Question: Should Stricter Regulations on Firearms Be Implemented?

Should additional gun control measures be introduced? Should additional gun control measures be introduced, potentially leading to the revocation of the second amendment, to curb the frequency of mass shootings? Personally, I believe that the right to bear arms enhances our safety. It's noteworthy that mass shootings are seldom carried out using legally acquired firearms.

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "Open Carry is an invitation to a PR disaster. Lets be honest: not all gun owners are rational people. There are crazies out there. With guns. Advocating Open Carry. If one or two of those people push the limits of civilized behavior all firearms owners will get tagged as 'crazy gun owners.' That’s infuriating to those of us who consider ourselves to be mature and responsible citizens. But that’s the world we live in. Enough such incidents and the hammer will drop on some serious (read: Draconian) gun laws that will make the now-expired 'assault weapons' ban look like a pleasant memory."

The ban should apply to everyone. It’s true that there are implementation issues on this policy. But...

A DC handgun ban is a reasonable measure against high gun violence

An assault weapons ban will be subverted by blackmarkets

Many guns that remained publicly available after the 1994 assault weapons ban were effectively as lethal as the weapons that were banned under the legislation. This is largely because simple adjustments to assault weapons allowed exemptions from the ban. And, it is clear that many of the weapons used in the most deadly massacres, such as the Columbine or Virginia Tech massacres in the United States, were not banned by the assault weapons law.

Unfettered right to bear arms would be too expansive

The right to bear arms has become an important, lasting expression to many American individuals of their individual freedom and liberty. There are few symbols as powerful, particularly as the right to bear arms for the purposes of, potentially, joining a militia and fighting a tyrannical government is such a tangible concept. The rights to free speech and religion are much less tangible, and lack the power and threat of violence as a check on government tyranny. Such a symbolic expression of freedom resonates too deeply with many Americans to be deprived.

A ban on assault weapons is not a slippery slope to an all gun ban

Unfortunately and regrettably some of the swines will avoid being detected or informed about but it will save SOME children. We need more cameras all over the place,more readily available checks to find out WHO is living by our children. But what I feel we need and would be better is REAL DETERENT,there is non. Why protect them ? what good are they ? how soft is prison. Let them be named and shamed. Anyone who objects to a check must have something to hide.

The 1994 assault weapons ban did not decrease crime


Question: Should Stricter Firearm Regulations Be Implemented?

Gun Control Laws and Their Impact on Crime Rates

I acknowledge that my previous statement might have been imprecise. I agree that there can be excessive regulations, but I also believe that some rules are necessary to prevent violent individuals from acquiring firearms and to reduce future crimes. The court cases you mentioned, particularly Heller v. District of Columbia, support my argument that the Second Amendment should not be misinterpreted. It appears that we have some common ground, although we also have differing opinions.

While there may be negative consequences of increasing gun control, there are also significant advantages that cannot be ignored. The prevalence of gun-related deaths, including murders, suicides, and accidents, is undeniable. Over the five years ending in 1997, the Justice Department reported an average of 36,000 firearms-related deaths annually, with 51% being suicides and 44% being homicides. Determining the effectiveness of specific gun control laws in preventing these deaths is challenging. [1]

There are three potential outcomes regarding gun control laws and their impact on crime rates:

1. Gun control laws reduce the crime rate.
2. Gun control laws increase the crime rate.
3. Gun control laws have a negligible effect on the crime rate.

I support the first and third possibilities. Gun control laws will have an impact on crime rates, whether significant or minor. The relationship between gun control laws and crime rates cannot be denied. Some sources support my stance, some support yours, and others support both. However, the sources I will list will strengthen my position.

The correlation between the availability of guns and crime is evident, although the nature of the relationship is still uncertain. Contradictory data exists that can challenge arguments from both sides of the gun control debate. [2]

We cannot deny that there will be a connection between gun control laws and crime rates. I acknowledge that some states have overly strict gun control laws, while others have weak regulations. Let's put aside political differences and work together to improve American society. We can start by enhancing certain aspects of gun control, such as background checks, limiting ammunition, and regulating gun production.

We must also improve security measures to ensure that schools, malls, movie theaters, and other public places are safe from violence. Both gun control and security measures will contribute to a decrease in crime. While the overall crime rate may remain unchanged, there will be a positive impact once comprehensive gun control is implemented.

This debate is primarily about gun control, but I would like to emphasize other ways to reduce crime:

The language of the Second Amendment creates a situation in which the right to bear arms applies only to the militia. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The first clause clearly qualifies any right to bear arms as solely for the purpose of maintaining "a well regulated militia" for "the security of a free state".

A shotgun, pistol, or rifle are all adequate means of self-defense. These are powerful weapons with heavy destructive force. They can easily kill multiple assailants in rapid succession when used properly. If there is any concern about the ability of a gun owner to wield a shotgun or pistol properly such that they can kill multiple assailants, than they should seek enhanced training instead of an assault weapon.

If parents have a means to stay informed and alert to those people who may threaten their children, they are less likely to become afraid and angry to the point where they would take such action. Vigilante attacks are a means of action for parents who otherwise feel powerless to protect their children; if we can empower them with information, they will not need to go outside legal channels. wilkeyboy here agreeing with above,and yes let us know who they are. And to no opposite, who is going to object to a check unless they have something to hide ?. And yes we will(well I would) take the weak law into my own hands because the pathetic individuals have no deterent and no punishment when caught and no regard for the victim.

A handgun ban deprives citizens of the most commonly used weapon for self defense

The laws enacted by the government are there to protect people and prevent them from making mistakes. They are needed for a society that is not overrun with crime.

Concealed carry broadens deterrence by keeping criminals in dark.

Martin Albright. "Open carry is a bad idea." The Truth About Guns. August 24th, 2010: "Open Carry is an invitation to a PR disaster. Lets be honest: not all gun owners are rational people. There are crazies out there. With guns. Advocating Open Carry. If one or two of those people push the limits of civilized behavior all firearms owners will get tagged as 'crazy gun owners.' That’s infuriating to those of us who consider ourselves to be mature and responsible citizens. But that’s the world we live in. Enough such incidents and the hammer will drop on some serious (read: Draconian) gun laws that will make the now-expired 'assault weapons' ban look like a pleasant memory."

