Instigator / Pro
8
1543
rating
8
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#1349

College administrators should decline immunity to victims when reporting a rape or sexual assault

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

RULES:

- Rounds will go as follows: first round for opening, 2 rounds of rebuttals, and a conclusion for the last round.
- This is a touchy subject, so do not request to debate if you may get bothered by the topic at hand, (especially if you are a victim of sexual assault).
- Refrain from the use of ad hominem. This is a civil debate, not a screaming match.
- Loser has to share the blog on my profile ;)

-->
@RationalMadman

I finally got my first loss out of the way on this platform lol. Congrats RM.

-->
@RationalMadman
@whiteflame

I backed up whiteflame's vote to web archive. It will always be preserved even if the original one does get edited or deleted. https://web.archive.org/web/20190916031135/https://docs.google.com/document/d/15ROnXaWVJBMRD97_QBx9W2dYwAIkvFRHPxYqLQ5ikgQ/edit

I also like how RationalMadman says "I also didn't want to help Pro realise ways to defeat me, so I allowed Pro to keep going down the line he was going"

That's smart. Napoleon Bonaparte once said to Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

-->
@RationalMadman

I will also say that you are not required to defend a certain language or obviousness regarding this topic. All you have to do is defend its continued existence. You could say that that clarity is also beneficial, but that’s not necessary to win as Con. Declining immunity in all instances only has to be countered with the availability of immunity as an option. How many people are aware of that immunity is just a difference of degrees.

-->
@RationalMadman

I don't think the fact that you are among a minority in this view puts you in a difficult position, especially since your opponent's argument is to remove it entirely, which puts him in a more severe minority. As for stats, I don't think you have to stick to universities. I guarantee evidence exists that crimes committed in cities across the US aren't reported on the basis that the victims are afraid of reprisals from law enforcement. That's a huge untapped source of support for your side. Case studies help, but they're largely going to be appeals to emotion, so I'd pick one or two at most to focus on.

I will say I don't think your rebuttal was, as you put it, brutal. I think your wrap up was strong, but that's not rebuttal. If anything, I'd say your rebuttal was where you were most lacking. I think that's where a lot of this could have come in handy.

-->
@whiteflame

I thought of that. Most universities, especially the Ivy League, Russel Group ones, have strong implicit unwritten immunity promises. They obviously won't kick you out for admitting you were date raped but it's not actually written anywhere in most of the college/universities' actual policy because there's a vague sort of description of how enforcement works regarding those things.

This, then, means you already are on a backfoot as only very strange universities/colleges that chose to word it as such in an explicit manner in their policy are ones you can case-study to support what is happening. The likelihood is that a college/uni that made it become literally worded was already having many coming forward up to and including when it finally made it an explicit promise and therefore the stats will make it seem that nothing much changed. I also think there's barely anything to go on regarding the topic other than one by one case studies (which is severely character-count-draining). So, I don't see how I could have gone for that path without really ruining the brutality of my rebuttal and angling things further and further towards my favour.

-->
@RationalMadman

I'd go into detail on all the reasons that victims feel they cannot come forward. Then, I'd have taken the tack of examining the effect that fear of authority has had on reporting criminal acts, focusing particularly on rape. The logical route you took works OK, but it invites the question of whether or not that logic plays out in the actions of victims of rape. In this respect, yes, I think statistics are kind of necessary. You're talking about how a given policy affects action, not just how it affects perception, and support for a given action requires more than just a shift in logical paradigm. I would also have talked about recidivism among rapists, particularly in a setting like college where there is often a skewed sense of what's allowed, particularly in a fraternity setting. In that way, I would have directly and immediately contradicted the sentiment that Pro presented regarding the accused. The fewer victims that come forward, the more illegal actions students will take, which leads to recidivism in the world beyond college and long prison sentences. Addressing cases on the smaller scale of a college campus nips a lot of that behavior in the bud, not to mention protecting countless potential future victims.

-->
@whiteflame

How would you have approached it differently as Con? Would you have raised statistics? Stats were the one and only way to defeat me, if I stuck to rhetoric and philosophy, as well as law theory of the pragmatic sense, I'd 100% win whereas I knew if I began arguing stats, it would incite him to do it too.

Then I'd get into a pickle as we'd both be in muddied waters where in practise the immunity is the norm but on paper, it's a severe minority thing of very 'literal policy written' universities that has a small pool of study that may just as easily hurt me as help me. I knew that cunning and keeping my head down was sure to keep him rallying brutally hard on a campaign to prove he cares about the victims of rape and relating that empathy to the victims of framing, where all I had to keep doing was say 'fair trial still happens, they still get accused at the very least of obstruction of justice and usually the immunity is wavered' over and over again in more intricate wording.

I learned what happens when I try to be too creative as well as too lazy (yes I used to be both of these at once in waves). I prefer my disciplined way of debating now, where I only go creative and artsy when passion is absolutely optimal (last round of this debate was definitely that, slamming the defeat home etc)

I do honestly want to know what you'd have done as Con here though, with the char limit. Would you honestly have brought out many stats R1?

