"Rape Penalty"

=The Resolution=While I greatly respect my Opponent, and after viewing his debate record believe that in most debates he would roll right over me, in this debate he shows a lack of understanding towards the resolved, which I must express my dissapointment about. My Opponent continually posts scientific or legal arguments against the RP, however I made it very clear in my opening round that I wanted a moral debate. This can be found in the resolution itself, which states "would be a just punishment". I also specify that that my Opponent must "argue convincingly that a rape penalty would not be a just punishment". While in his latest round he introduces a few moral arguments, which I will address, the vast majority of his arguments do not address whther or not said penalty would be just, only if it would be practical. The resolution itself states if and while my Opponent has pointed out numerous times, the scenario in which the RP prevents recidivism 100% is unlikely, the objection is extra-topical. Again, recall that the resolution states both "if" and "would". He tries to attack the resolution itself, saying that as debaters it is our job to prove the logical validity of the resolution. Unfortunately, the framework set by me in my opening round calls for a moral debate based on a fictional scenario, not a logical debate. So please, only vote for my Opponent if you feel that he convincingly argued that the RP would be unjust (as I called for in my opening round. )=My Opponents extra-topical arguments=He states that I never responded to his argument about rapists enjoying being raped. I did however, when I stated that these arguments are not enough to outweigh the recidivism prevented (IE, when I asked who cares). Again, the resolution pre-supposes that a 100% prevention effect would be observed. Thus his objection that the deterrent effect would be lost does not meet the scenario specified by the resolution.1. Who does the raping? Again, he says that I did not answer his argument, when I did. Those doing the raping would logically be volunteers (a fact he does not respond to), and he continues to make arguments about the pleasure level/deterrent effect ect. However this, again, does not meet the resolution. He states that this would violate our self ownership, however this is false because those doing the deed would be volunteers. Not a punishmentHe again argues that the rapists may derive pleasure from being raped, and that its a reward. Unfortunately, this cannot outwiegh the thousands saved from the trauma of being raped just to satisfy our desire for vengaence. Again, this resolution presupposes a complete prevention of recidivism, and my Opponent has not shown an impact anywhere close to outweighing this. As for the "eye for an eye" implementation, eye for an eye punishment is defined as "The meaning of the principle, an eye for an eye, is that a person who has injured another person receives the same injury in compensation. "[1] Nowhere in that definition does it specify that the injury given in compensation is the ONLY penalty so my Opponents objection is not only outweighed, but also invalid.3. CircularCon once again argues that a "state sanctioned crime is still a crime" and cites Japanese war rapes as an example. A profound difference exists however, in the fact that the RP would be a penalty handed down for a crime, not a state sanctioned raping of an innocent. Using my Opponents logic, ALL punishments would have to be banned! Now my Opponent also argues that if deterrence is the only basis we use for enacting punishment, than immoral things such as torture wiretaps ect. could be justified. However he has not shown the RP to be in and of itself immoral, and doesn't his appeal to emotion by trying to show this as cruel undermine his objection about it not being a punishment? Either it is too cruel of a punishment, or it is not one, it cannot be both, so these points must be dropped.4. ConstitutionalityMy Opponent, sadly, has not justified the idea that the RP would be unconstitutional. Yes, it is unusual because it is not a penalty that is currently implemented, but if we take this to mean it's unconstitutional, then progress in the punishments handed down must stop, because all new punishments begin as "unusual". Special attention must also be paid to the "and" in the 8th amendment. My Opponent has NOT shown the RP to be cruel, in fact he has argued the opposite, so this point must be dropped.5. KritikThis is where I must stop praising my Opponent. Despite proving himself a worthy debater in every sense of the word, this kritik is nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack, which grossly mis-states my position. during this debate, all i have mentioned rape to be was forced sexual intercourse, you can see that in my round two rebuttal. Nowhere was anything implied here by my Opponent stated, and thus I ask the judges to completely drop this. =My Opponents somewhat topical arguments=1. 100% probabilityMy Opponent straw mans my position stating "The perfect police system my opponent assumes is what solves the problem, not the rape penalty. In fact, if the rape penalty would not be a sufficient deterrent for some, even with 100% probability of getting caught" This misses the point of the argument, because the resolution states that the RP prevents recidivism completely. Nowhere is it stated that there is a 100% chance of the rapists being caught, there is only a 100% chance of them not striking again. He also argues that the Death Penalty could be a better punishment than the RP. So what? This fails to address the resolution, because it states the the RP is a just penalty, not nesescarily the MOST just. 2. Infinite regressionMy Opponent attacks a straw man here as well, implying that my position would support any punishment so long as it deters. Not so. The punishment suggested by my Opponent is one that is condradictory to my position. This would be a most excellent argument for the Con side, if he has proven the RP to be a cruel penalty. Sadly, he has not, as previously mentioned he has argued the very opposite! As such, this argument has no warrant so it must be ignored. Conclusion1. Nearly all of my Opponents arguments were non-topical.2. My Opponent failed to meet his burden of proof to argue convincingly that the RP is unjust.3. The practicality of the RP is not topical and must be ignored.4. None of my Opponents objections can outweigh the thousands who are raped by prior rapists. So, I respectfully ask you to vote Pro! To my Opponent: It has been a pleasure debating this with you. You've given quick responses, yet they were also very good and insightful. I can only hope that we'll once again debate, because you're a worthy opponent who I'm proud to have debated against. Win or lose, I had fun and I have you to thank for that. Source:1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...