A strong majority of DC residence support the DC handgun ban.

Expressing one's rights openly to the public is an uplifting experience for a citizen. Carrying a gun openly is a valuable opportunity for law-abiding citizens to express their right to carry a weapon, connect more viscerally with their broader rights and the laws that enshrine them, and inform others of those rights.

Taking into account the large number of guns owned is the US by households and individuals and adding that on top of a philosophy of property rights and freedom from government encroaching upon individual's rights, legal or political initiatives trying to attempt a nationwide disarmed would be prone to failure as they would be rejected on a full scale by the US citizens.


Question: Should Stricter Gun Regulation Measures Be Implemented?

Stricter gun legislation should be implemented in the United States!
Stricter gun legislation should be enforced in the United States! It's improbable that armed civilians can effectively prevent crimes and, in fact, they are more likely to exacerbate hazardous scenarios, including mass shootings. Even the most responsible gun owners lack the necessary training in law enforcement or crisis management to handle life-threatening situations. Therefore, in most cases, an increase in the number of guns only leads to a more volatile and perilous environment. According to an article by Patt Morrison in the Los Angeles Times, dated August 2, 2017, civilians carrying firearms contribute to a higher rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and conducting research, it becomes apparent that armed civilians are more prone to create dangerous situations rather than ensuring their safety or that of others.

References:
1. Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014
2. Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...

Only very few cities have currently gun ban laws enacted

- While it may be impossible to get rid of all assault weapons, what is possible is to decrease the supply of assault weapons. This makes them more difficult to obtain and drives up their price on the market, which makes them less attractive to prospective buyers. This all generally decreases the presence of assault weapons on the street and in crime.

Illegal use of lasers (like knives) does not justify ban

The DC handgun ban has produced a marginal decrease in crime and murders.

Gun prohibition movement has historically failed in the U.S

Not only is it wrong for the government to take censorship-like steps against violent video games but it is also impossible to do so effectively. Violent video games will still be available on the internet and, in fact, by restricting the sale of violent video games the government will push would-be users to illegal downloading programs and therefore to an increasingly prevalent black market.

Concealed weapons are harder to draw against attackers.

Open-carry laws could help reduce costs of private security.

In today's reality the Second Amendment cannot be applied to civilians

There is no point totally banning laser pointers, and only in one state, because most laser pointers are purchased online, or through the black market. There is no point banning them because they will always be around. Restricting their usage is a far better solution to problems caused by laser pointers because there is no way of fully banning laser pointers. The law won't work anyway.


Question: Should Stricter Legislation Be Implemented to Control Firearms?

Gun Control Legislation

The debate on gun control often hinges on the balance between individual rights and public safety. Advocates of gun control argue that certain weapons serve no purpose other than to cause harm and provide excessive firepower, making it a logical choice to restrict their availability. This is not a denial of the right to self-defense, but rather a recognition that rights have limits. For instance, the right to free speech does not permit one to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, as it could cause panic and harm. Similarly, the right to bear arms should not extend to weapons that pose a significant danger to public health and safety.

Moreover, the presence of a weapon in the home can actually increase the risk of gun violence, whether from domestic disputes, accidents involving children, or escalation of force in a confrontation with a criminal. This is why the handling and possession of firearms should be left to trained professionals in law enforcement and the military.

The interpretation of the Second Amendment is also a point of contention. Taking the amendment literally would mean that citizens could own any military-grade weapon, which is clearly not the intention of the law. Gun control does not equate to gun prohibition; rather, it aims to regulate firearms to ensure they are used responsibly and for legitimate purposes, such as personal defense, hunting, and sporting activities. These activities do not pose a significant threat to public safety and are therefore acceptable reasons for firearm ownership.

Assault rifles, on the other hand, are designed for combat and have the potential to cause massive harm. Comparing them to handguns, which are primarily for self-defense, is misleading. Assault rifles have a higher rate of fire, more rounds per magazine, and ammunition designed to destroy vital organs, making them much more lethal than handguns.

Reducing the supply and accessibility of illegal firearms is another key aspect of gun control. By regulating gun shows and strengthening the enforcement of existing laws, the supply of illegal firearms can be drastically reduced, making them less affordable to criminals. This can be achieved by closing loopholes in the law that allow gun shows to sell weapons without licenses or background checks, and by ensuring that federal firearm license holders are regularly inspected.

In conclusion, gun control legislation is necessary to protect public safety without infringing on individual rights. It aims to restrict the proliferation of dangerous weapons that have no benign use in society, while allowing for the responsible ownership of firearms for legitimate purposes. By doing so, it seeks to reduce gun violence and make communities safer for everyone.

Firstly, the statistics show that knife and gun crime are over represented in the news. There is a moral panic in which people think if they are attacked it will be by a knife wielding maniac. This is simply not true. There is more chance that you will be in a car accident than be attacked on the street. Secondly, if you arm the police, it will only serve in arming the criminals to a higher level as well. Look at Japan, the police are trained in hand to hand combat and carry no weapons. The criminals carry no firearms, partly because of the tight gun control laws and enforcement. Thirdly, arming the police will normalise guns and make them seem less threatening. This will encourage people to have them as they become 'desensitised' to guns. Fourthly, the police already have an armed response unit set aside for the rare occasions when firearms officers are needed. Having every police officer trained to use a firearm will increase training time and cost.

Knives are more deadly than assault weapons

Only very few cities have currently gun ban laws enacted

With the usage of laser pointers only restricted, they are still legal to be in pocession of. With this law in place, people still point them at aircraft, temporarily blinding the pilot. We need to ban them altogether because restrcting them doesn't work.

The assault weapons ban is unnecessary; criminals prefer concealable hand guns

Alternative measures can be taken in place of a ban to stem crime and murder.

Anti-terrorism legislation is not how we should fight terrorism

Gun prohibition movement has historically failed in the U.S

Handguns are most needed for self-defense in the hands of citizens that are under the most threat, such as in DC's crime-ridden streets. A ban on handguns in DC is contrary to this logic.

