[Beta] HSD Debate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#1
Debate Rules:

1. Strictly no spam or personal attack of any kind (valid or invalid does not matter) is allowed.

2. This debate thread is open only for both debaters. All other users (except for the debate arbiters) are prohibited from posting in this thread.
3. This thread function as a place for the two participants to post their arguments, following the debate format given below.
4. Both debaters can insert a reply inside this thread, for any point raised in the commentary thread. However, care must be taken to ensure that the reply serve only as supplementary, and the major feature of the debater's post would still be mainly focusing on rebutting the other debater.
5. Debate thread will open from the start of the debate (Round 1: Prologue) and will remain open until day four of the debate (Round 4: Epilogue) ended.


Debate Format:

1. The debate is arranged for two participants.
2. There will be four rounds of debate in total with one exact compulsory post on each round.
3. Each post must contain minimum of 1,000 characters (without spaces).
4. A round lasted for a day, and with the following order:
___a. Day 1 - Round 1, Prologue (Opening Post by both debaters)
___b. Day 2 - Round 2, Rebuttal of Prologues
___c. Day 3 - Round 3, Rebuttal of Round 2
___d. Day 4 - Round 4, Rebuttal of Round 3 plus Epilogue (Closing Post by both debaters)
5. The two debaters can submit their post daily at any time they desire, there is no rule for who must post first and who must post second. However, to ensure fair play, both debaters must follow strictly the order given in Debate Format: No.4. above (this is to ensure that whoever post first will not be on the disadvantage compared to the one who post later - i.e. the one who post later will always have extra rebuttal opportunity compared to the first poster). The example below illustrate the proper procedure:
On the first day, Debater B post his Prologue first. Debater A who post later must not use the opportunity to rebut B's Prologue. Debater A must faithfully follow the procedure and strictly post his/her Prologue instead. Only on the second day will both debaters are allowed to rebut the opening posts of their counterpart. The same goes for the second and third days rebuttals, all of which can only be rebutted on the next following day.

Debate Time:

19th September 2011 - 22nd September 2011 (GMT+0:00, DST=Off)
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#2
Topic:

Is the statement made by Toronto Police Const. Michael Sanguinetti - "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" - justifiable?


Source:

HSL SlutWalk Thread


Participants:

Pro ( @Kaze Araki )
Con ( @Nightmare Gear )


Event Schedule:

Debate Time: 19th September 2011 - 22nd September 2011 (GMT+0:00, DST=Off)
Commentary Time: 19th September 2011 - 25th September 2011 (GMT+0:00, DST=Off)
Voting Time: 22nd September 2011 - 25th September 2011 (GMT+0:00, DST=Off)
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#3
Round 1

Modesty should be the main theme for women's dressing etiquette, not only for moral reason, but also for their own personal safety. Whether one wishes to accept it or not, women were, are and will always remain as object of exploitations - and this reality has been proven throughout the course of history. Feminism may seems to be successful on the surface in crying out the notions of emancipation and equality for women, but a more closer scrutiny at the root, shows that women are still pretty much enslaved by their psychological needs to be accepted by men.

Our contemporary culture is by no mean even feminine, it is as masculine as it ever was. Sexually appeal clothing designed for women, promoted incessantly so that they are accepted in the mainstream society; the shifting in popular language used in women's identification, from what was known to be dirty words, completely turned into triviality mentioned repeatedly in daily conversations; and above all else, the mass media propaganda ensure women's position in history to remain stagnant - as mere tools for the inexhaustible satisfaction of a masculine society.


Wearing inappropriate dressing in public is a very good example of how women are being irrationally dictated by our current contemporary society. If one covers oneself in eye-raping jewelries, and purposely walk into a crime infested area, predictably enough one will then fall victim to petty crime - but who is to blame here? While the criminal act is incontestably must be punishable by law, the victim's illogical action deserve more than just a blame. Indeed, what is it that the one wishes to accomplish by doing such unreasonable act in the first place? Unless there is a strong justification for one to do so, such conduct can only be labeled as foolish.


