Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized

I appreciate my opponent's arguments, and in this round, I will address his points, reinforce my stance, and present a final argument. Regarding human trafficking, I concur that any increase is detrimental. However, I disagree with the claim that legalizing prostitution exacerbates human trafficking. My opponent's sources, a blog and a minor newspaper's opinion page, assert this based on the opinions of "Bible Knowledge" and unverified studies. It's important to note that prostitution in Amsterdam is decriminalized, not legalized.

Human trafficking occurs due to the involvement of criminal organizations, as prostitutes have no legal protections and rely on them for safety. This dependency is the real issue. Peer-reviewed research lacks empirical evidence that legalizing prostitution increases trafficking (http://eprints.qut.edu.au...). Prostitution constitutes a small fraction of global human trafficking (http://www.jstor.org...). It's counterproductive to criminalize prostitutes, assuming they are trafficking victims, instead of addressing the root problem (http://femlaw.queensu.ca...).

Prostitution will persist regardless of legality. My opponent's argument parallels making theft legal because it still occurs. My point is that criminalization doesn't deter prostitution, as evidenced by my country's experience (http://www.nzherald.co.nz...). Prostitutes are safer in legal environments, unlike in illegal settings where they face violence. Legalizing prostitution can establish safety standards, akin to medical regulations, ensuring competent and safe practices.

My opponent requests empirical evidence for my claims, which I can provide upon specific inquiries. Legal prostitution can facilitate open discussions with families about the industry (http://goo.gl...). Prostitutes are more likely to abide by laws in legal frameworks, supported by academic research (http://jiv.sagepub.com...). Misconceptions about trafficking and legal prostitution can be corrected with accurate information.

The role of the state in prostitution should be consistent with its stance on sexual commerce, such as the pornography industry. Inconsistent laws create confusion and erode legal respect. Prostitution is a privacy issue, akin to internet activities, which are protected from government interference. Regulating prostitution oversteps the state's role and could lead to excessive moralization of private lives. This undermines trust in the law and potentially increases crime rates.

In summary, legalizing prostitution addresses safety, reduces trafficking, and respects privacy, aligning with the state's role and promoting a coherent legal framework.

Resolution: I am arguing that prostitution be made legal in the United States. Con must argue that prostitution laws should either stay the same or become more strict. The burden of proof will be shared equally.Definition to avoid semantics: The practice of engaging in sexual activity with a customer for payment. Note that prostitutes may be male, female, or both; and their customers may be heterosexual, homosexual, or other.An introduction to my arguments: After round 1, I will elaborate on my following arguments:1) People should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.2) By making prostitution illegal, a dangerous black market is created (which is what is happening now).3) Prostitution is victimless and is therefore not a crime.4) Personal and economic decisions of the people are none of the government's business, therefore making prostitution illegal is an intrusion.5) By legalizing prostitution, prostitutes will become safer and the business will be more efficient, adding another sector to the market.Rules: Pretty generic. Maintain a respectful attitude. Round 1 is for acceptance and any clarifications, perhaps a few opening arguments. It doesn't matter.Rounds 2 and 3 will be for statement of positions and rebuttal.Round 4 will be for closing arguments only.Thanks and good luck!

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

I will go Neg ---|>Aff 1.Exacerbation of the Problem My opponent and I agree on one thing, the obvious problems of prostitution. Prostitutes since the commencement of the profession have consistantly suffered from the effects of horrible psychological detriment; not to mention the emotional and physical abuse that usually come with the package. However, what my opponent fails to realize, is that these problems for the most part are not coming from pimps or lack of regulation; they come from the act itself. According to Ruth in 94, "The emotional health consequences of prostitution include severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self-medication through alcohol and drug abuse; and eating disorders…Ultimately, women in prostitution are also at special risk for self-mutilation, suicide and homicide. 46% of the women in a study had attempted suicide, and 19% had tried to harm themselves physically in other ways." http://www.uri.edu... additionally, "When women quit prostitution, they ... suffer from a broad range of physical and emotional disorders," she said. "Women in prostitution suffer from the same combat stress that Vietnam and combat vets do, http://www.lvrj.com... These prostitutes in legal brothels are having sex around 30 sometimes even 40 times a day, http://www.lvrj.com... the psychological and emotional detriment are simply unavoidable, and as described in a Las Vegas Travel Log, these prostitutes aren't exactly going to a room for a hug and a handshake. "[At legal brothels]guests enter into a bar or lounge area and generally all the girls working at the moment are asked to line up and introduce themselves. The guest can choose immediately or he can order a drink from the bar and take his time choosing as some of the girls might do more to convince him of their charms. After the guest and the girl pair up they'll go back to her room and negotiate a price in private for the services requested." http://www.lasvegaslogue.com... A legalization of prostitution would increase the accessibility of prostitution, thus astronomically increasing the service and use as a whole. This assertion stands true because people in most states, with the exception of those living Las Vegas, do not know where to find a prostitute. Legalization would narrow down legitimate locations where people can easily access prostitution. Additionally, the laws of punishment for illicit sexual activities are an incentive for those who fear the punishment to not have sex with a prostitute. Legalization would rid of this incentive, thus increasing the overall use of prostitution. Not only would the legalization of prostutition be completely unethical, All of the negative impacts that my opponent and I speak of concerning prostitution are magnified by the preceding facts conveyed within my case, thus the United States should not legalize prostitution. To the affirmative "*1: Prostitution is not uncommon even though it is currently illegal in most of the United States." A: this point holds no legitimate logical ground. This argument lies upon the notion that because something is popular, we neglect the logical, moral, and reasonable argumentation contending it. This point fails. "STD spread - can be mitigated or even eliminated by lifting anti-prostitution laws from the law books." A: first off my opponent gives no statistical basis, or evidence to back up his analytics. So right off the bat he does not meet the burden of proving this argument because we have no barometer of the actual severity of Prostitutes spreading aids. However, I do not contend the fact that there are prostitutes increasing the legitimacy of the aids virus in the U.S., but a legalization of prostitution would not solve or even mitigate the aids virus. In actuality, it will make it a lot worse. Remember those statistics that I provided in my first contention, that some of these prostitutes are having sex with 30-40 strangers a day? Do you think that the government will seriously check and test these girls after every day, week, or even month for STDS? Legalization fundamentally increases the risk of getting aids because more individuals visit these sites (explained in Contention 1), and the government cannot possibly monitor these sites every time they have sex, nor is it likely that they will every 500 times they have sex. Thus inherently increasing the chance of getting an STD from a male and passing it on to several others. "*3: Prostitutes tend to live in poor conditions (high class ones don't apply to this argument) and have miserable lives" A: Legalization of prostitution would not in any way improve life conditions for these women. Fundamentally, prostitution is in itself physically, psychologically, and emotionally harmful. Legalization would only increase the rates of prostitution, thus increasing the number of prostitutes, thus increasing all of the impacts exemplified throughout both of our cases. Whats more is according to Terri Miller, director of the Anti-Trafficking League Against Slavery, "Nevada is a ripe environment for human trafficking because it is the only state that has legalized prostitution…. A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner. These brothel owners are just as bad as the pimps. With legalization, the dehumanizing factors of women who are prostitutes would only increase with time. *4: Legalizing prostitution would decrease human trafficking. Farley in 08 It is not a victimless crime. Those who want to leave prostitution have a difficult time finding help, especially in Nevada, "Most women in prostitution want to escape it," she said. "In prostitution, the conditions that make choice possible are absent. If we really want to say it's a choice, women need a range of options." im out of characters, but attack pt 5 with last used evidence