An assault weapons ban would not prevent another Columbine massacre


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution should remain illegal.
Certainly, there are arguments for both sides, but here are a few reasons why prostitution should not be legalized: (1) Personal choice does not justify harmful actions. Just because someone chooses to engage in dangerous activities like BMX biking or skydiving doesn't mean they should be encouraged. Similarly, if a woman decides to sell her body for sex, it doesn't make it right. (2) Legalizing prostitution won't eliminate violence against women. It's like saying we should legalize drugs because it would reduce crime. (3) Legalizing prostitution doesn't address the root causes of human trafficking. It simply legitimizes the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. (4) Legalizing prostitution doesn't solve the problem of men who can't find partners. It just creates a market for them to exploit women. On the other hand, here are some reasons why prostitution should be legalized: [1] Legalized prostitution can provide a safe and regulated environment for sex workers. It can also reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and violence against women. [2] Legalizing prostitution can help reduce the demand for human trafficking. By providing a legal outlet for sexual services, fewer women will be forced into the sex trade against their will. [3] Legalizing prostitution can generate tax revenue and create jobs in the sex industry. It can also help reduce the stigma and discrimination faced by sex workers. [4] Legalizing prostitution can help protect the rights of sex workers. By regulating the industry, governments can ensure that workers are not exploited and have access to health care and legal protections. However, there are also counterarguments to these points: (1) Legalizing prostitution doesn't guarantee safety for sex workers. Even in countries where prostitution is legal, sex workers are still subjected to violence and exploitation. (2) Legalizing prostitution doesn't address the root causes of human trafficking. It simply legitimizes the exploitation of vulnerable individuals. (3) Legalizing prostitution doesn't guarantee economic benefits for sex workers. Many sex workers are still subjected to poverty and exploitation, even in countries where prostitution is legal. (4) Legalizing prostitution doesn't guarantee protection for the rights of sex workers. In many cases, sex workers are still subjected to discrimination and stigma, even in countries where prostitution is legal. In conclusion, while there are arguments for both sides, the negative consequences of legalizing prostitution outweigh the potential benefits. It's important to focus on addressing the root causes of human trafficking and exploitation, rather than simply legitimizing the industry.

Why would you legalize something that you don't support? To legalize something that you don't support makes you a hypocrite. Free speech is guaranteed under the United States Constitution, but certain kind of speech, such as defamation or libel, are made illegal. Laws must be passed in moderation, sir. They cannot be made too loose or too tight. In the case of drugs, however, tight is good. By saying that you want to legalize drugs, you are saying that you want people to do drugs. There could be no other motive behind such an insane action. You clearly support the usage of drugs. It's wrong to drive while under the influence. It's wrong to be under the influence. Every person who takes drugs is exposing others to danger. All drugs make people behave irrationally. Drugs are the seeds of murder and rape. You don't have a problem if the user is the only VICTIM? Are you wacky in the head? Why should there be any victims at all? Does anybody deserve stained teeth and black lungs? You're talking tripe. The legislation would mean more drug users. many people repress the urge to use drugs. Many addicts would find getting drugs much easier if they were legalized. You talk about the black market as if it's easy to access. It's illegal to purchase anything from the black market, sir. It's not a super market. It's the BLACK market. Note the word BLACK. It is illegal to use the Black Market. Today, if a person goes onto the Black Market, and the police catch him trying to buy heroin, they can slap the cuffs on him. In your insane world, the police will be unable to arrest people trying to buy drugs. I am not calling it what I want to call it. I am calling it what it is. Drugs kill people. Do you want people to go to Hell forever? Or, Christian theories aside, to have very horrible lives filled with suffering and confusion? Dr. Kevorkian would agree with you, but he's wrong. People own their bodies, and people should take care of their bodies. They shouldn't abuse their bodies with poisons. And laws are set in place to keep them from doing that. The ability to take drugs is not freedom. It is a trap, and a very malicious trap at that. Safety is important. We can set new laws, and you're correct in assuming that not everybody will follow all those laws, but those laws do prevent people from disobeying them. laws are made to reduce crime. If we get rid of laws, there will be more crime. That is how the world operates. You can't seem to accept that. Drugs are bad. Laws are good. This is philosophy at a preschool level. Cocaine takes people on acid trips. It has nothing to do with marijuana. The two are not related. Marijuana was badmouthed by the tobacco industry. That's all there is to it. Read up on your history. Cocaine didn't get popular because marijuana was highly priced. Marijuana was actually relatively cheap and easy to cultivate- and cocaine was very expensive, leading it to be highly desired. But the two are not related. Marijuana creates a pleasant sensation. Cocaine kills you. Higher prices on drugs are good. They should be expensive, so they're inaccessible to most people. Drug dealers don't put research into how good a drug is. All drugs, aside from pot, are designed to kill and addict. Lower prices would mean more drugs sold. And internet drugs wouldn't disappear. They'd flourish. The evolution of drugs wouldn't be over. We'd develop an incredibly potent drug that would kill everybody. I want to live my life without drugs, and nobody should live their lives with drugs, aside from marijuana. I'm OK with marijuana being legalized. It's fine. But every other drug, from tobacco to meth, has to be eradicated and stopped. I have freedom of speech, thus, I can challenge your misguided notion that drugs should be completely legal. The ability to take drugs is not freedom. You said you wanted your mind changed, but you're pretty stubborn. I think I'm going to send you another debate. Vote wisely, judges. I'm outta here.

