The actions taken by the husband in the bride kidnapping video evidence that a Rape...

The reason why Kubanti is guilty if rape is not because of the laws that outlaw kidnapping but because of the kidnapping itself because of what came after the kidnapping. Him kidnapping her lead to the rape itself. The girl was taken against her will, then he had his family coerce into accepting the marriage, then later to consummate the marriage. The reason why I brought up the point of the bride wanting to wait for marriage was that in waiting for the time that she wanted to get married in the way that they agreed to get married she would have consented to the marriage and no rape would have occurred. The word rape itself has many definitions and some have elements to the definition. In one case rape means to be carried away by force, the bride was literally carried away, forced into a car and taken to the home of Kubanti. Another definition for the word rape is the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. As it is clearly seen in the video the aunts of Kubanti were using physical force to hold the girl still and get her to accept the bridal scarf. Had he not brought the girl against her will to get married none the following acts would have happened, she would have never had to be forced into marriage and later consummate said marriage. I realize that there appears to be some connection between kidnapping and rape but my opponent doesn"t appear to actually state when the rape occurred thus I am unclear on how my opponent will be able to establish that rape occurred. In addition, I predict that my opponent will state that the evidence of the rape stems from the fact that the family showed a sheet with a blood stain to show that sexual intercourse had occurred. But, even if one provides a sheet with a blood stain, it doesn"t necessarily imply that sexual intercourse had occurred; in addition, even if a blood stain was shown and it was affirmed that sexual intercourse occurred, this still doesn"t give us any evidence necessarily entailing that rape occurred. For instance, it is possible for a heterosexual couple to have sex on a shape, have it stained with blood, and this isn"t any indication of rape due to the blood being present from trauma to the hymen or intercourse"s occurrence during the menstrual cycle. I would like to continue criticizing my opponent"s argument but stating that rape has many definitions or many elements seems to make it difficult for me to assess whether or not rape has occurred. The flaw in my opponent"s argument, the one that removes the possibility of her establishing a valid claim for a charge of rape, stems, again, from this problem implied in the original set of premises: I still don"t know what features to look for in assessing whether or not rape had occurred. For instance, my opponent, after asserting the vagueness and lack of coherence in definitions of rape, provides two definitions of rape. One appears to utilize the fact that someone is carried away by force as the indicator of whether rape occurred or not: this is problematic, since, if this is the indication, any parent picking up their child to give them a timeout or place them in their crib will thus be rape, and we know this not to be the case. The second attempt at a definition is more specific, however, the evidence that is cited in my opponent"s argument thus far doesn"t actually seem to meet the criteria within that definition. For instance, if the definition is unlawfully compelling a person through force or duress to have sexual intercourse, my opponent still has not established that sexual act had occurred. Furthermore, it appears that there is a mistake in my opponent"s assessment of the possible rape. My opponent has claimed that the compulsion of the aunts of Kubanti is the source of the physical force utilized to produce non-consensual intercourse. But, recall that we are assessing Kubanti"s actions, not the aunts actions, and my opponent has nowhere claimed that it is possible for the aunts" actions to be complemented by non-consensual sex with the bride"or, put less politely, while the aunts may have touched the bride, the aunts do not actually, per my opponent"s statements, and per the video, end up having sex with the bride to be, thus their actions do not appear relevant to the assessment of Kubanti"s guilt as an alleged rapist. While the reader of these arguments may claim that the final statement of my opponent"s arguments seemed to establish that rape had occurred, "consummating a marriage," is not actually rape, this is a sexual act voluntarily entered into in order to performatively affirm the institution of marriage by a couple. Thus, by my opponent"s own words, it seems that they do not actually perceive this circumstance to be an instance of rape. Given this, I maintain my previous claim that Kubanti is not guilty of rape.