The same analogy also apply for women wearing inappropriate dress in public, what is it there to be achieved by walking around with clothing that sexually arouse men, only to prove herself in line with the latest fashion and trend in society? Is the exploitative capitalist culture justifiable enough as a motive for one to compromise one's own security? Certainly not! There is a reason why a woman is a woman and henceforth for this reason alone, the statement made by Toronto Police Const. Michael Sanguinetti; "
women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" is not only justified, but also the truth itself.
 

Nightmare Gear

de capa y espada
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
817
Likes
1
Points
18
#4
Round 1

When does wearing seductive clothing invite dangers? Is it to incite acts of crime to attract anyone? Are we to question rape victims of fault? I believe in society dictates modesty but modern traditions are holding back universal equality.The misconception that we blame the women welcoming rape by appearance is disenchanting. As no metaphor dignifies rape.

Michael Sanganuinetti statement cannot be taken as right. He construed justified means for a crime on victims and it doesn’t make rape preventable by following his word. Sanganuinetti also apologized for making the statement. Even before dressing provocative, women have always been rape for numerous reasons. The Slut Walk in a whole was to fight the issue of looks incite the rape. The statement Sanganuinetti made is not only a fallacy but a degradation of our modern concept of equality.


Our gender equalities are still big global issue; finding fault on women for the way they look and act doesn’t justify a rapist finding victims. Accepting Michael Sanganuinetti statement can only set us in a direction of inequalities. We all value our freedoms and know that only holding women to dress promptly is a double standard of hypocrisy in the western world.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#5
Round 2

The real reason why Sanguinetti must apologize to the public would be very simple; political pressure. In reality, there is nothing wrong or sexist at all in his statement, neither did he try to justify the criminal act of raping women – since when does telling the truth turns someone into a sexist? True indeed, even before the provocative dress arrived, women has always been subjected to rape for various reasons (even religious one). But one also needs to ask oneself here, how does dressing inappropriately helps prevent women from being raped? Such culture not only contribute zero to women cause, worst - it exacerbate the problem even further!

In reality - gender equalities does not exist, the very nature of women themselves is symbolized as sex object, especially in this masculine society. Furthermore, no one is justifying the act of raping to begin with (it was never an issue), but criminals lack any form of moral justification in performing their act (otherwise they wouldn’t even do it in the first place). Therefore, it would be more than foolish for a woman to endanger her own security for such trivial reason as trend and fashion in contemporary society.

At the very core itself, Sanguinetti's statement is nothing more but a form of risk management.
 

Nightmare Gear

de capa y espada
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
817
Likes
1
Points
18
#6
Round 2

Sluts is a term used to incriminate women. As soon as anyone uses it they should know that term is negative towards women. The right of expression that the free world loves has responsibilities. If you choose to state something then apologize due to political pressure, its accepting that nothing of what was stated is right in the overall outlook. If he said women should dress less provocative, would have the statement been better? My answer is no; denying the right of expression is incorrect in our society. His statement should not be consider for what it implicates to us, A denial of expression.

I won’t deny that women should consider more caution in actions, actually a normal human should always take caution when avoiding dangers. What Sanguinetti's statement states is looking a certain way is going to let you be victimized. Is our drawn conclusion: looking a way will incite dangers? Is it okay for me to declare
don’t wear a turban, so you won‘t be victimized? It doesn’t and that’s exactly what is demonstrated by Sanguinetti. His statement is directed at women, so I see every right for them to be disturb by it. Feminist were outrage by his statement for poor usage of words and his directed statement at women for looking a certain way.

This is why gender equality plays a role in this subject. Do we live in a world that separates women and men in socially? Its true. If we force this way of Sanguinetti’s thinking to be right, we’ll never be closer to gender equality. Politically wrong and not socially right is what the statement defined.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#7
Round 3

Denying the right of expression is incorrect in our society - true indeed! Therefore Sanguinetti shouldn't even bow down to pressure just because he stated his own opinion. If women feels offended by the word "Slut", why are other equally derogatory words towards them be left alone? Is it because Sanguinetti's statement strikes the very heart of their irrational conduct? If anything, the feminist has taken Sanguinetti's statement completely out of context and then proceed to extravagantly blow it out of proportion. Yet, all the pointless bikini parade aside - Sanguinetti’s statement still contains much more than just a grain of truth.