Thank you, Acetraveler, for taking this debate. I have read other debates you have had, and I am sure that you will provide me with a good challenge, which is definitely something that I look forward to. I understand you are not from the USA, however I can only argue about situations in the US to support my resolution. First I will refute your arguments then I will expand my own arguments. "First, basically, governments have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law The regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people.." If I understand this argument, basically you're asserting that the collective wellbeing of the many trumps the individual rights in question. I will agree that the collective well being is important, but I argue that it is not MORE important than individual rights. My arguments on this ground are 1)There is no evidence presented here that legal prostitution IN THE UNITED STATES is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. 2)The United States was founded on the ideals that individuals have the right to protection from unjust and arbitrary laws that were enacted for the purpose of bettering the majority of society at that time (the stamp tax, sugar tax etc. Were enacted without allowing the taxed to have adequate representation in Parliament, thus violating the rights of individuals in the colonies in order to support the well being of the larger English society in Brittan.) For further examples, a quick look at our bill of rights shows that, of the 10 original amendments to the Constitution, every one of them, in one way or another, upholds the tenant that individual rights are paramount. "Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate." Almost anything can be twisted to harm the dignity of those involved in it. This does not invalidate the rights of the individual to choose to participate in those activities. Let me give an example of how the government actively has chosen NOT to uphold the dignity of women, because that is NOT THEIR BUSINESS. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... Shows that the courts in the United States have ruled, if a woman is in public, and she wears a dress, she has no right to view her body as ‘private' and her image can be captured, and distributed without her permission, or knowledge. We should all be able to agree that this creates a situation of indignity for women in general. I mention this not to debate whether these laws are just or not, but to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity, when the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws. Obviously, women that choose not to be objects of sexual gratification have no right to expect that choice to be honored, while the laws on prostitution also invalidate a woman's right to choose under what circumstances her body will be used for gratification. Further I will ask a question in regards to this argument. Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law. "Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it." I understand this to mean that you assert that prostitution harms marriage by promoting otherwise faithful men to seek out sex with another partner. I disagree. Cheaters are cheaters and they will cheat, whether they are paying for the chance to cheat, or not. Liars are liars and they will lie. The lack of legal prostitution does not stop infidelity. Please see the following web site for some statistics of cheating on spouses in the US. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage? I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society. "in addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sexes. " Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org...... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. Every one of the arguments at that website has a correlating response. I hold that the responses are clear and accurate and the rebuttals to your arguments at idebate.org are valid. However, the con stance presented does not show that the reason these laws were allowed to exist in the first place were for any reason other than morals (an extension of religious belief), The justifications I read here for the continuation of these laws seems to be primarily, "even if we made it legal and regulated it, some would still work outside of the law." This is of course an oversimplification of the many many arguments presented, but the over feel of the arguments was such. My argument to this would be that I am not against licensure of prostitutes, regulations of the profession, or high penalties for those that operate outside the bounds of those regulations. Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this. That in no way rebuts my resolution.

If you legalize prostitution sex will become public. Yes there might not be people having sex in the streets but it will become more public than it is now. Also prostitution leads to an increase in both STD's and crime.

I will label each argument I'm referring to by your quotes of me by 1. 2. 3. etc.. (in order) 1.I said an independent agency. Not a federal. A federal law would establish the need for one, and I'm positive someone like Hugh Heffner would immediate jump on that to fund it. The underage prostitution. I hate it. Nothing we can do about it that isn't already being done. By making prostitution into a company, we create accountability, a system for complaints, and abuse disappear. I have never heard of a prostitute abuse case from Amsterdam or Nevada. Pimps are created because it's ILLEGAL if you take away the illegality then the pimps disappear. Industrialize the industry of sex and you make it clean and sparkly. "life style of drug use, neglected children, abuse, depression" I already sufficiently proved you wrong in the department of drug use, abuse, and neglected children (condoms). Depression? Sex releases all of the Endorphins in the body and makes you anything BUT depressed. Further, turning "prostitution into a a company means that there are support groups for the one in a million shots that someone will be depressed. Street walking hookers are depressed because they get abused by their pimp (which would disappear with legalization) and because they don't make much money. Street walkers don't choose that lifestyle, but prostitution itself is not bad and many choose it if it can be done with class. 2.Ok. So what? Your husband is probably a, "nasty man breathing, sweating" all over you... The point being that legalized prostitutes would enter that profession willingly and be able to get out willingly. Let's compare this to a masseuse. Do you think they want to be rubbing a million people's backs? All of their skin etc etc. No matter what that person looks like they have to touch them in some very intimate places. Should they stop working? Also, don't characterize men who can't get sex the normal way as nasty. You are a terrible person for saying such a thing and it's not an objective way of looking at it. 3.Are you worried about hurt feelings or preventing 500 people from contracting an STD. Priorities lady. 4.All of those things that you say it pros. entails...would dissapear. If you make something illegal, the people who want it and need it who associate with it are going to do illegal things. For example, a good quote I like to quote about another issue, but very similar in concept. "If you criminalize guns, only the criminals have them." Making Pros. legal removes hookers from that illegal industry of drugs and abuse. 5. When I say famous people, I say people of note in history. It's been a longtime tradition to use hookers and it only became immoral in recent history, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read my whole post. The Romans had nightly orgies. Hookers were commonplace. They were one of the smartest most intelligent societies on the planet. Prostitution was not a problem in their city, it was a release. Their issue was over expansion over time. Here also is an article about Greece...http://en.wikipedia.org... 6.The exploitation would end as soon as you remove the pimps and regulate everything like a corporation. A business. 7.I have no idea what you're talking about. If I were to use a hooker legally I would want to be able to meet her, make clear want I want in a friendly environment without an angry pimp staring at me waiting for me to finish so he can make more money. Then I would want to be taken to a clean room, not a raunchy motel. I'm not the only one that thinks like this. Look at the Redlight district in Amsterdam where it is legal and brothels are very clean and run like a business. 8.Your point was that prostitutes attract drugs. If you remove them from the parts of the world that have heavy drug use and put them in clean brothels off the street and don't allow drugs...they would go away. 9.Yes it will happen. Forever. As long as there is a market. I hate it. We agree on this. 10. Don't try to weasel your way out of your words. The concept is there. 11. You said sex dumbs you down. Logically, you and I are both idiots. 12. It's only degrading to you and your fellow pros. haters. The rest of the world who likes it doesn't seem to agree. Degrading is a subjective term, I already went over this, but you ignored it. 13. The lifestyle hurts people because of the state it's in. If you remove it from the streets and take it inside and make it a business with clients and accountability (and the possibility of moving around to other brothels and therefore creating competition) You've lost this argument. All of your arguments are subjective relating to YOUR values. YOUR children. and YOUR life. It is not the role of the federal government to dictate how I get my sex, or god, or anyone. Non interventionism. I can't believe I wrote all this out. Look at amsterdam. They have very happy well paid hookers who enjoy what they do and very happy clients. They don't have drug addicts, pimps, hookers wandering the streets.... QED.

