Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

The advocacy for legalizing prostitution while criminalizing pornography is a perplexing stance. My opponent, you appear to be conflating drug trafficking with human trafficking. The latter is rightfully outlawed due to its heinous nature, and your support for legalizing prostitution, which can often be intertwined with human trafficking, is indeed ironic. Consider the plight of the victims who are often minors in need of education, being trafficked into the sex trade. Legalizing prostitution only exacerbates their suffering and jeopardizes the lives of countless innocent women and children. This is a deeply troubling proposition.

Moreover, there's a fundamental difference in the choice between pornography and prostitution. Porn actors willingly choose their profession, often finding it less demanding and safer than prostitution. In a controlled environment, both parties understand their roles. In contrast, prostitution subjects women to the whims of their clients, often in unsafe conditions. Would you really advocate for putting someone's life at risk for the sake of an argument? My stance is clear: prostitution should remain illegal. Its illegality is justified in many regions worldwide for good reason. Outlawing pornography, on the other hand, would likely provoke widespread public and industry backlash, disrupting the status quo unnecessarily. The current legal framework should be upheld.

Legalizing prostitution will increase the amount of sex slaves that are forced in the business because they know that they can get money LEGALLY by doing so.

I am assuming that my opponent believes that pedophila shouldn't be legal, so I am going to debate that it should be legal. deinition of pedophila (from urban dictionary)-When big buisnesses in the TV/Movies/Music industry try to get their cosumers aroused to increase sales by making sexy people seem sweet and tender and making them dress up and behave like schoolgirls/boys. Often times, instead of imitation, they'll use actual children. Point One- It is considered freedom of speech. Many court cases have made pornography considered freedom of speech. Pedophila could be another type of porn but pedophila is alot more safer. Anyways, companies have a right to post a sexy woman on a car and try to convince them to buy the car. Now I will refute my opponent's case. Pedophila is nasty: This is highly opinionated. Some people might enjoy Pedophila. Childrens' lives are ruined because of them: This statement needs to be backed up with proof. Point Two- It is the adult's right to submit their kid into that business. Most parents sign a form allowing their kids to paricipate in that event. If that is made illegal, that hinders their first ammendment right and the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

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

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?

Brilliant. Thank you, and I apologize for my tardiness.Nordic ApproachI am still slightly unclear on this proposal (I will allow my opponent to elaborate and make his case), but the basis of this law to me does not make a whole lot of sense. If two adults consent to a sexual activity, what difference does it make that a transaction of money has taken place? In essence, we would be allowing people to be whores and such all they want by offering and giving out their sexual services for free, but we would be denying them a source of income if that is what they choose to do as a living. I disagree. Why make it illegal to pay for something that is perfectly legal to give out for free?People should be legally able to do what they want with their own bodiesMy argument here is simple: I believe that the government should have no interference in the personal lives of a citizen. Such matters are, by definition, personal. If a person chooses to prostitute their body, the government has no right to get into that business. That person made a lifestyle choice and a career move, and they made that decision consciously and independently. To block this choice is nonsensical. Making prostitution illegal creates a dangerous black marketObviously, making prostitution illegal hasn't made prostitution go away. Even in places where prostitution is a crime punishable by death, it still exists. It will never stop existing. It's the same way with a lot of things that are illegal. The real effect that not legalizing prostitution has is that it hurts the prostitutes. These people are subject to abuse, rape, or even murder, all because they can't go to the police due to fear of arrest. Prostitutes are in danger, and legalizing and regulating their work would go a long way to protecting them. Prostitution is victimless and is therefore not a crimeThere are few valid reasons for why prostitution should be illegal beyond a basal religious worldview. Of course, religion shouldn't be taken into account because of the First Amendment to the constitution, which, for all intents and purposes, prohibits us from legislating based on religion. So, beyond that, who is being hurt by prostitution? If a person makes the private choice to pay for a sexual service, there is no harm being done and the government should get out of the way. As I've stated earlier, the only one who could potentially be harmed is the prostitute.Legalized prostitution will be safer and a more efficient private sectorFor all of the reasons I have mentioned above, it is my belief that a legal, regulated prostitution system would not only be safer, but it would also add another sector to our economy. Capitalists who oppose legalized prostitution (and other things for that matter) sounds like an oxymoron to me. Rejecting people from doing what they want without hurting anyone and making money off of it sounds like a capitalist nightmare to me.ConclusionTo sum it all up, the government can protect prostitutes, add a whole new sector to the economy, and stop taking liberty away by making prostitution illegal. Prostitutes and customers have the individual right to make personal and economic decisions of their own without interference from the government, and the only person prostitution could ever potentially harm is the prostitute herself, and that is only when it is illegal and unregulated as it is now in the US.Of course, I would like to allow Con to make his case for the Nordic approach and, if he feels it necessary, to form rebuttals on my arguments.

