Morality doesn't have anything to do with dolphins or plants because dolphins and plants aren't moral agents. You've moved the goalpost so far at this point that I don't think we're even in the same solar system anymore (no pun intended). Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to rape, murder, or enslave people? Why would the burden of proof be on me to convince someone not to violate the bodily integrity of others? If they are just going to use violence either way, it's not even a debate. It's your claim that the burden of proof is on the rape victim to demonstrate why they shouldn't be raped? Because I don't know about you, if someone tries to violate my bodily integrity, I'm going to give them more than a few harsh words.

If you've arrived at a moral conclusion that condones rape, you've made a mistake in your reasoning and need to start over.

"Because of the morality problem, it creates a situation where two groups are talking over each other (kinda like this reply thread)."

What problem? I don't see a problem here. Given that we aren't talking about dolphins or plants, under what circumstances would it be okay for you as a moral agent or any other moral agent to rape or enslave someone? Do you have an answer to this that doesn't involve moving goalposts?

If humans are the same as dolphins and plants and bacteria then why are you having this conversation with me instead of having it with a dolphin, a plant or a bacteria? As much as I appreciate the discussion, your demonstrated preference betrays your claims. I'm not sure whether you're dishonest or confused but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.