looking at someone for more than 10 seconds should be considered rape

I will now rebut Pro line by line."So are you saying people with autism are lying, nervouse, or unsure of theirselves, because many people with autism will not look into someone's eyes."This is a complete strawman. Never once did I say ANYTHING of the sort. Notice that I said that we "may be incline to associate with, given the cricumstances, lying," A circumstance in which we WOULDN'T make this deduction is if a person if autistic, socially awkward, anxous, etc. "you have obviously not done your research about countries where it is considered rape to look somone in the eye."Pro has the BOP, so I'm waiting on his evidence, sources, or reasons as to WHY we should enact such a policy or the benefits of it."with our technology now days, it is possible to talk to someone when you are not face to face"This is true. So? How does this advance the point that we should BAN eye-to-eye contact? Internet encounters, for instance, tend to be much more impersonal than face-to-face encounters. Why should we ban personal relationships?" you could also cover your eyes with a cloth when speaking to someone, if you do wish to talk face to face."This is positively absurd. In other to communicate AT ALL in person, you'd need to carry a cloth. So, to make sure you don't look at anyone, you'll have to put a cloth on your eyes and hope you can cross the street safely. Not to mention, more people would need to buy cloths, thus driving up the price of cloths and distorting the market by draining resources that would otherwise be spent elsewhere."you shouldnt take everything so littereally, about 10 seconds is what i ment." Excuse me, Pro, but your resolution says "more than 10 seconds," not "about 10 seconds." You cannot say, after the fact, "that's not what I meant." This is the resolution we are debating. Do you intend to retract your earlier remarks, and thus concede the debate?Pro then says that he "doesn't care what I think," which is fine, since he doesn't have to take my word at face value; we are on opposing sides of a debate, after all. He goes on to say that the facts are "what I am thinking about." That is not the definition of a fact. A fact is "something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence" [3. http://tinyurl.com...]. Facts are not subjective or subjective to our own whim, but OBJECTIVE. As the old saying goes, my opponent is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.He then says that, with technology today, this is very realistic. That is utter nonsense, and he provides no evidence for this at all. If we can't even look at people without wearing a cloth over our eyes, which by the way is the only way he has suggested that we could communicate in person, how in the world are we going to survive? Moreover, why SHOULD we do this? He has provided no reasons as to why we should enact such a policy, or why it should be considered "rape," He then asks me not to write so much. My apologies, Pro, but this is a debate. If you were tired, you should not have begun a debate on a debating site. My definition of "rape," my burden analysis, and my four contentions along with much more have been dropped. He must be able to adequately respond to these points in order to fulfill his burden of proof. Moreover, he needs to provide us not only with a way that such a policy would be practical, but why we would WANT such a policy: that is, why SHOULD we enact this policy, or why should it be considered "rape" when the actual definition of rape is much different. So far, he hasn't provided us with a coherent case.