First I may have the burden of proof but my opponent still needs to prove his case and back it up, and show proof of his claims. opponents first refutation.The roots of my argument is not what he claims. The basis of my position is that pornographic actors are the same as prostitutes. Since prostitution is illegal, and since porn stars are just legal prostitutes. Then pornography(legal prostitution rings) should be illegal. Also Pornography includes child porn witch my opponent never even tackled. Also porn sites easily allow children to break the law and veiw porn. witch is illegal. lastly that pornography Is detrimental. In my case I am not saying that pornography is a direct cause of rape, But that pornography is a major contributing factor, influence,and promotes rape....etc.....he says showing kids watch this stuff is irrelevant......Not true children viewing pornography is illegal. Since were talking about legality this is obviously relevant. Also I don't need to show why pornography should be legal. Thats my opponents job. Also my opponent no where in this entire debate explained why pornography should be legal. He attempted to tackle my case but forgot to validate his own.Also if people in a marriage are curious about sex then get under the covers with your partner. Get in the boat and make some waves. Don't look at porn when you have a perfectly good partner whom your married to and can have sex with. Why fantasise about sex rather than having sex????" as she may be the type that respects the husbands views. Also, porn only hurts the wife if she has a poor self image."Untrue no wife respects the fact that the husband feels he has to look at porn rather than having sex with him. Because the husband chooses to look at other women this causes the wife to feel unwanted. So viewing porn actually hurts the spouses self esteem........Pornography could make it difficult for your spouse to see sex as a loving form of communication. As a result, pornography can decrease sexual satisfaction within your marriage.my opponents second rebuttalfirst let m prove that pornography is addictive............http://en.wikipedia.org...If you feel that not enough look at the sources cited within my source. So pornography is obviously the cause of porn addiction( just think of the wording). Also if the problem is not enough sex with the spouse. then either divorce them and go find sex or cheat. Don't veiw pornography because its detrimental. especially while married. My opponent says..." a reason people watch porn is because they may be bored in the first place, not why it exists. Please lets emphasize on the word A. Yes it is one cause but there is one universal reason people veiw porn. to see legal prostitutes have sex or masturbate. Here's evidence that masturbation decreases penile sensitivity........http://www.medhelp.org.........look at the first couple of comments ..........here's a better source............http://www.articledashboard.com...It affects our country because we have a legal prostitution industry. If porn actors are legal , then prostitution should be legalized. But since its not, and since were a count, based on fairness since prostitution is illegal then pornography should be illegal because porn actors are just prostitutes. Lastly pornography doesnt cause rape but promotes it. Due to the fact that after viewing you of coarse want to have sex. Some cant get a partner. After a while some may get too frustrated and just decide to rape someone because there so backed up.....lol...( my opponent never effectively commented on this).Sex isnt the only thing that porn shows. It shows pictures, masturbation, bondage,masturbation,children,and bestiality. Educating people about sex wont prevent rape. Nor will it change any probability of how porn effects the brain.( just to point this out my opponent calls porn a vile insidious substance, witch supports my case)Lastly if porn is illegal and no one had access to it then people wont have to worry about jail because they couldn't get there hands on it. If I was wrong and they could . Then since its illegal then obviously some legal punishment needs to occur. Are you suggesting that the legal system do nothing if it was illegal??? MY opponents counter to my second argument:My argument is not faulty my opponents counter is faulty though......So since prostitution is illegal and since the person chooses to do it then its not illegal????? This is what my opponent is trying to convince the voter of. Faulty logic.He also says he wants to legalize prostitution. If we legalize prostitution, People who get kidnapped and forced into it may never be found. Since there's no police involvement how will these kidnappies be rescued???? Also in prostitution were to be legalised, we all know there is alot of drugs and gang bang rape. The prostitute may think its just a normal have sex with the john and then go. But behind that dark alley or hotel room door there may be 10 men waiting to rape them. If it was legal then these instances would increase dramatically. Since there would be no police hounding here activity.My opponent says porn reduces crimenot true. His source for his statistics are invalid. To test this hypothesis we would need to know whos going to commit crime before hand. We would also need to find out if these criminals are veiwing porn before they commit crime. The after we know theve been caught and done the crime then we could possibly make a conclusion.....since this experiment is impossible since we don't know who's going to commit a crime before hand this is not valid. In my case I have proven that rape promotes rape or is a contributing factor psychologically. therefore this point shouldn't even be considered.Also about his fifth source a conclusion cannot be made unless we know at what year this study was conducted. Thus not valid.Also I never said that pornography causes rape crimes. My point is that pornography may promote rape and is a contributing factor. Since my opponent cannot successfully rebuttal this, it still is valid.EconomyIf the porn industry was abolished that money could be spent else where to stimulate our economy. Or atleast keep some extra money in our pockets. Also Not all porn has a cost. Most people look at free porn. Lastly we don't have a porn taxabout the first amendmentporn is dissemination. But so is terrorist activity on the web. So in my opponents logic we should allow terrorists to share info of terror via the Internet......... The limit on dissemination is if there is threat or if it contradicts the law. Since prostitution is against the law and since prostitution is the same as porn actors then this contradicts the law.freedom of expression from government interference.........if this is the case then why does the government tax us.Lastly the constitution does not protect porn. Freedom of speech and freedom of action are two different things....prostitution is not freedom of speech it is a obscene act unacceptable in our society and is a action.Also porn is considered obscene and obscenity is not protected by the constitution................http://www.covenanteyes.com...( im out of characters, Please look at my case)Sourceshttp://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com......http://downloads.frc.org......http://downloads.frc.org......http://www.heritage.org......http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org......http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com......http://www.protectkids.com......http://www.covenanteyes.com....http://www.articledashboard.com....http://www.medhelp.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...