I see your point, but even if it is stoped, that would mean that more people who don't want to do it illegally will do it, and so will all of the people who do it illegally.This would only cause more problems, and we would have more people running arund doing drugs. I honestly do not agree with this, and believe that it would make the world a mucch worse place to be.

Okay, I accept your challenge. Abortion should be legal.

Thank you for this topic, and I look forward to this debate. As this is my first debate, I'm still trying to get into the style and organization needed for debating better, so bear with me, please :]. There are several reasons why prostitution cannot or should not be legalized in all of the U.S, which I will list (not on this post) in no particular order. I'd like to note that I am not arguing for making prostitution illegal where it is legal now, but rather that the U.S. on a widespread scale should not legalize prostitution. The first is economic harm for places where prostitution is legal (the state of Rhode Island allows sex for money, but not organized prostitution rings, while Nevada has legal prostitution organizations in 8 of 16 counties). This argument would be quite straightforward. The legalization of prostitution in such places would indicate that prostitution might help save a failing economy or give jobs to many unemployed. Indeed, Nevada brothels pay licensing fees, like quite a few other businesses. Legalizing prostitution on a large scale would probably make it harder for these states to sustain their economy. I mean, where would all the tourist revenue go? People don't go to Nevada to enjoy the cool 100 degree summer weather, or the incredibly arid and desert-like air. They go for the gambling and the prostitution. If you make prostitution widely available elsewhere, then both gambling and prostitution would no longer be the exclusive trademark of Nevada, as gambling has already begun to creep away from Vegas. A direct rebuttal to this might be that prostitution on a larger scale might give the U.S. and states more tax revenue, and that Nevada and Rhode Island will be able to compensate for the loss of revenue and jobs. Common sense would seem to dictate that prostitution was PROBABLY not the first thing Nevada's legislators and citizens thought of when they moved to the state in an attempt to build a new life. Desperation, along with the failure of other options, probably led to it. In fact, legislation has been pushed for years now to ban prostitution altogether, but is never passed. Another thing that might surprise voters in this debate is that prostitution is not a legitimate business in the U.S. The state of Nevada does not recognize brothels as businesses, and do not tax their revenue, but only charge for the permitting of such a brothel. (all above from [http://en.wikipedia.org...]) That's all for now. In the manner of many of the debates I've read, I'm pretty sure that my opponent has the burden of proof - he's the one trying to change things.

Now, the next thing that I am going to do is to respond to his arguments. "As a Catholic, I am fully aware that it teaches fornication as a carnal union between two persons who are unmarried. .. " You will notice that the debate is specifically about premarital sex. Many people consider premarital sex and fornication to allways be one and the same act. This is not allways the case. You see the word fornication comes form the latin word fornix, which translates "as a cellar used for prostitutes; a brothel. " Furthermore, quoting the article,"the original Greek Scripture word for fornication is pronounced pornia, which is defined as "to have sexual intercourse delivering woman/wife to/upon man/husband during/under/for MONEY. [My caps lock. ]" It means prostitution. . http://www.the-goldenrule.name.... Now, what about two unmarried adults, consensually engaging in premarital sex? That isn't exactly the same thing as a guy and an exploited prostitute. I would concede that this is immoral because prostitutes don't really have a choice, they need the money, they are often being exploited. But even my opponent didn't mention sexual exploitation, he just misused the word fornicate. In his first round my opponent did not widen the grounds to prostitution, or sexual exploitation of any type. Therefore, I would argue, this debate is only about the immorality, or lack thereof, of consensual premarital sex. He's going to have to use a different word than fornication in order prove that the bible prohibits all premarital sex. "Next, is that it can lessen danger to people. " What can lesson danger to people? My opponent needs to spell things out. Then he went into all the risks of engaging in premarital sex: STD's, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, etc "(for people who don't use contraceptives)" his concession, not mine. And he's exactly right, I agree with him, those who don't wear condoms are at risk of having unwanted pregnancies, and catching bad diseases, and everything else. It is true that the spread of STD's and fatherless children, and all those things are ethical issues. But as he put it, these things happen to people who don't use contraceptives. So, as long as people remember to put on a little piece of rubber, these risks are mitigated. Now, it is true that these risks don't go away 100% of the time, but the risk fo pregnancy for example, is reduced to 2% if condoms are worn properly. . http://www.babycenter.com... So, if a condom is used properly, the risk goes down to 2%. That's tiny. Even if my opponent was going to go back and 'clarify,' his concession, (which he can't do), arguing the immorality of taking on such slim odds is silly. It would be like saying that it is immoral to risk the lives of your family when you take them on a car ride (and after they have taken the precaution of wearing seat belts. ) Now, as the oppostion, I don't have to prove that premarital sex is right, or moral, and I am arguing that consensual, premarital sex is morrally nuetral. Both religiously and practically speaking. The religious immorality has been proven wrong because the forbidden fruit if you will, fornication is really a word for using prostitutes. The practical immorality of risking certain bad consequences has been proven wrong, not in all cases, but in the vast majority of cases of safe sex. So the protected sexual act, between (for the sake of argument) a straight couple, that isn't brother and sister has not been proven immoral by my opponent. Let's see how he does with that in round 2. Furthermore, while there is some health risk involved in safe sex, it is also something which is natural and which is, in many ways healthy. It relieves stress. It burns calories (it's obviously a workout. .. ), and it even boosts the immune system. . http://www.webmd.com... I have to go soon, I've been rather busy, so I'll bring up more arguments in my next round. I'm Jewish, but I believe in evolution. I believe evolution was god's will, and we can have a debate about that some other time. But I do need to ask my opponent this. As a Catholic who believes in Creation, you believe God created man. Tell me this. If premarital sex is wrong, than why did god create us with sexual urges? Why did god make it fun for human's to have sex? Because God wanted to discourage it?

Thank you for the exciting debate. Prostitution is awful and immoral.

My proposed debate is based on the social paradigm that women shouldn't indulge in casual or frecuent sex, and those who do be frowned upon by society. I will be arguing CON, which means I will defend women having the right to practice sex freely without being discriminated or condenmed.


