Raped Women Should Be Euthanised

Thanks, Envisage. I'll refute Pros case in this round although most of this will be through highlighting where it clashes with my case--I'm not going to argue against Pro's point about rape being bad for example. =Framework=In his strategy, Pro explains that he's advocating the position that it would be better for society as a whole if we euthanized rape victims. This means I've won the framework debate--we have to look at pragmatics because that's the only way to measure what is on balance beneficial. If Pro wanted to argue that the pain these people suffer is so terrible that we ought to put them out of their misery he shouldn't have made his initial arguments consequentialist. Indeed, Pro is not arguing from a deontological perspective and saying that we have a moral obligation to kill these people, but rather is arguing from a utilitarian perspective and as such arguments relating to the implementation of the policy are more than fair they are absolutely critical. If Pro really wants to quibble about the nonarguments points, you should vote him down on conduct for crafting a policy based resolution and framework and then shifting the goal posts in the very next round to make this a question of what we "ought" to do. This attempt to stifle my impacts is far more egregious than whatever conduct violations I've committed as it directly links to and harms the debate itself. =Aff case=The biggest flaw with Pro's case is that his arguments don't really link to his impacts. He spends his entire round talking about how terrible rape is for the individual and society and then spends four sentences arguing the most critical part of the resolution--why should we kill these people? Remember as well that Pro has the burden of proof to show why we should take away the right of these women to live--the burden of proof for the entire debate may be shared, but we can still allocate the burden on specific arguments. Murder is, and has been, a crime in literally every country for the entirety of human history because we, as humans, typically believe that killing another is wrong. I do not have to prove that killing is *objectively* wrong on some abstract metaphysical level--the fact that I'm defending what's been a common sense moral position for millennia shows who has to prove what here. Killing is only permissible in certain scenarios, the boundaries of which societies decide based on their own moral experience, such as combat, capital punishment, or self defense. Pro has to show why his impacts justify mass killing. It's rather ironic that Pro wants the debate to be judged on the impact of this on society and yet doesn't acknowledge that the response of society to this policy would be disgust, outrage and suffering as a fundamental moral principle, subjective or not, is violated. The very fact that society disapproves of killing to the point where executing vicious antisocial murderers or shooting vagrants robbing your house are considered contentious issues shows just how deep the instinct not to kill a fellow human runs--if we want to judge this debate by how it affects human society at large, we should at least judge it by the principles society would want its leaders weighing. For this reason, killing should be considered immoral and Pro is obligated to show how his impacts outweigh. Throw out his argument about how rape is destructive to the individual for four reasons: Firstly, Pro wants this debate to be judged by the effect this policy has on society, not on the individual, so we shouldn't allow him to access any impacts that directly contradict the way he intends to win the debate. Secondly, the contention is completely turned by my case--what would occur if we started executing rape victims is a widespread rape epidemic because women, fearing for their lives, wouldn't report rape. This stacks the deck ever higher in favor of the rapists trying to violate the woman as she loses the defense of the law. Pro tried to refute this in the last round by arguing that it would increase "awareness" of rape, but this is a literal assertion and forcing every woman who was raped to keep quiet or die is just about the worst way of raising awareness for rape I can possibly imagine. There's a reason after all that rapists often threaten their victims with death if they report them.Thirdly, if we're going to value the suffering of the individual we should look to these women's families and friends who would be forced to witness a loved one murdered by the state and have to suffer a painful loss. It's hard to even imagine how much suffering Pro's argument would cause as just about everyone in the world loses someone close to them. Fourthly and most importantly, this falls for one obvious reason and that is that if these women wanted to die they could take their life by their own hand. The very fact that the policy has to be forced proves that for the vast majority--according to Pro, 85%-- of these victims their desire to keep living outweighs their suffering--Pro gives us no reason why we should override their choices. The only possible way for Pro to win the debate at this point would be for him to have impacts so large that they outweigh the general impermissability of killing. Does his case do this? In a word, no. Even if you ignore all of my solvency takeouts showing how his case wouldn't even access his impacts, his impacts simply are not that great.Pros economic impacts (the only ones he has) shouldn't be considered viable because he offers no trade off analysis, IE use X money for Y. Pro says that rape costs the average US resident about $750 (508 + 237) per year, if I'm being generous. What POSSIBLE service could the government provide for $750 (his impact) a year that could come even CLOSE to replacing a lost loved one? As a comparison to the costs my opponent brings up, a study from the National Institutes of Health[1] looking at the costs of crimes on society found that the cost murder imposes on society is somewhere between "$4,144,677 to $11,350,687". Most of these costs are not tangible costs like trial and prison expenditures but rather intangible calculations based on estimates of the statistical "value" of the average life and the effects the loss has on the family and community. These studies may be wildly imperfect, but the point is that life is so valued by society that we can assign with a straight face this kind of dollar amount. Even IF Pro argues that the "value" of the life goes down because the rape makes it of lesser quality, unless he proves it's worth less than $750 he loses. The fact that these women are willing to continue living and endure such suffering shows that life must be very valuable indeed and the lowest estimate given in asocial study attempting to address the question found that life outweighs Pro's savings by, well, about 5,526 times. If Pro wants to throw out thousands of years of moral experience and focus on mere numbers, I still outweigh him by several orders of magnitude. There may be a multiplier effect for government spending but I doubt that it's a multiplier of five thousand, five hundred and twenty six. Even without looking at my case I win because I have enough offense coming off of the turns against his case.Sources:1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...