I will be taking the Pro side of the debate: "Abortion shold be legal." First and foremost I would like to thank the Con for the opportunity to debate this topic! I would like to take this opportunity to define the argument further and common terminology that will be used. DefinitionsAbortion: : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. b : induced expulsion of a human fetus [1]Legal: Permitted by law. [2]Argument structure:Abortion has a number of gray areas, one common one which the Con defined in her first argument was that of rape. If it is amiable to the Con, I would like to look only at black and white of the subject and leave the gray areas be. The argument will be looked at only in terms of legality. I look forward to the debate!Sources:1.) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.)https://www.google.com...

Crack Cocaine definately should be legalized, despite the risk of death. A few hundred years ago, it was right to say that Americans were free to make their own decisions. Now, the U.S has restricted our rights, as they have with the legalization of Crack. People can choose to use Crack and take the risk of dying. After all, it's only a percentage of chance that a death actually WILL occur.

In order to win this debate, I have to prove that necrophilia should be legalized. I do not have to prove that every instance of necrophilia should be legalized, just that it should be under certain circumstances. Outline: Under my plan to legalize necrophilia it will be legal under the following circumstances: 1-Permission was given by either the dead person prior to their death or by their family to be used for sex after they die. 2-The body is preserved, the same way bodies are before burial and thrown out if deemed unusable. (1) Now that has been established, I’ll enter my arguments. C1-Economic Benefits This is simple. The majority of people who would be willing to have their or their family’s corpse for sexual reasons would need some sort of incentive. Incentive wise, this will probably be financial. This means that a business will probably have to be formed dedicated to necrophilia and people would have to pay for it. This will create economic growth, because it will create jobs needed to preserve the body and could be a quite profitable industry. The extent to which this will create economic growth is unknown, but it likely will occur. C2-Happiness Benefits Legalizing necrophilia would increase happiness. If people are willing to pay for necrophilia, it is clearly something they want. Governments obviously want their people to be happy and necrophilia can bring pleasure to people (while not harming anyone). Everyone knows people like sex and necrophilia can be an easy way to get sex, for people who may otherwise have trouble doing so. Plus, many people have sexual fantasies of various types and necrophilia opens up the opportunity for that. However, even if some people don’t understand it, it need not be understood to know it increases happiness for people paying for it. If anyone wishes to pay for something, they deemed it worthwhile. Pretty much everyone values money (to at least some degree), so anyone willing to part with it felt that they would receive something better. Thus, anyone who would pay for necrophilia would see it as worthwhile way to spend their money and believe it is a positive impact and therefore it increases their happiness. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *This argument was pretty short and to the point, but I imagine Con will have a lot to rebut with, so I’ll have more to say in rebuttals and defense.* Source: 1-http://www.afif.asso.fr...