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Opposition to Legalizing Prostitution

Despite the negative connotations often associated with legalizing prostitution, there are compelling reasons to consider its legalization. Prostitution will persist regardless of its legal status, much like the persistence of drug use despite the illegality of substances such as heroin. By acknowledging and legalizing prostitution, we can grant sex workers basic rights to protect themselves from exploitation, underpayment, and violence. If prostitution remains illegal, vulnerable individuals, often young, will lack legal protection against harm.

Legalizing prostitution would not eradicate the practice but could improve the safety and health of both sex workers and their clients. It would enable the implementation of laws to ensure regular health checks for sexually transmitted diseases and set age limits, thereby enhancing the well-being of all involved. Although many individuals enter prostitution due to poverty, abuse, or trafficking, these underlying issues will not be resolved by legal status alone. They are deeply embedded societal problems requiring comprehensive solutions.

If prostitution remains illegal, young and vulnerable individuals will continue to suffer in silence, trapped in a cycle of abuse and financial desperation. Legalization could provide them with legal protection, potentially including a minimum wage and welfare benefits, significantly improving their circumstances. Moreover, if consensual and enjoyable for the individuals involved, why should prostitution be illegal when the pornography industry, which also involves sexual activities, is legally sanctioned?

In summary, while forced prostitution should be condemned, legalizing prostitution could offer better protection against harm and exploitation, improve health and safety standards, and provide a legal framework for those who choose this profession. It's crucial to address the root causes of prostitution, such as poverty, abuse, and trafficking, rather than solely focusing on the legality of the act itself. Reference: <http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com...>

I'm not sure if this is satire. I don't think it is. To legalize toxic poisons is to support death and addiction. It does not matter if the buyer of a drug is aware of the dangers of the drug before buying it. People know that cigarettes kill them, but they still buy cigarettes anyway. Making something illegal is the best way to get rid of danger. I support marijuana legalization. I don't support meth, or LSD, or heroin. I don't think any sane person would support the legalization of those. If all drugs are made legal, the country will be left in a state of anarchy. It is wrong to drive while under the influence of drugs. It is wrong to take illegal drugs. It is wrong to sell illegal drugs. What you are suggesting here, sir, is a form of legal suicide. I don't think suicide is a very good thing to legalize. To ban drugs is not to regulate the human body. To ban drugs is to keep the human body safe. A person COULD potentially shoot themselves with a staple gun in the crotch, but it won't be very enjoyable. Drugs didn't exist in ancient times, sir. We invented them, and we must destroy them. They alter the mind, they change behavior, they are a highly lucrative and deadly business that must be kept under lock and key by law enforcement. There would be many problems if an individual had complete control over his or her body. Humans are irrational beings. Read "The Imp of the Perverse" By Edgar Allan Poe. Your second reason is equally absurd. Cocaine did not become popular because marijuana was expensive. Cocaine got popular because it took people on acid trips. It had nothing to do with marijuana. Marijuana was not only high priced in the old days- it was illegal. It was illegal because the big tobacco industries wanted to avoid competition from marijuana. Marijuana is actually simply a relaxing, smokable plant with very few side effects. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legalized. It's easy to grow and it brings in a hefty profit. As for cocaine, though- well, it's insane. Watch "Reeefr Madness" for some stupid propaganda. In reason two, you're ignorant about how economic processes work. The more money we put into the war on drugs, the more drugs lose. When we fight something, it declines. If we fight drugs enough, the prices will go up so high that nobody will buy them. That's what we're aiming for. And if drug dealers develop a new, cheaper, more powerful drug, then we simply eradicate that one as well. Lower prices would mean MORE drugs sold, not LESS. I think you think you've uncovered some sort of counter-intuitive loophole. You haven't, sir. Laws are exactly what they seem. Laws are for keeping people safe. If we legalize heroin, most people won't use heroin. But some people will. And they'll die, or they won't be arrested for possession of heroin. Today, you can get arrested for simply owning heroin. In your insane world, police won't be able to arrest people who are holding a big bag of heroin. Sane people don't use heroin. But insane people do use heroin. laws are put in place to keep the insane people incheck. I'm not sure why we would need to legalize a drug, if most people wouldn't take that drug anyway unless they had a death wish. It seems very risky. We could make murder legal- Heck, we could do the whole Purge. But it would suck. Big time. Nobody can have a good life while using drugs- aside from marijuana. Drugs are poison. Addictive, deadly poison. We must remove temptation to reduce temptation. 1 in 3 adults might try drugs during their lives. That does not mean they should have. Maybe they only took marijuana. That's fine. Heroin drives people insane. It kills people. It drives people over the edge. Drug addicts should be offered help. But it does not help them to legalize the very thing which hurts them. They would not be more likely to seek help if we legalized drugs. They would go on a drug binge and then die. There is a correct way to go about drugs. And that is to make them illegal.

Thank you for this topic, and I look forward to this debate. As this is my first debate, I'm still trying to get into the style and organization needed for debating better, so bear with me, please :]. There are several reasons why prostitution cannot or should not be legalized in all of the U.S, which I will list (not on this post) in no particular order. I'd like to note that I am not arguing for making prostitution illegal where it is legal now, but rather that the U.S. on a widespread scale should not legalize prostitution. The first is economic harm for places where prostitution is legal (the state of Rhode Island allows sex for money, but not organized prostitution rings, while Nevada has legal prostitution organizations in 8 of 16 counties). This argument would be quite straightforward. The legalization of prostitution in such places would indicate that prostitution might help save a failing economy or give jobs to many unemployed. Indeed, Nevada brothels pay licensing fees, like quite a few other businesses. Legalizing prostitution on a large scale would probably make it harder for these states to sustain their economy. I mean, where would all the tourist revenue go? People don't go to Nevada to enjoy the cool 100 degree summer weather, or the incredibly arid and desert-like air. They go for the gambling and the prostitution. If you make prostitution widely available elsewhere, then both gambling and prostitution would no longer be the exclusive trademark of Nevada, as gambling has already begun to creep away from Vegas. A direct rebuttal to this might be that prostitution on a larger scale might give the U.S. and states more tax revenue, and that Nevada and Rhode Island will be able to compensate for the loss of revenue and jobs. Common sense would seem to dictate that prostitution was PROBABLY not the first thing Nevada's legislators and citizens thought of when they moved to the state in an attempt to build a new life. Desperation, along with the failure of other options, probably led to it. In fact, legislation has been pushed for years now to ban prostitution altogether, but is never passed. Another thing that might surprise voters in this debate is that prostitution is not a legitimate business in the U.S. The state of Nevada does not recognize brothels as businesses, and do not tax their revenue, but only charge for the permitting of such a brothel. (all above from [http://en.wikipedia.org...]) That's all for now. In the manner of many of the debates I've read, I'm pretty sure that my opponent has the burden of proof - he's the one trying to change things.

