I'm upset to vote on this debate because the "winner" is really not trying, however, the other side isn't answering key arguments. I vote Con, here's why:
1. I buy that the resolution is about legality. To be completely honest, Pro is talking about harm, and how that can happen outside of the legal system, but I have this quote from Pro "For those that didn't quite get it, the topic is about what is right in the eyes of the law." meaning the existence of harm is not the question of the topic. If you want the topic to be about harm, or you think all harm is illegal, you need to do that work much more.
2. I buy that, even if sleeping with HIV is harmful and SHOULD be criminal, it is NOT criminal. Pro brought up that there are other examples of illegality, but I would like even one of these numerous examples that could prove their point.
3. I buy the BOP is that Pro must prove that consensual sex between adults can be illegal.
In conclusion, Pro doesn't meet the BOP. I have no evidence that it is illegal, only with this murder claim, however Con correctly identifies that morality is not legality and that there is no intent. Second-degree murder requires the intent to kill someone, you mean manslaughter, though I don't evaluate that because it wans't brought up in round. This BOP overrides the topic, even if the topic allowed for a question of morality, though I don't evaluate that it does based on Pro's comments early on in the round and a lack of clarity about what the role of harm is in regard to legality.
Notes for Pro
1. Answer the BOP or meet your BOP.
2. There is literal legal laws on the books that make it illegal to sleep with someone without telling them you have an STD. Literally post one of those laws instead of trying to link them to murder. Also, the elderly/mentally disabled can't consent in some situations because they are unable and you should cite those laws.
3. I don't get the moral/prevent harm versus legality distinction but not distinction claim you're making. I have no clue how preventing harm ties into legality after reading the first or second Pro speech, leaving me feeling lost.
Notes for Con
1. You'll read this twice from me today, but you need to give a shit about the debates you're in.
2. You need to wrestle with the harm/legality... thing that Pro is going for. You ask what the debate is buy you should be creating a framework that a judge could use, especially since the Pro is really messy, otherwise I'm required to sort through theirs, and it might not turn out in your favor.
3. Read a disad to the claim that it should be criminal. "Calling consensual activity illegal is the basis of racist and homophobic ideals that the state should oppress people." This means that you get to not only call them irrelevant to the debate, but prove that if they were relevant, they're still wrong.
If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to question, comment, or message me!
In regards to what?
Do you agree with the voter?
When are we going to be honest?
No wonder debate.org got shut down. Half way truthful folks.
Sorry for the two pings, I voted and then realize I didn't select Con. My bad.
If you knowingly have sex with someone without telling them you have HIV, then there is not informed consent. If you have told them and they still want to have sex with you, then that is informed consent and everything is fine.
"The presence of consent predominantly affects the case, and the person who has transmitted the disease may not be found guilty. Several states have specific laws that let people with an active STD status knowingly indulge in sexual or physical contact with a person without the fear of prosecution, provided they tell their partner about the STD status."
https://www.levineblit.com/blog/what-stds-can-you-sue-for-everything-explained/
--Decades have passed.--
"Let's start a world-scale war, shall we?" Said the prime minister of UK by then.
"Alright!" Responded the president of America, after the two have spent a night on the same bed, in the white house preferably.
...
Morally or lawfully?