Yes, you have the BOP, and I have fulfilled it already, you have not. --First refutation--My opponent mixed the order, but ok. The argument here is they are prostitutes, therefore it should be illegal. My opponent now opens up a huge new debate on the sex laws. Now, the resolution states ought to be illegal, this means this argument too considers the "ought" factor. So, my opponent first must prove pornography, and in this argument prostitution should be illegal. Also the majority of his case says this is bad for women. The funny thing is, prostitutes, when legalized, have lower AIDS rates then when it is legal. [1] Now, when we make things illegal it becomes less clean, as we see from the drug war, and it is STILL used. And it would be extremely hard to censor it. The current porn industry has many scans for STD's, one check every 30 days. [2] Now that is illegal, (assume your side prevails in the laws) then the industry WILL form a black market, and make it less safe. My opponents cause now stands defeated here, as the ought in the resolution acts in my favor.My opponent essentially conceded that children watching porn is illegal, which proves my point. It is impossible to ban this stuff, and a ban would to little to lower users, etc. In pakistan, they have a ban on this vile stuff, yet the amount of people watching it within the country is still high. [3] The basis of my opponents argument fails because even if we ban it it just enters a black market making it LESS SAFE, and the same problems with the porn industry live, and get worse (STD's). My opponent then bolds the statement I have not justified my arguments below, which is false. I have explained the benefits of legal porn: Economic and crime wise, then I proved it was impossible to ban via 1st amendment. My opponent must have really not read me saying CASE, which is arguments for porn staying legal. Her bolded statement is false. I think ANY reader can see where my justification is.My opponents next argument is if your interested in intercourse, why not have intercourse. There are many reasons, nagging wives, a refusing wife, you do not want to risk pregnancy again or ever. There are many reasons to have fantasies then procreate with your wive. My opponent also only refutes one of the arguments I presented with the marriage thing. As stated, porn means some things to people, different things to other. [4] So some marriages it will not effect. It also teaches new techniques, discovers your sexuality with your wife, and helps find ways it "turns you on", therefore helping you and your spouse. [4] My opponent ONLY refuted ONE of the benefits presented, the it will not effect you if you have a good self image. This is a fact, as if you have confidence you will prevail. His case here is no woman would like a man watching a porn star, the funny thing is some marriages watch it together!! [4] Like: "With the availability of porn at your fingertips couples using it together is a new phenomenon in many relationships. More and more couples are using pornography to help stimulate their sex life. " [4]These couples have no problem with this, and my opponents case forgets the upsides to porn in a relationship. --Second-- My opponents argumet here is porn is addictive, "look as the sources", and I urge the same. There is actually evidence in that wikipedia article disagreeing with her, and states pornography addiction may not exist. Addiction is a usage of a drug or substance that changes mood, and has adverse effects on the body and mind. [5] Now my opponent has not proven it changes mood at all, just cites an FRC article saying it causes rape. It may not be the porn they are addicted too, but social life and moods make them visit these sites, which implies it is social life, not porn that is causing the so called addiction. [6]My opponents next comparison, again, opens up the debate to prostitution. As I am devils advocating this whole debate, let me argue for that statement too. Prostitution = more things to tax hence more revenues. Also it opens up a new economic market, and as stated lowers AIDS rates from prostitutes, from when they operate illegally, which they DO. My opponent has not proven prostitution "ought" to be banned. As this is the case, I win this argument too.My opponent then talks about it shows bestiality, yet he has no facts to prove any of his assertions. Her argument is education and rehab will not prevent rape, although porn already reduces rape numbers, my opponent ha snot proved how rehabilitation and education would not do anything. We can compare this to Portugal, they legalized drugs and rehab the people, it has worked great, and these people are addicted. No reason rehab would fail. My opponents argument then goes people would not have access. I refer to above. Abolishment would not work. --Third--God prostitution is all over this debate. My opponent then claims people would be kidnapped, like they are now. This is funny. Making it illegal causes the kidnaps as they need to get people to do it and convince them the police wont get them. In Nevada, where is is legal in certain areas, this never happens. My opponents argument is a fallacy, when t is sometimes the laws, not the practice that makes the problems. And remember the benefits of prostitution legalization above.__________________________________________________________________________________________________--Crime--My opponent claims my source is faulty, but this is funny as well. It looked at trends, needing to foresee the future is not needed in this case, this means your biased christian source [FRC] is false too as it does not foresee the future. needing to know who rapes is irrelevant, but the overall statistic is needed. We see once porn becomes legal, RAPE RATES DECREASE. "the incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults [7].""An academic has claimed to RAW STORY that a decline in reported rape of 85% in the past 25 years can be tied to an increase in pornography consumption. " [8]"When compared to Disaster Center's figures for forcible rape for the years 1980 and 2000, the four states with the lowest Internet access showed a 53% aggregate per capita increase in rape, while the four states with the highest Internet access showed a 27% decrease in incidence of rape."[8]Point proven.--economics--My opponents argument it will be spent elsewhere. That's not how an economy works, you take away an industry the economy collapses. Extend argument. --First amendment-- First, we can only deprive this right if it infringes life liberty or pursuit of happiness. It actually increases all 3. Also the only time they can regulate speech is commerce, if they feel a compelling interest in nuetral speech, or regulation based on the way the message is sent. [9] the argument only works if it hurts people, it does not.My opponent then asks why does the government tax us. This shows little understanding of law. If the state has an interest to do something, as long as its compelling, they are allowed to do anything. There is no interest to break the 1t amendment for porn. My opponent then says it protects speech, not porn. Porn is an expression, 1st amendment protects expression, [10] it is unconstitutional to ban it. My opponents last argument is it is obscene, does it infringe life liberty or pursuit of happiness? No. No effect on life. Increases liberty, freedom of choice. And no effect on happiness, if it is ugly dont watch it. It is protected by the first amendment. Conclusion: 1. pro has not met the BOP2. Porns benefits outweigh the false negatives presented by pro3. VOTE PROarguments - con, BOP not met by pro, and I refuted her argumentseverything else tied or you choose.I enjoyed this debate, literally our of room.http://tinyurl.com...