My opponent states that he hasn't conceded the ethical aspects of prostitution, but he unwittingly did. If you read my first round, I clearly gave an argument stating that prostitution is not immoral. By not refuting it in his first round, it can only be assumed that he has conceded it. In a debate, not refuting arguments is NOT a good way to go about. However, do realize that I never stated I would win this debate because he failed to refute it - I have not "proclaimed victory". I merely observed that my opponent shifted his attack from not moral grounds, but economic grounds - and I complied. For him to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when I am not is a stain on himself. Seeing as how he has given some arguments pertaining to moral grounds, I will refute that first then go on to the economic grounds. ==================== Taxation Ethical aspects of prostitution ==================== {quote}If my opponent had had the thought or respect to fully read my argument, or to check out the source I listed, he would had read that prostitution as a business is NOT taxed. The only income Nevada receives from organized prostitution rings is from the licensing fees. {endquote} ----> A complete red herring. Of course Nevada brothel's aren't taxed, I never disputed that. HOWEVER, I am arguing that when prostitution becomes a legal industry, customers SHOULD get taxed per "bang for a buck", if you get my drift (everything they pay for sexual offers). Because if prostitution does become a recognized business, then why not institute taxes throughout? My opponent's argument is an obvious misunderstanding between the words "is" and "should" - a sad mistake indeed. {quote}. .. but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far. .. But could you let prostitution spread, and along with it, the moral depravity necessary to degrade a woman enough to have no qualms with equating them to GROCERIES? {endquote} ----> There is nothing immoral with it. Whatever "image" will be projected on the prostitutes by customers, it is the women/men THEMSELVES who chose to live with their profession. They aren't forced to become prostitutes - they chose to. Therefore, it is their burden to carry whatever consequences come along. {quote}Devastating if she is a prostitute, but this might be from the fact that prostitution exists. In other words, although she might not be a prostitute, she might be treated as one, with men being reinforced for their behaviors. {endquote} ----> This is an empty claim with no evidence to back it up. How does my opponent go from the fact that some men will be reinforced with "bad behaviors" when treating prostitutes, to saying that all women will be degraded? This is similar to arguments used by feminists against pornography, and it's unequivocally unconvincing. While psychology can be scientifically rigorous, many psychologists aren't. ==================== Economic aspects ==================== {quote}But from the perspective of the BUSINESS, all competition does is force you to sacrifice profit, directly to the opposition, or also from advertising and other techniques to bring customers through your doors. {endquote} ----> True, but there is a crucial difference in this scenario: the fact that prostitution will BECOME a legal business. True, Nevada will lost at least some of their potential customers to other competitors (though I suspect not many), but OVERALL, their net income will increase. This is because Vegas can now actually invest in large projects related to prostitution (a prostitution mansion? ), and with smart business moves profit much from their services. Making prostitution a legit industry will introduce a whole new aspect to the economy, and Vegas will surely be the first to benefit, and probably monopolize, from it. That being said, my opponent has yet again failed to refute TWO OTHER of my arguments - both on economic grounds. He has failed to show why Vegas' economy will take such an economic harm when gambling is it's primary motivation. He has also failed to show -- and this is most important -- why we should even care about Vegas! Why should an entire potential industry be based on the success of ONE area? ! If prostitution would be legalized nationwide, America OVERALL would benefit in so many ways. More jobs. More money. All these benefits shouldn't be forsaken just for Vegas' benefit when it already can sustain itself (more than that, it flourishes). ==================== Risk of spreading STD's ==================== {quote}Next, my opponent speaks of an entire potential for jobs. But I speak of another spread. The spread of a plethora of STDs. HIV, AIDS, anyone? How about herpes? Gonorrhea? Chlamydia? The clap? Crabs? Which would you prefer? {endquote} ----> This perceived "problem" is easily circumvented. Like the porn industry, the prostitution industry will have hard guidelines and regulations concerning STD's until medicine can catch up. This means that customers will have to be given a mandatory STD checkup every time they come for services, while prostitutes will have to take a mandatory STD checkup every few months or so. In fact, I can imagine great expansion on these guidelines. Customers have their own "profile" when they go to a certain business to avoid redundant checkups, sex with condoms will be cheaper, etc. Also, it should be noted that legalizing prostitution will in fact DECREASE the amount of STD's. Obviously, prostitution happens a LOT right now - and it's very dangerous(STD-wise) and illegal. If we legalize it, then we can curb the "bad" sides to it - just like how legalizing drugs will curb the crime that goes along with it. My opponent's other two rebuttals don't apply, since I don't use any of the hypothetical arguments he argued against. ==================== CON Claims: PRO has failed to make arguments of his own ==================== Why does my opponent constantly accuse of me of false claims? I certainly have made arguments of my own, and just a semi-concentrated read of my rounds will reveal as such. Here are my counterarguments, which my opponent falsely believes makes up the entirety of my rounds: 1. Vegas shouldn't be the focus of attention 2. No evidence/reason to show how legalizing prostitution will lead to men "degrading" women who aren't prostitutes 3. Vegas will profit from legalizing prostitution, because it's the birth of a NEW industry NOW, let me give you a list of arguments I have made for my side. Even though some arguments are related to my counterarguments(above), it doesn't matter! I can formulate a new argument by the process of refuting another, it's perfectly okay! : 1. Legalizing prostitution is not immoral 2. Legalizing prostitution will help the economy - both Vegas' and USA in general 3. Legalizing prostitution will curb the spread of STD's Is it not obvious that I have fulfilled my burden? I have given rebuttals to each of his arguments, and given several for my own. If my opponent is keen on accusing me of things that aren't rightfully so, then shame on him. ==================== Conclusion ==================== All of my opponent's claims and arguments have been refuted, and mine still stand. He has failed to refute TWO of my arguments concerning economics, and his new arguments relating to STD's and morals have been adequately refuted as well. While he may taunt at my "semi-delusional state", it should be clear to the voters who won.

I argue that Sponsoring or Funding Capitalist, Whore-mongering, Criminal Cartels by purchasing Marijuana, thus Crashing our economy of food, cloths, utilities, security, media, education and paraphilia which is the act of money laundering and gang affiliation through enabling and harbouring criminals who are selling drugs to children, womanizers, bigots, drug addicts, lazy spouses & depressed people Is a criminal offense that should not be legalized for the sake of the demography which is guilty of this offense. If Marijuana were to be legalized, then it should be done so with Zero correlation to the Decisions of the Criminal Population which has been Robbing the republic, empowering the cartels, thus tyrannizing and enslaving our working class, our food producers, our foreign associates and our officials. More over, It does create psychotic anomalies in the mind, which are nearly impossible to reprimand , in the same way that sexualizing a child is unreprimandble. Indicting that it is not just a criminal act, but an inhumane act to sell or legalize it. The Cartels are currently so powerful, making millions a day selling liquor, cigarettes, marijuana, cocaine, porn and porn apparatus that they have influence in our media, in our politics, in our demographics and in our education system. Thus, introducing to this article of discussion, sex trafficking, robbery, violence, social bigotry, depression, economic insecurity (national and private). So. I am 100% against Marijuana Culture. and I would like someone to address each of these topics for what they, individually, and maintain their position of Pro with sustenance. If you fail to perceive any of these arguments, we have a 'comment' section to address your lapse in understanding [ As it is impossible to respond to a clause, if you do not know what clause you are responding to. ]. thank you, for taking on this debate challenge. Accepting before reading will undoubtedly be an automatic fail.

