Men accused of rape should be castrated

This is a brief character debate but I would like to start with addressing the resolution, offering some rebuttals, and showing some contradictions in my adversaries arguments. We are debating the followingResolved - Men accused of rape should be castratedThe parameters of the debate are defined as *when two or more women* *accuse* a man of rape he should be castrated. This in its most logical form is literally as it is stated. Men that are said to have raped women (per a 2 or 3 women majority) should be castrated. There is no defending this wording to the resolution. It his bop to show that they ought to be castrated as a punishment for rape. Literally this is saying, because this person raped (x) person he should therefore in turn be castrated for that action. Punishment - suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution [1]R1) Not a punishmentAs I stated in my opening remarks a punishment is the suffering , loss, or pain that serves as retribution towards a certain action. In this case it would be rape. If a certain person commits rape, the resolved in this debate is that he should suffer the loss of his genitals to stop him from raping again. My adversary claims this is not a punishment but saying people that are *accused* of raping *should be or ought to be * castrated in response to them raping. This is literally the point blank definition of punishment. The removal of genitals is literally a retributive act in response to a crime that was committed. The framework for his entire argument centers around the fact that castration is not a punishment but that undermines the resolution behind the debate. This is clearly in response to the act of rape. Men *accused* of rape *ought* to be castrated, in response to the act of rape. This is literally a self contradiction on my adversaries part and defeats the resolution itself. As anything attached to this is not valid. He spends his entire round showing the positive effects of castration but by implementing it as a retributive act in response to rape (punishment) you are removing free will out of the equation. This is not a debate about the positive effects of castration but why it should be implemented as a punishment under a 2 or 3 women majority per the parameters of this debate. R2) The Rest of the argumentsEverything he is stating is invalid and can be ignored as it is not applicable to this debate. Saying the positive effects of castration does not justify it as a punishment or retributive action in response to rape. This does not even begin to touch on the fact that he stated it should be done in cases where men are *accused* by two or more women. Every argument in this debate is a non sequitur in regards to the actual resolution and he ignored my entire point that anyone can be accused of rape. ConclusionMy adversary literally chose not to offer any rebuttals to my arguments, and per the parameters set up in round 1 we are discussing castration on a male when two or more women *accuse* him of rape. Things he has failed to show and that he has done in this debate(a) He has failed to show how we would counteract the massive amount of wrongful castrations due to lack of a proper conviction(b) He has not addressed how his proposition goes past 3 different amendments. (c) He has contradicted himself and stated that castration is not a punishment when it clearly is. This is a retributive act in response to rape that that is decided by a 2 or 3 women majority which violates someones right to a proper trial. In no way has he laid out a solid foundation for why castration is a proper response to rape. Whether he thinks so or not, this is specifically intended to be and can only be a punishment, and the outline which he gave is directly conflicting with our right to a fair trial and our right to not be imposed to cruel and unusual punishment. He has rebuttaled nothing and most of his arguments are not even relevant to the topic at hand. Due to the lack of a outline for how his proposition is to be legally enforced, is a viable punishment, and does not violate most amendments. I urge the voters to side with neg. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...