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized.
Premise 1: Definition of Prostitution
Con has yet to provide a clear definition of prostitution. Prostitution is the act of offering oneself for hire to engage in sexual relations. This means that there is consent between all parties involved to exchange a service (sex).
Premise 2: Purpose of Laws
For prostitution to be illegal, there need to be laws against it. Laws are in place to protect citizens' general safety and their rights from external forces. This means that as long as one is not harming another person's rights or safety, they are not acting outside the law and are free to make any decisions they wish. This overall allows people to have individual autonomy and free will, as long as they are not affecting another.
Premise 3: Regulations
Countries which have legal prostitution tend to regulate it (such as Germany and the Netherlands). Two of the main problems which face prostitutes and/or johns (people who buy prostitutes), which threaten their safety, are rape/assault and STDs. There are already laws against rape/assault, but STDs cannot be prevented the same way. However, many areas where prostitution is legal have put laws in place which make STDs among prostitutes a lot less likely. For example, in counties where prostitution is legal in Nevada, condom use and weekly tests for STDs are required by law. There are also similar laws in Germany. As a result of these policies, areas which have legal prostitution see less STDs.
Premise 4: Dangers of Illegal Prostitution
Con mentions a stat that says about 80% of prostitutes have been raped, which I agree with. In fact, most prostitutes are too scared to even report violence from customers to the police, because they don’t want to be prosecuted. So, one would expect rape of prostitutes to go down in areas where prostitution is legal, because they don’t have to worry about being arrested or otherwise punished. The stats support this. For example, despite other crimes happening at about the same rate, rape decreased dramatically when rape was legal in Rhode Island. The opposite ended up happening when Queensland banned brothels, with a 149% increase in women being raped, compared to a 49% increase in other offenses against women. Overall, studies have shown that if rape was legalized throughout the US the rape rate would decrease by about 25%. Another major problem, that doesn’t exist nearly as much when rape is legal are abusive pimps. Studies

I accept the challenge and will argue that abortion should not be legal. I will now state my points: 1. Women have sex knowing that there is a risk of getting pregnant. If they don't want to have a child, then they should not have sex. 2. If the fetus is beyond 23 weeks, it can feel pain.[1] 3. Abortions cause phycological damage.[1] I want to point out that some of your points are irrelevant. These include: "10. Making abortion illegal will increase teenage pregnancy (children having children). This usually leads to illegal abortions which can lead to death or permanent health defects, poverty, joblessness, hopelessness, and dependency." That statement is not necessarily true. It would be more likely to decrease teenage pregnancy. Those 3 points I stated earlier are only three of my many dozens of points. Be prepared for very long paragraphs of reasoning against abortion. [1]http://abortion.procon.org...