-->
@RationalMadman

I definitely find 10K characters constraining, but that's part of the beauty of it.

I guess I understand that tactic, though it makes for a very uninteresting debate. Much as Exile says most of the best points were saved for later rounds, I think almost all the debating was done in R1, given the lack of direct rebuttals. As I see it, there's a difference between keeping things narrowed down and both engaging on your opponent's arguments and building up yours, and the latter would have really improved on this debate. I will say you had a good final round.

-->
@whiteflame

I trust whiteflame won't edit or delete his google docs any time soon,

but if you did want to post it in a way that doesn't reveal your google account or decay over time beyond this website's lifespan, feel free to post here:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657

Thanks a lot for the RFD, I don't know how people find 10k not-small. Had this been a 15k debate per Round I'd definitely have gone a lot more into the why's and specific data and things. I also didn't want to help Pro realise ways to defeat me, so I allowed Pro to keep going down the line he was going, so long as he agreed with me that Rape is horrific and far more terrible than taking drugs or most cases of immunity.

The statistic issue is that immunity in such cases is actually a default, it's not something that's unusual. The unusual thing is for a university to explicitly state it as a guarantee, in their policy. It's more of an unwritten rule, if you will. I didn't know whether this would help me or hurt me but felt the need to just mention it at the end as 'status quo' had been wrongly framed throughout.

Thanks again for the vote, personally I agree with your analysis entirely but you don't know maybe that I put a lot of effort into keeping myself narrow in how I attacked Pro, so that Pro would stay narrow in how he defended against me (not realising where he actually had to bolster his case).

-->
@Exile

Would you be willing to debate this sometime in January? I’m only free then, but I’d be interested in taking the Con side in this. I prefer doing live debates (i.e., via a recorded audio call), but either works.

REALLY IT'S A BAD VOTE NOW, HOW IS THAT BETTER THAN BEFORE?!!!!!!!!

NYTimes is a world renowned reliable source, I don't know wtf that vote is supposed to mean.

-->
@Christen

I have no idea what makes you think I used NYTimes twice or what makes you think I didn't quote them... I also don't understand your conduct point at all. If anything it was poor conduct for Pro to mislead you into thinking Con had to meet BoPs that they didn't, which I strongly addressed.

Here is Christen's RFD without any offsite link:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657/post_links/113662
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2657/post_links/113663

-->
@David
@Barney
@Christen

Your votes would be greatly appreciated. And thank you Christen for reuploading your vote and providing a thoughtful RFD.

THEY DONT GIVE YOU IMMUNITY IF YOU ROB A FUCKING BANK, IT IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE CRIME! I TELL THIS THROUGHOUT!!!!!!!

-->
@Christen

Also, given that RationalMadman got to express his concerns with the RFD, I feel as though that I should do the same. I know the bank robbery was an example but please bear in mind that immunity policies exist only within the confines of the college.

That said, use your best judgement.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Christen

When you vote this time, please read the debate in it's entirety before doing so. I'd be inclined to say that I made my best points in the later rounds, and the same can be said for RationalMadman.

-->
@RationalMadman
@David
@whiteflame
@Exile

Oh man.

Virtuoso only saved half my vote, and deleted the rest, so I would have to re-type the other half, except I don't remember the other half :O

RationalMadman and Exile, should I just re-read the debate and type a brand new vote form instead of copying and pasting the old "wrong" one?

I'll admit I may have made a mistake on my part, and I didn't actually read the whole debate before typing my original vote form. I only read like Round 1 and then a little bit of Round 2 before stopping and going straight to voting.

I assumed it would be much easier to just create that bank robbery scenario in my head and then apply that to the debate to draw a simple conclusion.

I think I also may have noticed a spelling error on RationalMadman's part, and I may give Exile the spelling/grammar points, but first I have to find the actual spelling error.... in a debate that's dozens of paragraphs long too :(

-->
@whiteflame

thanks in advance!

I will try to get to this before time is up, though things have been intensely busy on my end.

-->
@RationalMadman
@Christen

Yeah, you're right. I was looking at the wrong part. I do apologize. @christen - you may recast your vote.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1674/meep-voting-policies-2

-->
@David
@bsh1
@Christen

The MEEP says OR, why is he not allowed to vote with 100 forum posts? Please apologise and let him vote again with same rfd.

-->
@David

He had 100 forum posts, apologise and put it up right now.