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

Just today I was watching a guy fu*k a 2 year-old girl in the a*s. She cried, But he just kept pounding. So I thought to myself how is this different from school? Some children cry and don't want to go to school. But we send them anyway. What about ear piercings, Or circumcision? There are videos of circumcision on youtube. You can see baby's penis getting cut while the boy is screaming in pain. That's legal. Videos of murder, Torture and decapitation are all legal. You can find them on websites like liveleak. Child porn should be legal too. If I want to see a 4 year-old girl being fu*ked like the little slut she is, I should be able to see it just like any regular guy can see porn when he wants. It would give me pleasure, The overall happiness would increase, And to be honest, I would have more interesting things to do in my life, Like sharing child porn. I would be too busy with that to actually rape children. So if you want to help children, You should make child porn legal. Now, I understand that if you don't want to help children, Or want to see them suffer, You would be against child porn. But even if you hate children, You could legally watch their suffering on child porn, If it was legal. So even if you hate children, Or love children, You should be in favor of child porn. If you accept this debate, State your reason why you think child porn shouldn't be legal.

Thank you for your response. In pro's argument she says: "Plus, it would be unrealistic and unproductive to criminalize anything that could be potentially harmful." It can be harmful in more ways than you think. We now have aproblem with drinking and driving. Can you imagine adding driving high and drunk to the list of problems. According to the National Institute of Drug Abuse: "According to the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 10 million people aged 12 or older reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed.4 NSDUH findings also show that men are more likely than women to drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And a higher percentage of young adults aged 18 to 25 drive after taking drugs or drinking than do adults 26 or older.4" The institute also says: After alcohol, marijuana is the drug most often found in the blood of drivers involved in crashes. Tests for detecting marijuana in drivers measure the level of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana"s mind-altering ingredient, in the blood. But the role that marijuana plays in crashes is often unclear. THC can be detected in body fluids for days or even weeks after use, and it is often combined with alcohol. The risk associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol, cocaine, or benzodiazepines appears to be greater than that for either drug by itself.3," The National Institute of Drug abuse is obviosly a credible source. Another problem is second hand smoke. Second hand smoke from cigarettes is bad but second hand smoke from marijuana can be equally or more damaging to others. The Canadian Cancer society says: "People who smoke marijuana tend to inhale more smoke per puff and hold it in their lungs for as much as 4 times longer than people who smoke tobacco cigarettes. This means that smoking 2"3 marijuana cigarettes can expose you to roughly the same amount of smoke as 20 tobacco cigarettes." This is also a very credible source. People have a right to do what they want but when it harms them and others it can not and should not be easily accessible. Pro argues that the country can profit off people harming there bodies. Cigarettes, alchol abuse, sugar, chemicals etc are already a problem. I don't think adding marijuana is a very smart desicion.

Doing in sorts is rampant now a days, now is the time when we should give up and just make doing legal I am pro making doing legal, con is against making doing legal, but cons arguments indicates he agrees with me that doing should be legal, so thank you for your forfeit con.

The legalization of prostitution mirrors the legalization of many other things in America that would otherwise still be done regardless of its legality. During the era of prohibition, bootleggers still sold alcohol and gang related crime became more and more prominent. With prostitution people still sell themselves but in many cases it is in an unsafe and unregistered way.


Question: Should the Sex Trade be Decriminalized?

Resolved: Prostitution should be made legal and regulated.

Apologies for any delay - I've been preoccupied with other matters. Thank you for an engaging debate thus far. A brief note on the resolution: My opponent seems to assume that since I'm advocating for the legalization of prostitution, I cannot also support its regulation. This is a logical fallacy. In reality, I'm arguing for legalization precisely so that it can be regulated. If my opponent agrees that a regulated industry is preferable to an unregulated one, they must also acknowledge that this industry should be legal. Regulation is a positive outcome of my model, which entails both legalization and regulation, even though I only need to defend one of these aspects in this debate.

You need to legalize prostitution in order to regulate it, and every country in the world with legal prostitution also has regulations for it, as well as more general labor protections extended to sex workers.

Prostitution will continue regardless of legality.

For the first time in this debate, my opponent argues that legalizing prostitution does not necessarily increase its prevalence. Their argument is essentially that we can't all be as successful as New Zealand. While I acknowledge New Zealand's awesomeness, it's due to factors other than prostitution. Our experiences with prostitution can therefore be considered quite representative. To prove this point, my opponent needed to identify how we are (or were) different with respect to prostitution compared to other countries around the world.

Safety

If never being entirely safe due to the nature of work was a justifiable reason for banning anything, we should ban everything. Every profession carries some degree of risk. Governments have an obligation to help people minimize these risks where possible, and they do so in every legal industry.

My opponent argues that prostitution cannot be distinguished from crime because one party may be dissatisfied. This is true but not inherent to prostitution. The difference is that with prostitution, as with any willing transaction, you can generally assume both parties were happy, while with crime, you can generally assume the opposite.

My opponent claims that nobody is safe, but prostitutes are particularly vulnerable because, unlike others, they can't go to the police if something bad happens to them. The law is there to protect everyone, except, apparently, prostitutes. There are several reasons why prostitutes are particularly vulnerable, which I have already detailed.

Finally, my opponent says there is no evidence that legalizing "soft crimes" can prevent harder crimes. First, to make this point, you need to engage with my evidence from round two, which included a

0. Overview- a. I want to remind all readers that my advocacy stems from a standard of negative rights. I do not claim negative impacts will not arise as a result of voting pro, I argue that protecting negative rights is more important. b. I don't care how my opponent advocates the con, however I do urge that they advocate the con within the scope of the United States. They have not made the link between India Korea and the US, and if a link is made in their next speech it isn't viable. 1. Sources- a. Drop, flow this argument Pro. 2. Cross-application- a. This is a Slippery-Slope fallacy, an appeal to fear based on potential consequences. b. Even if it wasn't a fallacy the argument begs itself; both exist in the Status Quo, and this argument requires the existence of one to fuel the other. 3. Gender inequality 1- a. The Canada precedence proves my point here. b. Slippery slope. 4. Gender inequality 2- a. Appeal to popular belief; just because it's illegal now doesn't make it ipso facto wrong any more than slavery was right when it was legal. b. Even if it is wrong, that isn't grounds to make it illegal; it violates personal autonomy by imposing moral law. 5. Caste System- a. All these negative impacts stem from the caste system, not from a combination of that and prostitution. b. Men are forced into similar situations because of the caste system. This is another appeal to fear stem from a neotenous desire to protect young girls; the fact is voting con won't help them whatsoever. 6. Canada 1- a. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy; Canada is right next to us, we share a very similar culture and saying women don't engage in prostitution in the U. S. is nothing more than a cheap way to reject the pro. b. My opponent ignores the fact that Canada's precedence has worked. Prostitutes not have the means to protect themselves c. Finally, realize that all negative impacts my opponent suggests would come with affirmation still exist when voting con. Prostitution won't just disappear, but voting neg will help protect them. 7. Canada 2- a. Brothels are legal in Canada[3]. b. The price can be negotiated so long as the negotiation takes place in a brothel[3]. The public communication law is to keep prostitutes from standing on a street corner hollering out to every person they see drive by. c. This is an appeal to popular belief, just because prostitution is commonly seen as being immoral doesn't mean that making laws against it is valid. d. Any income inequality argument must be ignored. All major studies conducted on the matter recognize that the income gap is a result of personal choice; men naturally tend to gravitate towards higher paying jobs (construction, business, technology) while women tend to gravitate towards lower paying jobs (childcare, food industry, design/art)[8][9][10]. e. This argument is ultimately an appeal to fear which ignores the pro's premise of protecting negative rights. Con concludes by claiming that this is a risk we cannot take; there is not argument against prostitution except "something bad may happen. " [8] goo. gl/ciWLk [9] goo. gl/DM6Hz [10] goo. gl/NIeT2 8. Conclusion- a. I want to preface this conclusion by urging you all not to listen to new arguments in the next round since I am unable to respond to them. If anything Con writes hasn't been stated in a prior round ignore it. b. The issue of negative rights still stands. regardless of what may happen, we cannot stand to allow laws which stem from individual moral belief. c. The Con has failed to bring adequate refutations; at the point we realize this is true, there can no other vote than or the Pro. Also, I realize my opponent has made several attacks on my character during this debate. Whether these stem from frustration or legitimate concern, I must urge you all to use your own objective sense. This isn't a sweet tea social, it's a debate. Certain claims will step on toes, but those claims are not malicious in nature.