Even though the credibility of a website called omgfacts.com should itself be a matter of debate, I accept my opponent's proposition to let the current round be the concluding one as well.In a not very subtle manner, one may have noticed my opponent quoting me out of context- even phrases that seem to make no sense but for the perfidious contrivances that my opponent has seemingly perfected, which perhaps, in themselves constitute a fearful talent I must steer clear of.For instance, these are my opponents words in the opening paragraph of R1: For example, Gay Marriage has been legalised in both America and the United Kingdom now. But by the same logic, shouldn't incestuous couples be granted the same right to marry?Moving on to R4, my opponent agrees (at least for the sake of argument) :A. Marriage is a legal constitution with procreation regarded as the primary purpose by law.Then he goes on to say that since-B. Political Correctness is embracing of those with differing beliefs, and therefore, if someone is of the belief "I want to marry to symbolise my love and not for the primary purpose proposed by law I should have the right to" It makes sense (according to him) that:A. therefore makes no difference to the Politically Correct outlook, therefore whether the primary purpose of marriage according to law is procreation or not holds no relevance to this debate. In short, my opponent wants incestuous marriage to be legal and legitimate without paying any heed to the law. He argues that if you debate from the perspective of a PC person, law becomes irrelevant. I'm sure my opponent devised such an argument for the sake of the occasional humor.In my opponent's own words:Hence why I said marriage itself would be a deterrent as it's making an announcement of an incestuous couple. If a child follows from this, it's likely to inbred therefore making the couple eligible for legal ramifications. If an incestuous couple wanted to have a child and keep the biological father a secret where the laws concerned, they wouldn't marry as marriage makes it harder to conceal such an event.My opponent therefore wants marriage to be a tool- the purpose of which is to control breeding in incestuous couples. I hope my opponent understands that humans cannot be treated like animals (not that animals deserve it either). I also believe that my opponent here- all by himself by the way, has created a scenario which curtails the human right to have children- out of curiosity, I ask him if he is a pro-communist from China. Furthermore, my opponent concedes that an incestuous couple that wants a child wouldn't marry after all, so it isn't like marriage would solve that particular problem of inbred children. Earlier my opponent talked of things like "I want to marry to symbolise my love" (perhaps as an appeal to audience emotion), and ironically exactly such a phrase is used to describe a child! So, essentially, he wants marriage to symbolize love that can never be consummated. Quite an axe to his foot, he would agree.He gleefully flourishes the controversial theory of Evolution (on his own volition) and asserts that- "procreation is priority in Evolutionary terms" to justify his stand on incest causing no harm- by the logic through which it can be argued that rape is the path towards an evolutionary niche. However, after being pointed out that it is actually selective procreation which this theory postulates, my opponent seems to be struck dumb and thoroughly avoids the subject in his flimsy rebuttal. Another stubbed toe, I believe.Similarly, my opponent seems to ignore the huge psychological harm a child would suffer after his mother marries his elder brother creating situations such as "a son who is his own father", or perhaps "a mother who is her son's grandmother", and other such exotic relationships. In fact, my opponent refuses to acknowledge this gaping flaw in this familial utopia. Strike three? Four? I think I have lost count.Another mistake my opponent makes:On top of this, in a gay marriage procreation is an impossibility, Con therefore must contend on the same basis it to is wrong.Through my opponent's cherished theory of Evolution (which I think he quoted to make things very simple for me), it can be shown that homosexuals due to their inability to procreate would cause a lot less harm than incestuous couples who would flood innumerable genetically weak specimens (fancy apathetic term for babies) in the gene pool- and therefore such an incestuous union is extremely harmful (Here, I assume, that marriage as an institution to prevent procreation is undeniably absurd).Another nitwit point my opponent made:Despite Con outlining a so called primary purpose, he failed to propose a sole purpose, therefore accepting differing purposes of marriage, even in a law context. Well of course it isn't the sole purpose! Otherwise, marriage in infertile couples, couples that do not want children, and homosexuals could not be justified. However, couples that can bear children but do not want them still have the potential to have children. Homosexuals and infertile couples have the potential to adopt children.You might wonder how incestuous couples are any different, and the answer to it is very simple:In the case of incestuous couples, the state would actually have had legalized inbreeding. Procreation isn't the sole purpose yes, but it is the primary purpose. It would be absurd if the state now prevented these married incestuous couples from bearing children- which was the purpose of marriage in the first place.Yet another illogical point which my opponent seems never to run short of:It would be deliberate if someone is aware of their condition from a young age as it is in their genes and runs in their family (i.e.) intrinsic (...) No, there are millions of people who are aware that their genes, when met with a male/female with the same underlying condition does increase the odds of deformity/retardation.I'm sure this is true but I hope my opponent understands that it would be absurd for the couple to inquire about such conditions on their first date- or even the twentieth. It is a very personal information- unintentional, uncalculated and contingent. It is also due to superior modern technology that such a phenomenon is diagnosed. If my opponent suggests that the government invade the privacy of every individual to create a database of compatible persons, I digress. However, incestuous couples are necessarily and intrinsically incompatible and they know it. Marriage is a union built upon responsibility, which such a couple clearly lacks.Even so, arguing about it is irrelevant. The matter of debate is:If gay marriage is right based on the Model PC Morality, so is incestuous marriage.Whether or not the marriage of such couples should be legal is beyond the scope of this argument. Even if it should not be legal (which I do not believe), the debate is about the justification of gay marriage being legal. Which brings us to a rather peculiar observation I made in R1. I said that:Having established the precedent that incestuous marriage hurts the society, I assert that whether or not gay marriage is politically correct is but an obstacle put forth as a trivial justification- rationalization. The argument is whether or not incestuous marriage happens to be politically correct, and even if the opponent manages to prove (which I find very doubtful) that gay marriage is non-PC as well, it does in no way change anything.It seems to me that opponent does not care about whether or not incestuous marriage is PC. He hinges his entire debate on the thread of gay marriage being legalized, like a stubborn child who says- "How come he gets the lollipop, and I do not!"He has tried to slander homosexual marriage by comparing it with the perversion of incest which ignores strong family bonds for the sake of what my opponent terms as- "I want to marry to symbolise my love". I wonder what kind of love it is.Thank you.

In the previous round I have shown a study proving that legalising prostitution would lead to STD's decreasing in popularity . I don't accept your guess as a valid argument equal to that of a documented study . Conclusion - Con has failed to address most of my arguments from R1 while I addressed everything that was worthy of addressing , Con's spelling was worse and his arguments were not detailed .

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.

