Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

"It is not my fault that Pro overlooked the title of the debate, but just to be clear the debate is about "Rights for the Mentally Handicapped" not "is it okay if a mentally retarded man gets punched out by a concerned parent". " Con's needs to re-read the OP : "My Stance: The Parent is definitely in the right, if I were a parent in that situation and someone touched my child without my permission, yes that person mentally handicapped or not would be hurt." The resolution was a vague half-sentence, not asserting any claim or lack of claim in particular. In the opening post Con described a specific scenario and then concluded what right should be had in that particular case. To argue that the resolution should be somehow vaguely interpreted otherwise and that the opening clarification should be ignored (simply because it is obviously refuted) is highly absurd, but if Con really wants to take the stance that mentally handicapped people have no rights at all - then by all means make the argument for that. "It does work both ways in fact, what if the mentally handicapped man started to ferociously attack the child instead of just kick it?" In such a situation, the first act of a responsible parent, who acts out of rational thought to protect the child is not to attack the mentally retarded individual - it is to protect the child, it is ALWAYS to protect the child. It should be obvious that attempting to punch the mentally handicapped man is not sensible as during this action they can still be attacking the child, the attack could fail, it could instigate further violence - and in all of these cases the child is still in danger and could need medical treatment which is being ignored. This is not a right action, and again as noted in the original post the parent is not "definately in the right" for reasons which stand again unrefuted. "If that man had been arrested and tried under a jury he would have been excused of all charges based on the fact that he is mentally handicapped, the jury would feel sympathy for the man because of his "Special case"." Really, and this general assertion is backed up by law, can the case law be cited to support this - or at the very least rulings on such cases to support this generalization that anyone with a mental handicapped is free from prosecution of battery simply because people feel sorry for them? "Yes, this is the point that Pro is trying to make but he is forgetting one thing in this case the mentally handicapped person gets the better treatment than a regular adult who would most likely be more traumatized by the event." They do not get the "better" of the event, they are just as raped, and if Con really wants to argue that rape is less of an assault if the individual is mentally handicapped then again, by all means make that argument and defend it - not just assert it. I would look forward to hearing that argument. Again, the point is that the law does give specific rights to the mentally handicapped because issues such as intent, "ought to know", and consent are critical in justice and thus there needs to be recognition of any relevant mental handicap. If Con wishes to argue against that then again - make the argument, not simply state it as fact and realize that as a consequence they are actually denying mentally handicapped people who can not as noted give consent, claim rape. If Con wants to argue for that then again by all means - make the argument. In short, Con has : -ignored all arguments presented to oppose the original claim -make continued assertions with no actual reference support -attempted to shift the resolution when positions have been refuted The resolution is strongly negated.