The issue of dehumanizing women or making them out to be an item does not lie in the idea of prostitution. The most devaluing aspect of prostitution is the fact that it is not legal. This restricts a woman's ability to choose her own career path. The idea of sexualizing woman has already taken place with exotic dancing and pornography and therefore should not be seen as the driving force for anti prostitution movements. As for rape, sexual assault is even more of a reason for prostitution to be legalized. If a prostitute is raped now, the lines are more blurred and the woman is likely to be prosecuted equally or instead of the man who did the sexual assault in the first place. If prostitution was legal, the only one to be at fault would be the rapist, not the prostitute.

Rape is forced sex (as defined by my opponent) but what I am about to reason to most humans will seem disgusting, abhorrent and immoral in every sense of the word. The issue is that if i were to walk down the street, see a rape happening, especially a gang rape with a ton of buff bodybuilders, I wouldn't think twice about walking by pretending to notice nothing, no in fact I would mos tlikely walk the other side of road and run. There are two reasons I would not bother to call the police and one reason why I wouldn't try to sotp the rape itself. As for the police, the moment the rapists heard sirens they'd just grab the girl and run (most likely a strong man could carry an already bruised and weakened woman away in time). Thus, my call would be deemed a hoax and me a crminal for wasting police time. The second reason not to call the police is that I would have to give sworn testimony in court and if someone is doing a crime as violent as rape, what kind of contacts do you think they'd have outside prison to come and kill me, or maybe my spous and/or family? Why I wouldn't try to stop it is simply because I'd probably be raped too, I consider myself a bit of a nerd, meaning o study more than I work out, this guy raping her probably works on his body a huge amount of the time to make sure he can fulfil his rape fantasies (I say his and not her because over 92% of rapes are done by males, the rest are almost all female pedophiles) if my opponent wishes to counter this then he must supply data and source it) so to avoid getting beaten up and perhaps raped myself I would stay back.So why is it okay to me (or anyone) in the scenario (NOT OUTSIDE OF THE SCENARIO) that there is a rape occuring, having occured, or about to occur. If you were to ask the parents of the girl, it would seem not okay at all, the posisble spouse and/or friends would say the same. HOWEVER There is nothing to suggest that the rape was not okay, only the fact that the person they know HAD A TERRIBLE THING HAPPEN TO THEM! Essentially, the rape is okay, in fact the entire process of the rape which occured, the forced sex, the damaging of the body and the memories it left behind are all only harmful and terrible and wrong to the victim of the rape. To others the rape is barely an issue, when the girl would describe it to them they wouldn't be horrified or angry at the rape but only at the RAPISTS! So essentially, being a rapist and harming a person is not okay, but rape itself it okay unless it's being done, having been done, or about to be done to you.

I also want to note that my opponent hasn't said anything to contend with the definitions and rule of this debate, so it must be taken for granted that my opponent has accepted these terms - whether known on his behalf or not. Seeing as how my opponent has completely ignored my argument relating to the morality of prostitution, it must again be assumed that he concedes this aspect of the issue, and instead intends to focus on the pragmatic effects prostitution will have economically. Since these are his only arguments, I will go on and refute them in the same breath. ==================== CON Claims: Legalizing prostitution will cause economic harm ==================== {quote}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? {endquote} ----> Simple, the organized prostitution rings (OPR) can be taxed. So when a customer comes to buy sex, he will obviously pay up and it will subsequently get taxed - just like any other store. Imagine a grocery store. And instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts. How will the tourist revenue do anything but soar? {quote}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. {endquote} ----> Ah, so I see where my opponent's argument is going to - clever. This argument obviously ties in with the previous quote, so you can treat this rebuttal as a big summary. Simply put, while Nevada is known for it's prostitution and gambling "treats", it won't crash simply because prostitution will be legalized everywhere as well. I will list several reasons why: 1. Legalizing something and making it industry does NOT necessarily mean Vegas will suddenly lose their prostitution industry. In fact, I suspect it will do the opposite and RISE. Why you ask? It's simple, the concept of competition. Now that prostitution is a legal business, there will be, no doubt, competing places or even businesses to go to. To have an edge, different businesses will have different ways of appealing to their customers such as glamorous interior scenery, good prices, and/or temporary places to stay for the night. Another key aspect in this profession would be getting good girls, and the places with the best names will attract the best girls. Does the word Vegas not do anything but strike images of glamor in ones thoughts? In fact, Vegas' economy will BOOM with the legalization of prostitution since they will undoubtedly have a very good start in such a new industry if it were to be legalized. 2. However, let's even ASSUME that legalizing prostitution will be an economic kick-in-the-balls for Vegas. Gambling is the foremost reason for why people go to Vegas - just look at the Las Vegas Strip[1][2]. That, along with conventions such as the for gamers, brings in the majority of Las Vegas tourists. So even if we were to assume that legalizing prostitution would cause a dramatic blow to that part of Vegas' economy - it wouldn't matter that much. 3. However, coinciding in with the previous point is the question why it should even matter if Vegas were to be hit economically. Should an entire industry, and an entire potential for jobs, be discarded simply because Vegas won't be the king of prostitution rings in America? Rubbish! Unless argued otherwise, prostitution will bring in a plethora of jobs and money, something that would be GLADLY accepted in an economic situation such as this. ==================== Something to do with Nevada and Rhode Island ==================== I'm pretty sure that this snippet of my opponent's round in no way relates to my argument. Whatever the intentions of the original founders of Nevada were in legalizing prostitution are of no importance in this debate - it's just these arguments found right here. Secondly, it doesn't matter if the people of Nevada/Rhode Island are pushing for legalization against prostitution. To say otherwise would be the textbook definition of ad populum[3]. ==================== Prostitution is not a legitimate business in the U. S. ==================== So what? Whether or not something is legalized does not matter when concerning whether it should be. Hell, just look at this debate. On a large scale, prostitution isn't legalized but I'm still arguing against it. Gay marriage isn't legalized, but there's legitimate arguments for legalizing it. The legality of something has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified. ==================== Conclusion ==================== My opponent's main economic argument has been refuted, and I await his response. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.visitlasvegas.com... 3. . http://www.nizkor.org...

