Debate: Blame not the victim, nor the assaulter.
Side: Agree

Saying that victims are "partly to blame" comes across to me as a very dangerous statement.Which is why I never said it.Many victims of sexual assault (particularly children) actually feel like they provoked the assault.A fact I am very well aware of, thanks.When in reality, were it not for the abusive nature of the ONLY culpable party, the assault would not have occured.This is where I disagree. For starters, I do not view the abuser as blameable or culpable themselves since I consider us to lack free will. That aside, however, I think it is naive to suggest that the only variable in an assault is the assaulter. Recognizing that steps can be taken by potential victims to protect themselves does not have to be accompanied by any claim that the potential victim should take those steps, or that they are to blame for the assault if they do not take them. It is a simple recognition of facts. Not NECESSARILY.....depending on context sometimes blame can simply mean "attribute to".Blame is, by definition, an assignation of fault. The process of attribution itself is an assignation of causal responsibility, and I have never had a conversation with anyone who did not accompany that assessment with some degree of accountability. In the rare chance that that did happen, I would say it hardly meets the meaning of the term in either common usage or accepted definition (rendering it rather irrelevant to the subject at hand, and tangentially distracting to the point I was making). Nice try, but you are unquestionably trying to "assign fault" to the victim. ie Their fault: not being careful enoughNo, I am not. For reasons explicitly stated above. I can hardly help it that everyone else seems to be reading moral fault into an objective assessment. With blame understood as implying immorality or criminality (And unless you live a cave, you know it usually does) IT IS appropriate to blame the assaulter, and inappropriate to blame the victim.Which is why I have never once used the term "blame" to describe any party in this scenario.In other words if you only have one person who violated another persons rights then there is only one person "to blame"As mentioned above, I consider no person to blame. Assuming the delusion of the moral narrative, however, I would agree that the assaulter is the party to blame; this is not actually inconsistent with my stance.Funny, I think that's what morality is in a nutshell "Strategic risk avoidance"From what basis do you draw that conclusion? For most of its existence, morality has blamed women for sexual assault. For most of its existence, morality has justified executing people on account of their sexual orientation or lack of religious belief. For most of its existence, morality has supported slavery. Morality is not about risk avoidance, and never has been. Morality is an evolved process for legitimating our interpersonal behavior. It is subjective and has little bearing upon objective assessments.To drive home my point...I am transgender. Being open about my identity puts me at higher risk for violence and even death. Being open is a risk. If I am not open about it, I can avoid the risk. Electing to be open about who I am does not make me at fault, but it does increase my risks. This a an objective, factual assessment. No moral judgement necessary.