First, (1)As I know, approximately 2-third of Nevada only allow prostitution in USA. So, of course you and I cannot easily found the evidence presented there that legal prostitution in the united states is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. This thing are not effective objection against opposition of allowing prostitution because USA still prohibit prostitution in the most area. So, we do not know the effect of allowing prostitution, and we cannot deal with this problem related to this topic yet. Your pointing is missed. (2)Public benefit means the profit of the more individuals. Of course, public benefit is often the second hand profit and individual right is often the first hand profit, but if the public benefit still bigger than private benefit, we should seriously consider these things. If the rights conflict each other, we cautiously think what rights are greater than others and we should choose the greater one if we cannot guarantee both of them. Do your bill of rights order you should not deal with this problem to this way? In addition, although the example of 'http://seattlepi.nwsource.com......' shows 'the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws.', it cannot justify 'to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity.' First, it is a only one example. Although you can show me more examples, I cannot still have conviction it is the major trend in the USA judges because I don't know the percentage of this case than the whole case related with the dignity of women. Second, in this case, the attitude of supreme court should be changed first, not allowing prostitution that can do more violate the dignity of women. Your country should not mess more the dignity of women because of the attitude of judges. 'Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law.' No, as I have mentioned before, 'The use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sex.'. Not only law but also the act can violate dignity of women. In addition, I cite more arguments from the site. (http://www.idebate.org...) 'The legalisation of the ‘Bunny Ranch' in Nevada did not prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. This is because brothels are more expensive environments for prostitutes to work and clients to visit. Rent, health checks, and security, are some of the costs which make it uneconomic for some prostitutes to be employed in brothels. In Britain, where prostitution is virtually prohibited, some prostitutes use private apartments, whilst others work on the street. Legalisation of prostitution does not remove the street market, or the dangers associated with it. The dangerous street environment is generated by simple economics, not legal controls.' Because of this, if your country allow prostitution in the whole country, the violating dignity of women can be more serious and can do more happen. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage?> I agree your opinion in this part. 'I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu...... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society.' But, prostitution is not only a virginity problem. It is also the problem of the dignity of women. Do you really think virginity and dignity are the same mean? 'Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal.' But, I want to know more USA have NOT ANY restrictions of allowing pornography. I want you elaborate this. In addition, even if pornography is legal in the current situation, I don't think it is the reason of agreeing allowing prostitution because the pornography can also be illegal because of the same reason. If not, there are more reasons can be existed. First, What make you think morals are the extension of religious belief? Even though, if prohibiting prostitution is only based on moral and religious reason, if you still argue prohibiting prostitution is wrong because of these reasons, you have a serious mistake. Because, you didn't say why the religious belief and moral reasons that support prohibiting prostitution are wrong. Of course I think you can say 'As I have mentioned before, religion and government should never mix.' But, this reason must need more detail explain. In addition, don't you think 'individual right(freedom)' are also based on these mentions in the 'Declaration of Independence' - That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Don't the 'creator' mean 'God or holly existence'? How can you explain this without the effect from religious belief to the government? So, What is the exact mean of 'religion and government should never mix'? Finally, as I have mentioned before, I already showed you an example of Nevada in this writing against your argument to the way of dealing with the prostitution. And, I agree to 'Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this.'. But, most of other jobs cannot be compared as prostitution in the aspects of human dignity because most of other jobs do not basically violate worker's dignity unlike prostitution. I can show you the reasons to the final round in my turn. I'll wait your final reply in this debate.

Ok, first off, STDS can be spread rapidly during prostitution, and unwanted pregnancies can lead to abortion. This defies morality, and sex should be between loving, consenting adults, not just oversexed consenting adults. No man will have sex with a pregnant lady, so that drains her livelihood. Stds are very deadly and painful. Aids is an std which wiped out many, so i not only have made my case, but regrettably had to rebut my opponent in the process, sorry about that. Your move. Good luck