"I'm going to say this and hopefully, I will only have to say this once." hehe, I hope you only say it once too; I despise debaters who feel the need to periodically restate their conclusions emphatically especially if they didn't support them in the interim. “AN ANIMAL CANNOT GIVE CONSENT TOO SEX!” YES HE/SHE CAN, and I can promise you that is the last time you’ll get that from me; I will not participate in an infantile yes no contest. My round one argument is my support for this statement, read section E again and explain to me what you think it means. “An animal cannot speak in human words. It cannot tell you stop. Therefore, it's wrong for someone to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself.” You’re missing an awful lot of premises for that to be an argument. Why does an animal’s inability to speak or tell you to stop mean it’s wrong to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself? Have you considered that speaking is not the only way to communicate that you would like another creature to stop what it’s doing? Have you thought about what it means to say “can’t defend itself”? Do you know that humans can have sex with animals that weigh 2,200 lb without use of ropes, whips, or even treats? An animal like that could crush a human to mush if they wanted to and all you would hear about is the naked corpse of a zoophile being found later. Better update it, not “can’t defend themselves” but “don’t seem to think they need defending.”

The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table: [Word - Prostitution] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money [Word - Should] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [Word - Legalized] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to ==================== Prostitution is not "wrong" or "immoral" ==================== I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time. Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us!

I will be defending the fact that pornography shouldn't be legal do to some fundamental facts. I will use logic and studies to prove my case.Pornography- is the depiction of sexual behavior that is intended to arouse sexual excitement in its audience. prostitute- a person who receives payment for sexual intercourse or other sexual acts, generally as a regular occupation.porn industry-consists of businesses which either directly or indirectly provide sex-related products and services or adult entertainment. The porn industry includes adult sex-related products and services such as prostitution in all its forms.pornographic actors/porn star- Most notably these performers are not paid directly by their sexual partners for the sex, but both are paid through a studio or Talent Management Agency.I will explain that pornography is detrimental,allows children to illegally view pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system. Pornographic actors is the same as prostitution,Also pornography includes all of its branches. Witch means my opponent will need to defend child porn,animal porn etc.....1.Pornography is detrimental to societyDaily "child pornography" requests---- 116,000Websites offering illegal child pornography----- 100,000Adults admitting to Internet sexual addiction----10%http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com...KEY FINDINGS ON THE EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHYTHE FAMILY AND PORNOGRAPHY• Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Wives notice and are upset by the difference.• Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce, and is frequently a major factor in these family disasters.• Among couples affected by one spouse’s addiction, two-thirds experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse.• Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity.http://downloads.frc.org...THE INDIVIDUAL AND PORNOGRAPHY• Pornography is addictive, • Users tend to become desensitized to the type of pornography they use, become bored with it, and then seek more perverse forms of pornography.• Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity. Child-sex offenders are more likely to view pornography regularly or to be involved in its distribution.OTHER EFFECTS http://downloads.frc.org...Pornography, distorts an individual’s concept of sexual relations by objectifying them, which, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior. It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children, and to individual happiness.Social scientists, clinical psychologists, and biologists concur.http://www.heritage.org...Effect on the mind: Pornography is very addictive. Some effects of porn addiction are: Escalation/Desensitization: Addicts experience an ever-increasing lust and a craving for more intense porn. Eventually "soft-core" porn is not stimulating enough, which pushes them into "hard-core." It is a downward spiral. Dissatisfaction with your sex life: Spouses of addicts are affected as sex does not satisfy the addict as it once did. Men who look at porn are dissatisfied by their wife's appearance and this often leads to dysfunctional relationships. Addiction to masturbation: Those addicted to porn are almost always addicted to masturbation. The sexual urges become so strong that masturbation becomes the easiest way of release. Shame and guilt: Emotional pain is perhaps the most common effect of porn addiction. A deep sense of failure and shame is often experienced. "Lonerism" and Secrecy: Porn addicts generally keep to themselves and keep their addiction secret. This often results in dysfunctional relationships. http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org... Pornography affects people’s emotional lives. Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their marital sexual relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Women married to men with a pornography addiction report feelings of betrayal, mistrust, and anger. Pornographic use may lead to infidelity and even divorce. Adolescents who view pornography feel shame, diminished self-confidence, and sexual uncertainty. http://downloads.frc.org... Pornography hurts adults, children, couples, families, and society. Either by promoting overly aggressive,child pornography,Pornography has significant effects during all stages of family life. For a child exposed to pornography within a family setting, pornography causes stress and increases the risk for developing negative attitudes about the nature and purpose of human sexuality. For adolescents who view pornography, their attitudes toward their own and others’ sexuality change, and their sexual expectations and behavior are shaped accordingly. For adults, pornography has harmful and even destructive effects on marriage. Pornography is more detrimental then beneficial thus should not be practiced. 2.allows children to illegally veiw pornography due to an inadequate age confirmation system. Porn sites don't do much to prevent children from viewing. There required by law to ask if your 18 or 21 in some states. On most if not all porn sites you just have to press a button. Yes or no. There's no birthday check or anything like that witch could single children out to disallow access. Porn is very much available to children. Access to pornography is available from early on. The average age of a child’s first exposure to pornography is 11. A total of 90 percent of children ages 8-16 have viewed pornography online. Pornographers use many character names that appeal to children such as “Pokémon.”.........http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com... According to The Kaiser Family Foundation report (found at www.kff.org), 70% of teenagers (ages 15-17 "have accidentally come across pornography on the Web."....... According to one study, early exposure (under fourteen years of age) to pornography is related to greater involvement in deviant sexual practice, particularly rape. Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend...........http://www.protectkids.com... W. L. Marshall, "The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, ," The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 1988): 267-88. 3.porn actors same as prostitutes. If you look at the definitions there very similar. If you think about it morally they provide the same services for a fee. Since the porn industry advertises these porn stars,(just as pimps advertise prostitutes)and since the workers are offering sex for money,( just like prostitutes). it ought to be illegal as well. Morally atleast. Also this could be under obscenity witch is not protected in anyway morally. the only difference with porn stars is that there under the camera, have a director,its legal,they sign a contract. This is just legal prostitution. Another point I want to make is that pornography includes all branches of pornography. That means child porn, animal porn, etc.......my opponent needs to defend it. So in my case I have effectively proven,That pornography is more detrimental than good, Allows children to illegally veiw porn due to inadequate age confirmation systems, and lastly that porn actors are the same as prostitutes thus should be treated the same as prostitutes and thus pornography should be illegal.