"…this is not the claim that I made." Indeed, my apologies, I must have been confusing you with someone else. "There is no legal punishment for someone being involved with multiple partners, so long as they are not married." Kind of like there is no legal punishment for being gay so long as they are not married? Your point sounds overly apologetic to me. For many people the logical conclusion to love is marriage, to outlaw that conclusion is as invasive as outlawing sex. Marriage is a deeply personal thing and the state should stay the hell out. All the same arguments that can be used to defend mixed race marriages and gay marriage can be used to defend polygamous marriage. Mixed race dating was never officially illegal to my knowledge either but they found a way to suppress it. I want attacking the mere option to be seen for what it is, a form of bigotry. "I do not think they need to be taught against monogamy as much as the additional behavioral issues that are not controlled: violence, abuse, etc." The attitudes caused by monogamy give birth to these forms of violence and abuse. What you are suggesting is like saying that national socialism isn't the problem, racism is, when in the relevant context, one caused the other. You're advocating the treatment of the symptoms, I'm advocating the treat me of one of the causes. This approach will not cure the condition, which is why social program aimed at them (anti violence anti domestic abuse etc) are money pits with no appreciable effect. I'm not saying close all battered women's shelters I'm just saying that in addition to a symptomatic approach we must look for a causal one as well. And maybe eventually we won't need them anymore. Monogamy and it's mother Puritanism, actually gave birth to serial killers and sex crime. It is not argued that serial murder for sexual reasons is a relatively recent phenomenon. If you seriously want to end half these problems and a whole slew of other legalize and deregulate prostitution. Criminalize the sale of sex when you have an std of course, but otherwise stay the hell out of it. And I gotta say, the debate is not polygamy is good, the debate is monogamy is bad, I know one is a direct result of the other, but still... "As I expected, your arguments about the potential dangers of monogamy are indeed sound." ...should be the death knell of your whole point.

Abortion has been one of the main and major contentious issues of our times especially by most public leaders in both Religion and Politicians. To get elected in public office here in the USA, just support the movements that are against abortion who are the biggest spenders and those that hang on to your morality and you are sure to get judged or elected. I know it is legal but on the other hand why do they make all and I mean all aspects of abortion so secret.? If it is legal, then why not publish all its statutes or be open with them. Is it not all about Morals and Principals which are wholly governed by our cultures and traditions? Informed consent and abortion limit terms are just but a few that are contradicting and not practiced statutes in abortion. This link will give you an idea of why abortion should be made illegal, especially when you think of it as your child being the one who is undergoing that process. http://www.lifenews.com... I still think Abortion should be made illegal and that way we can have free access to the information and procedures for relevant prosecution of the perpetrators because when its illegal, then everything about it becomes public.

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.

My opponent starts off with a sophisticated and admittedly powerful argument i.e There are many things that we use on a regular basis which ought not to be made illegal even though they can cause deaths. While I think this is a strong argument it fails to address my original argument. It does not address the injuries and deaths caused by boxing. Bare buckle boxing was quite popular in England in the 1800s. It was made illegal because people died from it. Do you think it should be made legal again because many other Mondane things( like candy,soda etc. ) kill people too. Just because other everyday innocent things can kill someone once in a blue moon doesn't boxing is an extremely violent sport. My opponent then moved onto another argument: "People have to work to live and minimum wage isn't going to support a family. Not all can obtain degrees or perform a trade at a pro level!" He seems to be suggesting that boxing provides a haven for those unable to get a degree. Well so does bank robbing a bank or working at McDonalds. Just because you can work there if you don't have a degree doesn't add any merit or desirability to it. My opponent then moves onto an argument which I find to be completely absurd: "Many are descendants of slaves that have been advantaged by the hard lives of their ancestors in a way that is lucrative; how racist is it to know a slave's past(that the slave lived a way that he/she was forced to be an utter mainstay for whites in every way at any time) and try to deny them their inheritance when whites claim they deserve nothing(benefited somehow off the centuries' headstart and steal now)?!" Firstly there is absolutely NOTHING advantageous about the way in which black slaves were treated so to say you think this is advantageous for boxing skills is very inappropriate. My opponent then claims it is racist to deny blacks people what he calls their inheritance. He thinks that because black peoples have been treated extremely bad they deserve boxing. I find this to be a silly and borderline offensive argument. Another race argument follows: "What about the financial gap created between many whites and blacks due to that huge headstart?! What about the black person that has the God given ability to lift his family out of poverty? Some whites and other races are poor, too! That's what outlawing boxing would do!" Firstly,to what "huge head" start are you referring too. Blacks are not payed less than whites as that is illegal so clarification is needed. Also being able to beat someone up for money is not a "God given ability to lift his family out of poverty". It could be but it is not neccesaraly. He then seems to be claiming that by outlawing boxing I will make people of all races poor. This is just blatantly false. The only justification for this is given above when he claims that boxing is a job for those who cannot get a degree. Well as I said boxing is only one of thousands of jobs for people who can't get a degree so to say that outlawing boxing will cause economic turmoil for the races is plainly invalid. My opponent then plays the allegation card: "You seem a lot like those animal lovers who say that they don't believe in eating meat, because they don't want to kill animals: they bully others who eat animals, but they wear animals in their clothing, hair, accessories, footwear, etc. If you were really so sincere about what you say, then you'd be against anything else that kills you in the same way boxing does! And to be honest, that's just about anything!" Firstly I would hate to be identified with those animal lovers. I am not like them. He then accused me of hypocrisy by saying that if we're to express complete intellectual honesty then I ought to be against every thing that could potentially kill someone. Well I think this is false as boxing is much more brutal,barbaric and dangerous and unlike candy,soda or any everyday item that could potentially kill someone boxing will DEFINATELY injure someone and is much more likely to kill someone than soda. I noticed that my opponent did not address my argument that boxing encourages violence in children.