-->
@Christen

*************************
Since you have not completed 2 debates, you don't meet the eligibility requirements. Note that 'completed' means that it is in the voting stage or is finished the voting stage.
*************************

A boy and a girl both "consent" to go out and rob a bank. They manage to avoid getting caught, they make off with all the money, and they have committed the perfect robbery.
Then, later on, the girl "comes forward" saying that, during the robbery, she was raped by the boy, and she claims she is a rape victim.
Exile's argument is basically that, in a scenario like this one, immunity should be declined, and that both the boy and girl should be punished for robbing the bank, while the boy is punished even more if it turns out to be true that he raped the girl.
RationalMadman's argument is basically that, in a scenario like this one that I mentioned, the so-called "rape victim" should be forgiven for robbing the bank while the boy is punished for robbing the bank, and punished even more if it turns out to be true that he also raped the girl.
Normally, I would side with Exile and award the point(s) to him, since it's obviously better that they both be punished for robbing a bank, rather than having only 1 of them be punished while the other gets away with it and potentially robs another bank or something, which is what RationalMadman wants.
However, it gets tricky, here, since, if you side with Exile and decline immunity, then you run the risk of having neither the boy nor the girl report their robbery, and you risk allowing BOTH of them to get away with robbery since it was not reported, instead of having them both be punished for the robbery.
Choosing whether to side with Exile or RationalMadman for this debate is basically choosing between having a 50% chance of catching both criminals but also another 50% chance of catching none at all (Exile), OR, having a 100% chance of nabbing at least 1 criminal and having 'em face justice but at the drawback of having a 0% chance of having the other criminal face justice for that crime (RationalMadman), respectively.

-->
@RationalMadman

I know he's wrong in his RFD but why are you disappointed lol. He gave you more points.

Bump for voting

If you will read the debate, you'll see that they do not ever let you off for the 'robbery' if you are found to be lying about the rape... I don't understand why you even gave Pro the 'right' factor when I pointed out this major lie about framing being friendly to immunity-policy.

If you changed robbing a bank to taking drugs, your RFD is still too Pro-friendly.

-->
@Christen

You are wrong, the girl doesn't get away with robbing the bank because I said it would be with layers of plea bargaining for more severe crimes. If it's as bad as robbing a bank, the immunity policy wouldn't apply, rather it applies to something like getting drunk or taking drugs.

-->
@Exile
@A-R-O-S-E

Members are not permitted to vote until they have EITHER 2 unforfeited non-troll debates that have entered completion stage OR 100 forum posts.

Those are the minimum criteria to meet and were introduced to stop alt-abuse as well as stop dedicated trolls from ever getting to vote. Unfortunately, this isn't easy to implement in the coding (so you see the vote button and waste effort voting that won't help you get to vote at all).

-->
@A-R-O-S-E

Don’t worry about it bro, I appreciate the consideration!

This is an awesome debate but I don't have the time to vote on it or read more than Pro's first round.

If I could vote rn I would, this debate deserves it.

I'm saying this because saying nothing would not be the proper respects

-->
@billbatard

But you're a man, so you're a disgusting pig

-->
@Barney

Thanks! Looking forward to many great discussions!

-->
@Exile

all men are pigs

what no stop being so sick RM and qutiing to just forums to max 2 to back in everything

I am debating in moderating of maximum 2 at a time.

That story sounds like she was killed in order to cover it up, the conniving way that the modern day right-wing can twist such a story is horrifying.

-->
@Exile

I agree-https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2215/heartbroken-mum-of-teen-who-killed-himself-after-withdrawn-rape-allegation-found-hanged-at-family-ho

what happened to no formal debating

-->
@oromagi
@bmdrocks21
@billbatard
@Phil_E_CheeseSteak
@Exile

Please, this is going to be a really serious debate for me both because:

1) the topic being a really passionately spoken new-age-rightwing-libertarian propaganda thing that I loathe the influence of and got Trump elected amongst much else in the world (Brexit etc).

2) I am finally starting to care a lot about debating, rather than just 'winning' in itself (though winning ironically will now, in output, be better rewarded to me vs effort put in). I am putting full effort in as is my opponent I assume and it would be best if we let both debaters battle it out with our own wits and ideas, not anything in the comments or tailored to the debate other than what's already available on the Internet and such.

Thanks in advance for your interest in the debate, it is indeed one of those highly emotional ones no matter which side you support. Keep your eye out and you'll be entertained (and informed).

-->
@Exile

Also your argument about punishing people to deter them from doing drugs doesn't work, empirically, why do you think the recidivism rate for drug use is so high. It seems like the way to stop people from doing drugs isn't via criminal punishment, but instead via addiction treatment. Maybe if rape victims who used illegal drugs should be given mandatory addiction treatment alongside their criminal immunity, if that's the road you want to go down.

-->
@Exile

Welcome to the site. Something you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt

-->
@Exile

Isn't the problem with not granting victims immunity when reporting rape that you start to cause a chilling effect? We don't want someone who is raped to not report it because they were doing illegal drug and fear that they may face legal ramifications on top the already extreme trauma of the rape and the fear of not being believed by law enforcement.

-->
@Exile

Completely agree. We need less disgruntled ex-girlfriends ruining good mens' lives with false accusations. Innocent until proven guilty

-->
@billbatard

With all due respect, you have it wrong entirely. There is a difference between men who rape and men who are accused of rape. Immunity policy only propagates an unfair system against someone who is accused.

so the person posting this is sympathetic to men who rape is that it? do i have that right?