My opponent has made various strawman arguments. I ask that conduct be deducted in his case.My first source is the same as his first source, and I use it in an economic context, not an explicitly moral context, as my opponent falsely charges (strawman argument).The second link works (another strawman) - I will quote the relevant passage on the last page of the PDF file: "there are 3 million commercial sex workers in India, of which an estimated 40% are children." [1]Indeed I don't know why the third link broke. My apologies for that one: http://www2.macleans.ca...I was unaware that wordpress was not considered "sound" material. Regardless, it is easy to cite the simple details that those links depicted in graphic detail:1) Devadasis are originally sold into child slavery at an extremely young age:""Many of these women were tiny girls when they became devadasis, "dedicated" to the sect by poverty-stricken parents unable to pay their future dowries and hopeful that a pleased goddess would make the next pregnancy a boy." [2]"Girls from poor families of the "untouchable", or lower, caste are "married" to Yellamma [the Hindu goddess of fertility] as young as four. " [3]2) There is massive gender inequality in South Korea that forces a large number of desperate women into prostitution"Out of 135 countries covered in the World Economic Forum’s 2011 Global Gender Gap Report, Korea ranks an abysmal 117 in Economic Participation and Opportunity," much lower "than those in China and Japan (ranking 50 and 100)." [5]3) Prostitution plays an integral part of business negotiations in a male-dominated Korean society, thus overtly discriminating against women in similar forms of employment as their male counterparts:" Elected officials and private business people discuss and negotiate deals not only in boardrooms, but also in "business clubs" where whiskey and elaborate plates of overpriced fruit accompany a bevy of attractive young women, or girls - there to peel the grapes, pour the shots and perform sexual services for money. " [4]The conclusions are almost exactly the same from both the empirical sources and the wordpress articles, thus I see no reason to rescind any of the wordpress material.My argument is clear. Gender inequality directly contributes to Economic inequality, thus reinforcing the moral travesty that forces women into prostitution as their only viable economic activity in countries that practice it. I do not ignore the moral element as my opponent falsely claims (another strawman) - instead I place the moral element within the greater context of economic inequality. My opponent seeks to preclude my usage of moral arguments for some unknown reason (another strawman). I am of course able to utilize moral arguments effectively.My opponent makes the false accusation that I "do not conform to the scope of this debate in terms of the U.S., Negative rights or the Economy." This is another strawman, PRO is fabricating inane rules and regulations that seek to restrict arguments that he cannot counter.My purpose in illustrating the effects of prostitution in India and South Korea is to demonstrate how prostitution works in countries that practice it, how if the US were to do so, it would likely face similar consequences in due time. My opponent states that "neither men nor women are 'forced' into prostitution in the U.S." THIS IS BECAUSE PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL IN THE US AND IS HEAVILY ENFORCED, AS IT SHOULD BE.PRO is no longer arguing in good faith. I move to end this debate immediately with PRO's forfeiture. [1] http://www.unodc.org...[2] http://iml.jou.ufl.edu...[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[4] http://www.atimes.com...[5] http://www.forbes.com...

Point 1: I think my opponent just agreed with me in the point that we're looking at the scope of the entire world. This is why evidence from Iran and Iraq are totally fine in the scope of this debate and why punishments that could result from premarital sex could include capital punishment. This is not the point however. The point is that I have proven to the judges that these laws that try to stop premarital sex don't really do anything in order to deter premarital sex, even with something as severe are capital punishment. Point 2: Let us remember that this is coming from the very same person who just said that we shouldn't have human rights. Now, he's trying to protect the human rights of the child that MAY result from premarital sex when he just said that hurting human rights wouldn't be too bad because people already abuse them way too much. He's clearly contradicting himself in his reasoning. I contend that my opponent's scenario is all under the assumption that a child will result inevitably from premarital sex, and at the point where we're analyzing a scenario where two people are about to have sex out of wedlock, the human rights that are important are the ones of the humans that currently exist, i.e, the two about to have sex. I have already said adoption, abortion, and contraceptives can solve for these problems anyway if a child does result from the premarital sex. Point 3: This really doesn't make sense. The main point of my opponent's law is to protect children, but sex between gays and lesbians doesn't procure children, so the law doesn't even apply to their sex. Furthermore, if the requirement to have sex is to be married first when gay marriage is currently not legal everywhere in the United States, it means that gay people are prohibited from having sex at all. This creates an inherently discriminatory scenario because in my opponent's world, only heterosexual people will be eligible to have sex. This is not equality in any way, shape, or form. Questions about the feasibility of this law: With the morality aspects covered in the debate, we can move on toward the practicality portion. My opponent has procured no evidence whatsoever to prove that his law would be functional. My opponent has procured no reasoning or ideas about how this law would even be implemented, or how police officers or other authorities would be able to catch people having or about to have premarital sex. My opponent has procured no information about how this law will be funded--unless you count increasing taxes and placing more burden on taxpayers as a way to procure funding for this plight. My opponent has procured no evidence that this law would actually deter people from having premarital sex, in contrast to what I have shown you. Basically, the entirety of my opponent's entire case is unfounded by anything except logical fallacies and assumptions, showing to you, the judges, that my evidence and case is much stronger than my opponent's.

Women who are prostitutes are not the driving force for the idea of women being an item. I know that, but it has and will not help the existing problem. Also the idea of prostitution is just immoral and should not be done. Especially on a regular basis, which is happening all the time and should not be allowed or considered socially acceptable. Also, if having sex becomes a normal thing for a person, it is more likely that a man or woman, will rape someone for the want to satisfy themselves.


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution should be decriminalized.
Indeed, I apologize for the delay! Your arguments are compelling. "My counterargument is that even if prostitution remains illegal, underage prostitution will still occur." -That is correct, but when something is legalized, people tend to exploit the opportunities that arise. The fact that something is illegal and can be punished serves as a deterrent. It may not prevent all crime, but it does deter some. I will briefly explain why punishments are implemented. The prison system serves as a deterrent to criminal activity and also protects society by incarcerating those who may cause further harm to others. As I mentioned, the criminality of something will not deter all crime, but it does deter some. True, but I believe the number is low enough to be insignificant, but I understand your point. I concede that argument; it is valid. However, underage prostitutes should not affect everyone else who is of legal age and can make their own choices. You can have sex for every other reason except for money. The crime is determined by motivation! It's essentially convicting someone and imprisoning them for having the wrong motivation to have sex. Let me replace "having sex" in this situation with, say, eating a burrito. If I eat a burrito because I like it, it's fine, but if I do it because I want money, it suddenly becomes illegal? What? You should not send someone to jail just because they engaged in the harmless act of paying someone for sex. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Those who oppose the legalization of prostitution need to understand that paying for sex, when boiled down to the basics, is not inherently wrong. It's paying someone to perform an act that does not harm anyone else. The problem is not the act itself, but the industry surrounding it. Wouldn't it be better to legalize it so we could take steps to eliminate this abusive industry and protect the prostitutes? "I would like you to define what safe is." Perhaps I used the wrong word, but my point remains valid. Take this statistic, for example: In 1991, 85% of prostitutes and clients reported a history of sexual abuse in childhood, and 70% reported incest! Would you consider that a tragedy? If over 75% of prostitutes were sexually abused as children, is it fair to conclude that many, if not most, prostitutes were sexually abused as children? Given this, do you believe that prostitution is justified, knowing that the majority of them were abused

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.

