigator of this challenge. I am not sure how the BOP would work in this situation, but I will uphold my burden of proof to show the audience that Marital Rape is indeed Feasible. I, in no way, actually support the horrendous and illegal act of marital rape - I am simply showing the audience how it, unfortunately, is still feasible even in these modern times. DefinitionsMarital Rape: also known as spousal rape and rape in marriage, is non-consensual sex in which the perpetrator is the victim's spouse. It is a form of partner rape, of domestic violence, and of sexual abuse. [1]Conjugal Rights: the sexual rights or privileges implied by and involved in the marriage relationship : the right of sexual intercourse between husband and wife. [2]Feasible: Possible to do easily or conveniently; capable of being done or effected. [3][1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...ArgumentsI. Marital Rape is indeed Feasible. With an understanding of the term Feasible established, it is not hard to imagine that such horrendous acts are indeed capable of being done or even possible to do easily or conveniently. In India, for example, marital rape is actually legal. [4] When such an act is legal in a country, is it really that hard to imagine that it isn't feasible? With no laws protecting the wives from such acts, it is most certainly possible to do easily, and most certainly capable of being done. According to India's law, once you are married - forced sex is no longer a crime. It is an absurd and inhumane law that totally contradicts the well-being of a person. Yet, it is capable of being done and is done so often that the courts have legalized it in that country. In the article I've already linked, it actually talks about a case in which: a woman alleged she had been drugged, then forced to marry, and then raped — in other words, she hadn’t consented to the marriage or the sex. Bhat (the judge) said there was no evidence that the accuser had been drugged, but he also said that if the woman’s husband (identified only as Vikash) had forced himself on her, that wouldn't’t qualify as rape under Indian law. [4]This is absurd - the definition of rape is: The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will. [5] In the example I shared above, we can see that this is a blatant case of marital rape in every regard to the term. It is clearly feasible; easily done, in countries like India. [4] . http://www.globalpost.com...[5] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... II. It is feasible even in countries like America. An Indianapolis woman, Mandy Boardman, was reporting being drugged and raped by her husband for at-least three years, this rape included being video-taped while drugged. All of these crimes committed against her were done by her husband. [6] Here is the crazy part - he didn't even have to go to jail. According to a different article on the same case, his sentence was 20 years with 12 years being suspended and only having to serve 8 of the remaining years under house arrest! [7] Not only is it outrageous that such a crime would be feasible in America, but even more so is the fact that the man never had to serve out his sentence in a jail. It is a horrendous misuse of justice in the American court system, and provides further evidence of just how feasible this crime, marital rape, really is. Unfortunately, there are several cases of this crime in many states throughout America. I will spare the audience from any further exposure to such a distasteful crime, and will only share more cases if it is necessary for further evidence in later rounds. [6] . http://news.yahoo.com...[7] . http://www.indystar.com...Rebuttals I. "It's just Conjugal Rights. "My opponent has attempted to justify his position by stating that Marital Rape is just Conjugal Rights. Although I have already shared the definitions above, in which a clear difference can be seen, I will expand on the differences - so as to assure that my opponent fully understands the meaning behind the two terms. I don't think anyone will disagree that with marriage comes Conjugal Rights. The man has lawfully wed his wife, and now has the right to have intercourse with her. This is understood across the board, I assume. While that right is certainly justified by the lawful wedding of the two persons in question, the concern is when exactly that right becomes abused. Although something might be a right, that doesn't necessarily mean that such a right can't be abused. In the case of Mandy Boardman, which I shared above, it is evident that although her husband has the Conjugal Right to have intercourse with his wife, such intercourse was carried out in an abusive manner that was both illegal when drugs were used and against her will due to her unknowingly under the influence of drugs given by her husband. This is a clear case of the husband abusing his conjugal rights by carrying out the act of marital rape. The difference is thus clear. I will gladly expand on the difference further if such clarification is still required. II. Additional points raised by Con in R1. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any other arguments necessarily raised by Con in round 1. Marital rape indeed destroys and suffocates many spouses. It is a horrendous act and one that should not be treated lightly. In this regard, I believe you are only strengthening my point. By acknowledging it as something that emerged, you are implying that it is rising in popularity or acknowledgement from a previous point where it wasn't emerging but still somewhat below the scope of controversy. Since it is emerging, there is clearly a cause of it's emergence. Most likely, that cause would be the rise in reports and cases of marital rape. If such cases are rising, then it is clearly a feasible act since it is something which can be done. As I have shown in my previous examples, it is clearly being done and quite easily, unfortunately, when considering the lack of proper punishment. It also is indeed something that should be taken seriously, as you also stated. This is why I am arguing that it is, in fact, feasible. Only when issues are raised and brought to the attention of the public can solutions then begin to form in order to correct these issues. By showing that Marital Rape is, indeed, a feasible act, I am raising awareness about this horrendous issue and bringing forth the opportunity for others to raise awareness about this issue by acknowledging the feasibility of such an act. I don't think anyone can rightfully say that such an act isn't feasible, nor do I believe that arguing against the feasibility of such an act will accomplish any good for the individuals currently suffering from such conditions. This, among the reasons I have presented previously, is why I stand affirmative on the fact that Marital Rape is Feasible. ConclusionIn conclusion, I have presented two arguments supporting my position that Marital Rape is Feasible. I have provided clear definitions of the key terms in this debate, and have provided clear evidence of the feasibility of such an act. Furthermore, I have provided rebuttals against any and all arguments raised by my opponent in Round 1.