It should be legal to stalk someone

Introduction I believe that, in this debate, there were two main points of contention. First, which side benefits stalking victims the most? Second, which side benefits the rest of society the most? While both sides have raised valid points over the issues, the opposition side has taken the upper ground for both of them. Points of contention 1. Benefits to stalking victims In round 1, I argued that stalking victims would be better off with stalking laws since they would not receive help from authorities if they didn't exist. In response, Pro claimed that stalking was easy to prevent and escape from, and that allowing stalking would cause people to take more responsibility for themselves. Pro's point was refuted by the fact that, in the status quo, people already take a lot of responsibility due to high profile cases of crime being reported in the media; if Pro's motion succeeded, we would hear less about cases of stalking in the media and people would end up being less, not more, responsible. I have also demonstrated that stalking victims are less able to defend themselves from stalking if they have no help from authorities, since their efforts to escape their stalkers would eventually fail, and reporting stalking to authorities is the best way to stop a stalker in their tracks because intelligence agencies and police stations have more access to resources than a stalking victim could ever have. Pro fails to adequately address this point in later rounds; in round 4, he simply stated that it takes a long time for stalkers to create new online accounts and ranted about how feminists are "offended by sensible advice". I have also argued that anti-stalking laws reduce stalking because they create a legal disincentive to stalk. Pro fails to refute this point. As seen above, Pro has consistently failed to refute the notion that banning stalking would lead to less stalking. Thus, the opposition has won this point of contention. 2. Benefits to the rest of society In round 1, Pro asserted that stalking laws are sexist. He stated that women were more likely to be stalked, but did not state that this meant stalking laws were sexist, or even clearly connect the statistic of stalking of women to the alleged sexism of stalking laws. Thus, the argument was ignored in my round 1. Later, in round 4, Pro brought up the statistic again, and this time clearly linked it to the sexism of stalking laws by stating that the statistic demonstrated that the law was treating one gender better than another. In response, I demonstrated that whether a law's enforcement is sexist does not determine if the law is inherently sexist. I provided the example of laws against violent activity. Black people are more likely to be incriminated by laws against murder, theft, and drug dealing, but that doesn't mean banning murder is racist; it only demonstrates that we need a fairer legal system. While it would have been better for both debaters if the point was debated about earlier, it wasn't explained well by Pro until the fourth round. I believe that I have demonstrated that the sexism of stalking laws hasn't been shown to exist, much less be severe. In round 1 and 2, I demonstrated that by banning stalking, we provide an incentive for stalkers to get tested for psychological conditions that often cause stalking as a part of legal defense. Banning stalking gives stalkers help. In response, Pro argued that making stalking illegal "alienates" stalkers and doesn't help them. I have shown that to be wrong, because stalking is stigmatized both in the status quo and under Pro's motion, the benefit of not being imprisoned gives stalkers a reason to find psychological help. Pro's motion is thus worse for stalkers than my side. Pro's logic in banning stalking laws is that because stalking victims can help themselves escape stalking, stalking should be allowed so that they would be more careful. I have shown that to be illogical because murder victims can also avoid murder—don't go out at night, and don't anger others—and yet we haven't allowed murder to make people more careful. Pro's logic can be used in justifying permitting murder. Pro's attempts at making my reductio ad absurdum itself seem absurd were, in my opinion, refuted by my arguments that made murder similar to stalking. Conclusion In this debate, I have shown that anti-stalking laws benefit stalkers by allowing them to get aid in avoiding stalking and that they benefit society as a whole. Thus, let it be resolved that it shouldn't be legal to stalk anyone.