Resolution: Most women deserve to be raped

Burdens: The burden of proof is on Pro since he brought the claim. In order to win, Pro must argue that the resolution is true without any convincing refutation from Con. If Pro fails to do this, then Con wins.

Taking Pro's case as a whole, I interpret Pro's argument as follows - 

Premise 1: People who act with contributory negligence deserve to be punished for their negligence. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence - term explanation)

Premise 2: An appropriate punishment for contributory negligence is the type of injury that such negligence could foreseeably cause.

Premise 3: Most women act with contributory negligence which could foreseeably cause them to be raped.

Conclusion: Most women deserve to be raped.

The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Each premise is a link in a chain - If any one of them is convincingly refuted by Con, then the chain is broken and Pro will have failed to meet his burden.

So, in looking for a way to resolve this debate, I need not discuss all of the arguments related to all of the premises. Rather, I need only show that the chain has been broken, and it has. The chain breaks at premise 3 -

Pro's support for premise 3:

"Most women seem to believe they don't need to take any responsibility. Look at the below picture." [discussions over various photographs and other anti-rape media]

"A lot of women are also turning to anti-rape devices, however most women don't think these should be illegal. It's ridiculous how irresponsible women are, these devices can cause innocent men to suffer, and they don't care as long as someone suffers."

"Though rape can happen to anybody even to those who are sensible, I believe most women do not take responsibility and thus deserve to be raped."

Con's rebuttal of Pro's support for premise 3:

"Pro has stated 'most women are irresponsible or selfish'. This is again, incredibly sexist. It's blatantly wrong and Pro has nothing to back it up."

Con's rebuttal is convincing. Pro has nothing to back up his claim. The only evidence proffered by Pro are examples of anti-rape media which hardly relevant. This is not the type of evidence which would support the premise. The type of evidence that would be relevant and potentially convincing would be along the lines of behavioral studies of women, or something like this.

Con has convincingly challenged premise 3, causing the larger argument to also be refuted. Pro has therefore failed to meet his burden. Con's win.