Raped Women Should Be Euthanised

Thanks, Envisage. =Framework= a) The resolution goes two possible ways. The first is the way of realism--we look at our world and try to apply the resolution to it. Under this interpretation, euthanizing raped women would have to be involve some kind of state mechanism identifying women who had been sexually violated and exterminating them. The second way is idealism, where we could assume some mystical pie in the sky mechanism that affirms the resolution. We should prefer the former interpretation for debates as it evens the playing field and allows for better policy analysis--if my opponent wants to claim an impact, he should be able to prove that it would actually happen. Since Pro did not specify which country is implementing this policy, we can assume that he wants it done in every country and we should analyze the impacts on a global scale. b) A shared burden of proof merely means that both parties are obligated to explain to the judges why a world on their side of the resolution is preferable as opposed to only one side having this obligation. To fulfill my burden, I only have to prove that my world better solves for values my opponent and I agree on. This is, after all, and LD debate according to Pro and as such I agree to his (implied) value of minimizing suffering and will prove throughout the debate why my position is superior in this regard. =Case= I. Gendered arguments Before anything else, reject the resolution because arbitrarily basing policy on gender when there is no compelling reason to do so is discriminatory. Pro must prove not only why euthanizing rape victims is good, but why we should only implement this policy for people with a specific set of genitalia or identify with a certain set of traits we consider to be feminine. This debate is not an actual policy testing ground and as such the effects of the policy are not real, however the effect of language is real and immediate--the judge is obligated to act by their conscience to reject sexism and discrimination in all its forms, including debate resolutions. The resolution also offers no explanation for what action we should take when dealing with individuals who are hermaphrodites, transgendered, or biologically male but identify as female and as such assumes a heteronormative framework, which harms sexual minorities. AsYep, Lovaas, and Elia explain[1]:"Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others." Thus a vote for Pro is a vote for sexism and heterosexism--since the policy impacts discussed in the round aren't real but the impacts of sexist and heterosexist language are, they have to be preferred as they affect the real world. We should reject discrimination by voting Con. Even if, at the end of the debate, you buy all of Pro’s arguments and don’t buy any of mine, you still vote Con until he shows a unique link between his impacts and the female gender because I can just turn them by suggesting we implement the policy except for all genders instead of just women. II. Realism Before getting to the nitty gritty analysis of why this resolution is an abomination, it’s worth noting that even if you buy everything Pro says you still have to vote Con because he isn’t going to access any impacts in the real world. The only possible way the state apparatus could know which women had been raped is via the justice system. What this means is that if we implemented a policy of summary executions for rape victims, we wouldn't actually minimize any suffering because as very few of these victims want to die, they will not report being raped. Not only does this destroy whatever arguments my opponent chooses to makes, but it shows how the resolution actually increases suffering because what will actually occur is handing rapists a blank check as they know their victims are incredibly unlikely to actually report their crimes. The streets will become unsafe for women as roving bands of monsters and vagrants seeking to ravage them reign free. The only way to check the widespread unreported rape epidemic that will occur is through vigilante justice as women and their families take revenge into their own hands the only way they can when the system fails them, but vigilante justice is inherently unstable and dangerous. Moreover when women do defend themselves and maim/kill their attackers, if there was any sexual contact of any kind (including mere touching) they will have to lie about their reasoning lest they be executed for the crime of being raped. Thousands of innocent women will be unjustly thrown into prison, eating away at budgets. I'm not allowed to directly engage Pros case in this round, but no matter what arguments he chooses to make this is a direct solvency takeout as nothing he argues will happen actually will. Instead we'll have a minor societal breakdown.III. Practical concernsIf we want to reduce suffering, murdering thousands of women is not the way to do it. Since after implementing the policy reports of sexual assault would abruptly stop, the only women executed would be those who have already reported their sexual assault. The statistics vary, but most research suggests that in the United States something around 20% of women experience rape in their lifetime[2]. In 2008 alone, over 160,000 women in the United States reported being victims of some kind of sexual assault (which falls under my opponents definition of rape) according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics[3]. Even if we're going to completely ignore their rights and judge based off a utilitarian calculation, these women do not exist in a vacuum--they are mothers and daughters, sisters and aunts, friends and doctors and lawyers and taxpayers. The negative effects of exterminating somewhere around 1/5th of the female population would outweigh by hundreds of orders magnitude whatever benefit it garners as their loved ones suffer emotional and financial loss and their economic production is completely ended. Moreover a worldwide demographic crisis would occur with much fewer women than men, leading to far less children being produced and no one to pay into the welfare state system, causing it to collapse. It's a dubious prospect at best to believe that the world economy, already on the brink, could survive a sudden and enormous population drop. The shock alone as virtually everyone in the world loses someone close to them would be enough to drive us over the edge.Moreover, implementing this policy would literally destroy the state. Large amounts of lives would be unjustly taken--rebellion and civil war in virtually every country would swiftly follow leading to millions if not billions of deaths as governments of various levels of authoritarianism crack down on their protesting populations. No matter what, governmental legitimacy and the idea of the rule of law will be forever destroyed as even the most well developed governments commit a veritable holocaust. IV. MoralityEven knowing full well that my opponent is not being serious in this debate, the entire idea makes me uncomfortable because by debating a policy that robs these women of their lives without their input we are inherently treating them not as human beings but rather as objects to subject to policy analysis, and that just isn't right. We shouldn't trivialize the suffering these victims go through by making them a means to the end of the greater good and they at least deserve a compelling defense of their rights as individuals.Indeed, my opponent has quite the mountain to climb to prove that these victims have so few rights as people that we can debate the merit of murdering them with the same cool headed, cost benefit analysis as a corporate meeting. Unfortunately for Pro, we aren't businesspeople discussing Oatmeal packaging, we're dealing with real people and their lives here and so the kind of analysis Pro wants this debate to be judged on simply isn't persuasive in this context. Like the user dirkson pointed out in the comments, in this round I'm essentially limited to "Mostly a longwinded way of saying, "Hey. Don't kill people."" It's Pros burden to prove incorrect the fundamental moral axiom of murdering people being wrong, not my burden to prove it correct. Although it's worth noting that any moral system which values human well being but doesn't value life itself is incoherent because at the end of the day there's no point in minimizing suffering if we don't care about the individuals who's suffering we're minimizing. Pro may attempt to circumvent my argument by exploiting the suffering of these individuals and saying that this outweighs the utility they get from life, but this analysis will fall flat because if these women wanted to die, they could commit suicide. There's no reason to *murder* them just because we arrogantly believe we know better than they do if their lives are worth it or not. Shame on my opponent for thinking this way.The resolution is, quite frankly, disgusting and completely negated. Vote Con. Sources:1. Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45 pp. 182. https://www.ncjrs.gov...3. http://www.bjs.gov...