HUMAN TRAFFICKING ARE REAL ISSUES Prostitution as work doesn"t dignify women or human , its not a professionalism or dignify work. Legalized prostitution encouraging the society to create a legitimate sex entrepreneurs or third party businessmen in sex industry. its trading human for profit, No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. Prostitution industries are one of the root causes of human trafficking > http://en.wikipedia.org... the International Organization of Migration (IOM) has estimated that 500,000 women and children are trafficked in Europe annually . In contrast, it has been estimated that 45,000-50,000 women and children are trafficked annually into the United States One goals of legalized prostitution was to move prostituted women indoors into brothels and clubs where they would be allegedly less vulnerable than in street prostitution. However, many women are in street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by pimps (transformed in legalized systems into sex businessmen). Other women do not want to register or submit to health checks, as required by law in some countries where prostitution is legalized. legalized will create a society view of prostitution is acceptable, it also encourages men to buy women for sex . men who would not formerly consider buying a woman in prostitution think, "Well, if it"s legal, if it"s decriminalized, now it must be O.K." Most women in prostitution did not make a rational choice to enter prostitution from among a range of other options. They did not sit down one day and decide that they wanted to be prostitutes. They did not have other real options such as medicine, law, nursing or politics. Instead, their "options" were more in the realm of how to feed themselves and their children. Such choices are better termed survival strategies. agree with me not to Legalizing Prostitution , when its legalized it will encourage and support unfaithful man , it will teach our future generation the wrong value in life. it will encourage businessmen in sex industry, human trafficking. criminal group will start to operate in city . will any decent businessman run a sex industry? most women in prostitution because of survival strategies.

Some people hire prostitutes because they are dissatisfied with their partner so dissatisfaction comes before hire of prostitutes. Not sure if I understand your point here. The dangers of prostitution cannot be compared to those named by you. They take heavy precautions to minimise potential dangers. "About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape."[1] This is not comparable to the intuitively low probability of a police getting shot, a scientist causing a dangerous chemical reaction. So unlikely because they these guys are trained, your point is valid if and only if they are untrained, then the risk of getting shot and causing a dangerous chemical reaction will skyrocket. As for your STD point, I think you argued for Con. [1] http://www.rapeis.org...

Ok. I accept this challenge and debate over legalization of sex-work. Pro, in the beginning of your argument, you said the definition of "sex-work". The way you defined this word is correct, but it is not complete. Let me tell you what sex-work really means: - Sex-work is looking at women as a sex object or a sexual instrument. It means wanting/loving a girl only for her body. Today in some societies, particularly in the West a woman can walk semi-naked in public, swim topless, patronize bars and clubs, smoke, drink, dance in discos and have sex with anybody she feels like. She can even serve her boyfriend, like an unpaid prostitute, and be free to murder her unborn baby if she falls pregnant. She can also compete in the business world by using her body to promote commercial commodities. At the end of the day she will be regarded as a truly "liberated" woman! This proves that the Western society considers woman only as a sex symbol. Now tell me, what will hapoen if sex-work becomes legalized? 1. If sex-work was legalized, no one would get married The main reason that men get married is their sexual desires. They need women to satisfy their desires, so it makes them to get married. But nowadays, most couples are getting divorced. Do you know why? Because the wife/hausband cheats on her/his spouse. They sleep and have sex with others. That's because fornication is legal in the West. Some couples will never get married because they already have sex with each other. Why should a man get married while his girl friend sleeps with him? If you look around yourself, you can find some un-married couples who live together. Or some couples get married after having a baby (of course if the girl doesn't abort it). And there are many guys who never think about dating a girl, because they are gay. This is the statue of marriage in Western societies. Now imagine what will happen after legalization of sex-work. Do you think men will still get married? No, because men can have sex whenever they want, with whomever they desire and there would be no blame upon them. 2. Legalization of sex-work instigates young people to deviate towards the path of lust and immorality. It gives rise to cases of divorce, adultery and illegitimate children. And as a result, legalization of sex-work corrupts the people and the society. 3. What is the difference between an animal and prostitute? An animal eats food, so do the humen. An animal drinks water, so do the human. The human do whatever an animal does. The only difference between human and animal is that human can think and decide what to do. But the animal always follows his lust and desire. So if a person (i.e. prostitute) follows her lust, he has no difference with animals. Actually, she is lower than animals. Because as I said, animals cannot think and just follow their nature. But prostitute can, and follows her lust and desire willingly. Can you call the prostitute "a woman" or "a human? No. A true woman will never degrade her body and sell her dignity to the highest bidder. No woman is truly liberated if she is still the slave of her wayward conscience, bodily lust or infidelity. I don't want to insult prostitutes, but it is the truth. 4. Legalization of sex-work ruins the foundation of the family Suppose a woman who has sex with other men for money gets pregnant. If she aborts his baby, she will be a criminal. Because she will kill an innocent person who cannot defent itself. But suppose, she doesn't take an abortion and gives birth to her baby. Do you think her sexual partner (the father of that baby) will help and support her to raise their baby? No, not in the least. The woman doesn't know who has impregnanted her and the man doesn't know if the woman is pregnant. They may never see each other again. Even these years some guys leave their girl friends alone when they get pregnant. So the prostitute has to raise her baby by her own. After a while, the illegitimate child grows up. She/he needs father, but does she/he have a father? No, they don't even know who is their real father. Because their mother has slept with so many men. For legalization of sex-work, you talked about high payment. But you must know that it's not just about money.

I will go Neg ---|>Aff 1.Exacerbation of the Problem My opponent and I agree on one thing, the obvious problems of prostitution. Prostitutes since the commencement of the profession have consistantly suffered from the effects of horrible psychological detriment; not to mention the emotional and physical abuse that usually come with the package. However, what my opponent fails to realize, is that these problems for the most part are not coming from pimps or lack of regulation; they come from the act itself. According to Ruth in 94, "The emotional health consequences of prostitution include severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self-medication through alcohol and drug abuse; and eating disorders…Ultimately, women in prostitution are also at special risk for self-mutilation, suicide and homicide. 46% of the women in a study had attempted suicide, and 19% had tried to harm themselves physically in other ways." http://www.uri.edu... additionally, "When women quit prostitution, they ... suffer from a broad range of physical and emotional disorders," she said. "Women in prostitution suffer from the same combat stress that Vietnam and combat vets do, http://www.lvrj.com... These prostitutes in legal brothels are having sex around 30 sometimes even 40 times a day, http://www.lvrj.com... the psychological and emotional detriment are simply unavoidable, and as described in a Las Vegas Travel Log, these prostitutes aren't exactly going to a room for a hug and a handshake. "[At legal brothels]guests enter into a bar or lounge area and generally all the girls working at the moment are asked to line up and introduce themselves. The guest can choose immediately or he can order a drink from the bar and take his time choosing as some of the girls might do more to convince him of their charms. After the guest and the girl pair up they'll go back to her room and negotiate a price in private for the services requested." http://www.lasvegaslogue.com... A legalization of prostitution would increase the accessibility of prostitution, thus astronomically increasing the service and use as a whole. This assertion stands true because people in most states, with the exception of those living Las Vegas, do not know where to find a prostitute. Legalization would narrow down legitimate locations where people can easily access prostitution. Additionally, the laws of punishment for illicit sexual activities are an incentive for those who fear the punishment to not have sex with a prostitute. Legalization would rid of this incentive, thus increasing the overall use of prostitution. Not only would the legalization of prostutition be completely unethical, All of the negative impacts that my opponent and I speak of concerning prostitution are magnified by the preceding facts conveyed within my case, thus the United States should not legalize prostitution. To the affirmative "*1: Prostitution is not uncommon even though it is currently illegal in most of the United States." A: this point holds no legitimate logical ground. This argument lies upon the notion that because something is popular, we neglect the logical, moral, and reasonable argumentation contending it. This point fails. "STD spread - can be mitigated or even eliminated by lifting anti-prostitution laws from the law books." A: first off my opponent gives no statistical basis, or evidence to back up his analytics. So right off the bat he does not meet the burden of proving this argument because we have no barometer of the actual severity of Prostitutes spreading aids. However, I do not contend the fact that there are prostitutes increasing the legitimacy of the aids virus in the U.S., but a legalization of prostitution would not solve or even mitigate the aids virus. In actuality, it will make it a lot worse. Remember those statistics that I provided in my first contention, that some of these prostitutes are having sex with 30-40 strangers a day? Do you think that the government will seriously check and test these girls after every day, week, or even month for STDS? Legalization fundamentally increases the risk of getting aids because more individuals visit these sites (explained in Contention 1), and the government cannot possibly monitor these sites every time they have sex, nor is it likely that they will every 500 times they have sex. Thus inherently increasing the chance of getting an STD from a male and passing it on to several others. "*3: Prostitutes tend to live in poor conditions (high class ones don't apply to this argument) and have miserable lives" A: Legalization of prostitution would not in any way improve life conditions for these women. Fundamentally, prostitution is in itself physically, psychologically, and emotionally harmful. Legalization would only increase the rates of prostitution, thus increasing the number of prostitutes, thus increasing all of the impacts exemplified throughout both of our cases. Whats more is according to Terri Miller, director of the Anti-Trafficking League Against Slavery, "Nevada is a ripe environment for human trafficking because it is the only state that has legalized prostitution…. A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner. These brothel owners are just as bad as the pimps. With legalization, the dehumanizing factors of women who are prostitutes would only increase with time. *4: Legalizing prostitution would decrease human trafficking. Farley in 08 It is not a victimless crime. Those who want to leave prostitution have a difficult time finding help, especially in Nevada, "Most women in prostitution want to escape it," she said. "In prostitution, the conditions that make choice possible are absent. If we really want to say it's a choice, women need a range of options." im out of characters, but attack pt 5 with last used evidence