Indeed, sex workers are among the most vulnerable group of people to walk the street at night. From simple harassment to outright murder, these night-crawlers often made the headline news, appearing as unfortunate victims of various sorts – from drugs gangs to serial killers. Therefore, It is but simple common sense for ordinary women to distance themselves from dressing like a sex workers, in order to avoid miss-identification by the would be perpetrators.


If one decides to press on despite the compromised security resulting from one’s conduct, then one should also acknowledge the risk involved in doing so. That is risk management 101.
 

Nightmare Gear

de capa y espada
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
817
Likes
1
Points
18
#8
Round 3

Sanguinetti freedom of speech was not violated. He had taken responsibility and apologize for making it. His direct words, “I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,” - Michael Sanguinetti. He said it knowing he would offend but he later apologized, “I am embarrassed by the comment I made and it shall not be repeated.” As a public servant, knowingly making offensive remarks is brash and unjustifiable. Its not wrong for any group to openly disagree with a person intended to offend with remarks. Feminist proceed to do what any activist group would do at such a open remark that blames women for a rape committed to them. The term slut is vague in usage, any women can be called a slut for many reasons for clothing, looks, and actions. It can be broad on how any of those can be interpreted.

If women in the western society wanted to go to the beach or pool, wears a bikini or swim suit, is rape justified? She has barely anything, showing too much skin like a sex worker. The way you look doesn’t matter, it’s the rapist that is the one solely responsible for rape. Its not right insinuating looks cause you to be rape.

If we are to follow these step to prevent rape, would it help? If we give in to such ideas to not express ourselves, to try to stop crime? If you were raped was it your fault because you look like a slut? A vague term and vague ideas, blame yourself for crimes you were not seeking. We are responsible over our actions, not the actions of others. Rape is force upon a person unwilling, not on how they look like a slut.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
1,821
Likes
3
Points
38
#9
Round 4

The different between wearing bikini and swimsuit at the beach or pool, as compared to walking and dressing like a sex worker on the middle of the road, lies in the appropriateness of the said places. Beaches and pools are contained environment where people visit for specific purposes and with adequate security apparatus available. The street on the other hand is a completely different story; it is vast and has no clear boundary, therefore overstretching the effectiveness of security forces, and hence allowing more possibilities for crimes to be committed. Thus in this instance, it is simply irrational for a woman to jeopardize her own safety by adhering to trivial reasons such as trend and fashion that does not even emancipate her in any way whatsoever.


Indeed (and also to summarize this debate), such unreasonable action to the contrary shows that women are gullibly complicit and willingly continue to label themselves as sex objects. One can only need to ask oneself; “what is the purpose of dressing in a way that is sexually appealing, but to picture oneself as an object of sexual interest?” Look it out at the tennis court for one obvious example out of so many on how the culture is exploiting women and ask oneself this; “Why men’s shorts are reasonably modest but women’s pants always extravagantly allow the opportunity for indecent exposure?” Find the answer yet?


Yes, the answer is very simple; if one wishes not to compromise one's safety, then one should not portray oneself as a sex object i.e. to quote Sanguinetti for the last time; "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."
 

Nightmare Gear

de capa y espada
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
817
Likes
1
Points
18
#10
Round 4

I was alluding to showing of skin; which we may all agree that showing too much is not modest. Also even if a person is a sex workers, it doesn’t mean raping them is okay because they were showing skin. Raping is an act place solely on the rapist. Modern traditions are what dictate our values which hinder our thoughts if finding blame in victims is what we determine with all crime. Its counter productive to make people feel the burden of crimes, they had no control over.

Are we always going to find inequalities? Yes we will, but we all want to strive for the better not the worst. Turning a victim into accomplice for feeling safe on how they look, is what we are observing. I feel if we compromise for fears we give in to more fears. We will cloud the truth of matters, when we say to victims: you should of known better and never feel safe.

In ending, what defines slut? a lose moral, no modesty, and sexual deviant? Are we saying all women who were rape for looking like sluts because of a choice of clothing? I shall leave this thought with you: “most commonly, rape is a crime of opportunity; the victim is chosen not because of her looks or behavior, but because she is there.” - Helen Benedict
 
Status
Not open for further replies.