(A) Explaining the Resolution The resolution has proven itself vulnerable to misunderstanding or misrepresentation in the past therefore I will spell out exactly what it means. Saying X should be legal/moral does not mean everything that belongs in that category is legal/moral; it means that something should not be illegal or immoral because it is X. Example: driving a car should be legal and is moral Misconception: running people over with a car is not moral, yet it qualifies as driving a car so driving a car shouldn’t be legal. Clarification: Killing people is what is immoral and should be illegal in that action, not driving a car. Therefore the resolution does not mean that every act of bestiality is moral and should be legal, but that an act is not immoral and should not be illegal solely because it bestiality. (B) Preconditions Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which my opponent must accept, if a potential opponent thinks these are unfair premises we can have a separate debate on that. Premise B.1) Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. Note this is not implying that if something is illegal at a given time or place it is immoral nor is it implying that if something is legal it is moral. Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality. Premise B.2) Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. No other moral standard shall be accepted. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. consent is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans. Premise B.3) The resolution makes a claim about what law should be but does not rely on any existing law, precedence, standard, or tradition of any kind. The fact that law has traditionally defined consent in a manner that makes it impossible for animals to demonstrate it in court is irrelevant. Only the definition of concept given here is to be referenced or used. (C) Implications: From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. The premises above prohibit these strategies. (C.1) B.1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is somehow detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. (C.2) B.2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless whim. Consent and biological harm are well defined objectively verifiable concepts. (C.3) B.2 & B.3 mean you are willing to debate the matter of consent or harm as defined here. A brief justification for excluding legally defined consent is given but the topic is still not open for contest in the scope of this debate. I reserve the right to deem other strategies incompatible with the premises you accepted with the debate. (D) Definitions (D.1) Bestiality – the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. (D.2) Zoophilia – the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. (D.3) Rape – the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below. (D.4) Pain – the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology. (D.5) Biological Damage – the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism. (D.6) Consent– and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... . (E) Burden of Proof My burden of proof is to show that it is possible that an animal can consent to sex with a human. The core argument relates this to the resolution. I believe this burden is met by the end of this first post. It is not sufficient for my opponent to simply assert I have not met the burden he/she must explain why my argument here does not do so. My opponent’s burden of proof is to either defeat the argument for consent, or prove it impossible for a human to mate with any species without causing pain or physical damage. (F) Informed/legal Consent vs Consent I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty. In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. This is implied consent but cannot be informed consent. The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities. If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape. I consider the above a valid form of Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally I would like to point out that current legal precedence and tradition never tries to apply informed consent to animals. All anti-bestiality laws appear to be based on either religion or the concept of abuse. The law does not care about informed consent of animals now and I am not advocating that change. If a potential opponent does not think I have laid out valid reasons why informed consent is morally and legally inapplicable to animals, we can have another debate about it before they accept this one. (G) Core Argument: / If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1) / Bestiality is a moral practice – see Support of Morality // Bestiality should be legal (H) Support of Morality - Consent: Under the constraints set out above the question is: (H.1) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction? Remember since I only need one exception to break the rule, if there is ever a case where the answer to H.1 is yes I have established that immorality is not inherent in bestiality, I can say it is moral as per section A. There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases: (H.2) No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly. (H.3) No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species That means if I can negate (show to be false) both of these statements then there must exist some cases where the answer to the question H.1 is YES. / ~H.2 / ~H.3 // H.1 (H.4) – Negation of H.3 Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with H.3? (H.5) – Negation of H.2 (H.5.1) It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply. This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms. (H.5.2) If a mind can agree with anything it must agree with itself. Note: Reflexes are biologically and behaviorally differentiable from choice. (H.5.3) Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction. (H.5.4) To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding. These youtube videos are among thousands of publically available images, videos, and reports detailing the sexual advances towards humans by animals, it provides the last piece in my argument for consent, action implying consent absent negative conditioning. They may be posted as a joke but what they display is real. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://scienceblogs.com... (I) Support of Morality - Harm: The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate harm is necessary. (J)I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

Some of your points/reason are repeated, basically you are trying to say- Legalization of prostitution gives legal rights to pimps or sex industry to expand the prostitution , and it doesn't promotes women's health , doesn't enhance women's choice and may cause increment in child prostitution. So my point is : Legalization of prostitution doesn't means that anyone who wants to run prostitution can got permission from government, now government's have control on it. After legalization, pimps have to take license from government to run the prostitution. And practicing of unfair means by them can cancel their license, so it creates a fear for them, so they can follow the prescribe rule to run the prostitution. In case of expansion, So it is a choice, if anyone prefer it so she/he can go in it and if pimps try to make force on her/him then she/he can go for complain. Legalization of prostitution, doesn't means that governments give allowance for child prostitution, there would be minimum age which is decided by government, same as government define minimum age for marriage and minimum age for drinking, and if any case are found regarding child prostitution there should be complain of it and should be punished. Legalization of prostitution definitely protect women(prostitutes) because now what they are doing is legal so they can go to cop or state court if any unfair means happens to them and got a help from a state. State would not give licence for street prostitution to pimps, and also after legalization government have information of where prostitution is going on because every sex industry or brothel's which are running now they try to got a legal license. After legalization of prostitution state would conduct protective steps to ensure health and safe environment for prostitutes and provides labour rights and prostitutes have identity in society and if 100% is not followed but still these condition is much better than condition what prostitutes suffer in these day's.

Few definitions to avoid semantics: abortion əG2;b;6;H0;@3;(ə)n/ noun 1. the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. legal G2;liH0;g(ə)l/ adjective 1. relating to the law. "the European legal system" 2. permitted by law. moral G2;m;4;r(ə)l/ adjective 1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour. Standard DDO rules along with the common etiquette and rules apply (no plagarism, no forfeits, cite all sources, show proper debating etiquette, con shall post no new arguments in the last round e. t. c)Let's try and avoid debating semantics, definitions or topic resolution. The resolution resolved permits to the following:"The act of Abortion is wrong[immoral] and should not be legal. "If my opponent does not agree to these definitions and my understanding of the debate resolution above which I shall be abiding to he shall object to them either in the comments or in a PM BEFORE posting his next round, the opening case. If he posts the second round and thus starts the debate without both objecting and resolving the issue with me he has agreed to the definition and resolved resolution along with the rules. Neither party of the debate may object, change or challenge to the terms and definitions once the next round has been posted and the debate has been started. Failiure to abide to any of these terms results in a 7 point forfeit if deemed appropriate and valid by the voters. You may state your case, assuming you agree to this round.

I believe that homosexual marriage should be legalized everywhere and allowed just as much as normal marriage. I am one that will happily keep this topic of debate going for as long as it takes to get homosexual marriage noticed and given as many rights as heterosexual marriage. My first point in why I think that it should be legalized is because of how badly they are treated already. When a heterosexual finds out that someone they know is homosexual, that person probably avoid them at all costs from then on, as if they could catch the 'disease that made them homosexual' or as if the homosexual would start hitting on them. People that hate homosexuals are just homophobes- Meaning that they are /scared/ of them. Why fear something that has just as much probability of hurting you as a heterosexual?? As if homosexuals weren't already judged and getting constantly stereotyped and now they are being denied their right to be able to have a secure and official bond of love like heterosexuals? Of course, love does not need to be proven by a marriage, but that right should still be allowed.

I don't agree that we should not legalize prostitution in the United States. 1. Legalizing prostitution will increase sex trafficking and promote inequality. 2. Legalizing prostitution does not protect the people that are in the sex industry.

Okay, I accept your challenge. Abortion should be legal.