Challenge accepted. I know that my side is difficult to prove because it is hard to justify rape and murder. However, I decided to accept the challenge for the sake of the debate. Firstly, I am aware that killing and/or raping someone is wrong. But this is not always the case as I will show later. Rebuttals against my opponent’s opening arguments: 1. It is my contention that prostitutes should not be raped and murdered because they are people too, and it is immoral to rape and kill people. -- This is a weak reasoning. Not because you are a human being, you can no longer get killed or raped. There are many instances in which a person is justified to kill a someone (prostitute) in self-defence. Likewise, rape can also be justified for example only you and a woman is left on earth, and you want to save the human race, so you must rape her. LOL. Just kidding! Seriously, rape on a prostitute is okay because anyway, she is used to it. She will be more happy if you rape her. :D 2. Also, it is ungrateful to kill prostitutes, because they're providing an incredible service to all the lonely, undesirable men of the world. ---That is true that they are providing service to lonely men. To add your statement, they are also providing sexual diseases and danger. Sometimes, they destroy a family when a married man engages to a prostitute. See? That is the world with prostitute- a world full of sexual diseases. 3. And finally, because it's better to kill politicians instead. ---No reason given. Well I think it is obvious. But please let us also kill prostitutes because politicians have a lot of prostitutes. They have infected the politicans as well and vice versa.

Doing in sorts is rampant now a days, now is the time when we should give up and just make doing legal I am pro making doing legal, con is against making doing legal, but cons arguments indicates he agrees with me that doing should be legal, so thank you for your forfeit con.

"In the year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, eight Dutch victim support organizations reported an increase in the number of victims of trafficking, and twelve victim support organization reported that the number of victims from other countries has not diminished (Bureau NRM, 2002, p. 75). Forty-three of the 348 municipalities (12%) in the Netherlands choose to follow a no-brothel policy, but the Minister of Justice has indicated that the complete banning of prostitution within any municipality could conflict with the federally guaranteed "right to free choice of work" (Bureau NRM, 2002, p.19). . .. Contrary to claims that legalization and decriminalization would control the expansion of the sex industry, prostitution now accounts for 5% of the Netherlands economy (Daley, 2001, p. 4). Over the last decade, as pimping was legalized, and brothels decriminalized in the year 2000, the sex industry increased by 25% in the Netherlands (Daley, 2001, p.4). At any hour of the day, women of all ages and races, dressed in hardly anything, are put on display in the notorious windows of Dutch brothels and sex clubs and offered for sale. Most of them are women from other countries who were probably trafficked into the Netherlands (Daley, 2001, p. 4). . .. Results of the Swedish legislation thus far have been promising. The prohibition against men buying prostituted women has received strong social support. Several polls, conducted in 2000 and 2001, show that approximately 80% of the Swedish population support the law. Of those who want to repeal the law, the majority are men, with only 7% of women in support of repeal (Jacobson, 2002, p.24). Most importantly, women who are attempting to leave prostitution support the law (Ekberg, 2001). Swedish NGOs that work with women in prostitution also support the law and maintain that since passage of the law, increased numbers of women contact them for assistance. The very existence of the law, and the fact that people know it will be enforced, they say, serve as an aid to young women who are vulnerable to pimps and procurers (Ekberg, 2001). " . http://www.honourconsulting.com... "Legal sex businesses provide locations where sexual harass- ment, sexual exploitation, and violence against women are perpe- trated with impunity. State-sponsored prostitution endangers all women and children in that acts of sexual predation are normal- ized"acts ranging from the seemingly banal (breast massage) to the lethal (snuff prostitution that includes filming of actual mur- ders of real women and children). A report on the sexual exploita- tion of children noted that the presence of a thriving adult sex industry in a community had the effect of increasing child prosti- tution in that same community (Estes & Weiner, 2001). Nevada, the one U. S. state where prostitution is legal in 13 counties, had significantly higher rates of sex crimes than the rest of the United States in the 1990s (Albert, 2001). " . http://www.prostitutionresearch.com...

I am so very happy to challenge that smexi Zealotical ;) "We don't legal penalties upon men and women who choose to do it for no reason. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse against the law?" The most obvious thinking to me for why men and woman are not penalized for having sex with another for no reason is because they are not purchasing the service. In whore houses (yes they exist), called "brothels" it is legal to purchase sexual services because they have a license to do such(I know like wtf lol..... license to be a whore lmfao!). So that is possibly why it is illegal to pay another for sex. The licensing is what is needed to be legalized, just like any other business. "They should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer instead of persist with futile and dangerous prohibition." Well I would agree on that part in itself because there are so many that can spread HIV and are out there selling their bodies while they know they have the virus. The acceptance of whore houses "Everywhere" still would not do much of a positive effect even though the woman are infection free. Since the services there are really expensive, trust me.... lol jk. The prostitutes are actually able to set their own prices which can be a way to make a client refuse to buy any absurdly priced services...... especially since they are fat and ugly as F%!# lol, which would make people seek out cheaper sexual services through illegal prostitution.

I will be arguing that prostitution, or the act of providing sexual intercourse or other related activities should not be legal in the United States. I believe that the resolution is relatively self evident, however if there are any questions in regards to clarifying the resolution please ask before accepting as I wish to avoid any arguments contingent on semantics. The negating party has the option of presenting their arguments in the first round with the understanding that they will not post in their final round or simply accepting in the first round. In order to win the affirmative must demonstrate that the harms of legalization would outweigh the benefits provided and the negative is under a similar burden of proof.