I would like to apologize to the Pro and those watching this debate. I was locked out of the site for about a week due to an internet explorer error. I've had to download Firefox to get back in, so hopefully everything is straight now. I will begin with my opponent's last point, that of the harm of porn. Feminist activist Gail Dines wites: "Every group that has fought for liberation understands that media images are part and parcel of the systematic dehumanisation of an oppressed group . . . The more porn images filter into mainstream culture, the more girls and women are stripped of full human status and reduced to sex objects. This has a terrible effect on girls' sexual identity because it robs them of their own sexual desire (1)." If you'll forgive me a long quote, the facts reported by the Guardian are of particular interest: "As a result of her research, Dines believes that pornography is driving men to commit particular acts of violence towards women. "I am not saying that a man reads porn and goes out to rape," she says, "but what I do know is that porn gives permission to its consumers to treat women as they are treated in porn." In a recent study, 80% of men said that the one sex act they would most like to perform is to ejaculate on a woman's face; in 2007, a comment stream on the website Jezebel.com included a number of women who said that, on a first date, they had, to their surprise, experienced their sexual partner ejaculating on their faces without asking. "Sexual assault centres in US colleges have said that more women are reporting anal rape, which Dines attributes directly to the normalisation of such practices in pornography. "The more porn sexualises violence against women, the more it normalises and legitimises sexually abusive behaviour. Men learn about sex from porn, and in porn nothing is too painful or degrading for women." Dines also says that what she calls "childified porn" has significantly increased in popularity in recent years, with almost 14m internet searches for "teen sex" in 2006, an increase of more than 60% since 2004. There are legal sites that feature hardcore images of extremely young-looking women being penetrated by older men, with disclaimers stating all the models are 18 and over. Dines is clear that regular exposure to such material has an effect of breaking down the taboo about having sex with children. "She recently interviewed a number of men in prison who had committed rape against children. All were habitual users of child pornography. "What they said to me was they got bored with 'regular' porn and wanted something fresh. They were horrified at the idea of sex with a prepubescent child initially but within six months they had all raped a child (1)." Feminist Warrior Naomi Wolf writes: "In many more traditional cultures, it is not prudery that leads them to discourage men from looking at pornography. It is, rather, because these cultures understand male sexuality and what it takes to keep men and women turned on to one another over time—to help men, in particular, to, as the Old Testament puts it, "rejoice with the wife of thy youth; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times." These cultures urge men not to look at porn because they know that a powerful erotic bond between parents is a key element of a strong family (2)." Porn is degrading and harmful to both men and women, normalizing violence and dehumanizing women. Porn also exacts a heavy emotional toll on men and women alike, robbing them of the intimacy and fulfillment of real sexual relationships. The Pro takes issue with my use of the term true Christian and my definition that such a one is guided by the Spirit of God. However, the Bible itself affirms this point: "He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life (3)." Orthodox Archpriest Paul O'Callaghan expresses the essence of true Christianity as follows: "So if Christianity is not a "religion of rules;' then what is it? What is the true spirit of Christianity? Let me share what I believe are a few characteristics of the true Christian spirit. "First of all, Christianity is a religion of the heart. This is what the New Covenant is all about. Jeremiah prophesied about it in this way: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel — not like the one I made when I brought them out of Egypt. I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts; I will be their God and they will be my people. None of them will teach their neighbor, saying, ‘Know the Lord,' for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest" (see Jer. 31:31-34). "So New Covenant religion Christianity — is a religion of the heart, in which we know the Lord in our hearts, have his law written in our hearts, and desire to serve him freely from our hearts. It is not a set of dead written rules that we must obey. "Secondly true Christianity is a positive religion. It affirms that when God created his world, he said, "It is good." Its two commandments are positive: "Love God" and "Love your neighbor:" Christianity does not look around the world and say "this is good, but this is bad" It sees that all is good — it is only the misuse of human freedom in the abuse of things that is bad. So alcohol, sex, the body, money, television, and music are all good things. It is only the abuse of these things that is bad — drunkenness, pornography, compulsive gambling, etc. Even drugs marijuana, cocaine, heroin — all have good uses for medical and other reasons. It's only the abuse of them for pleasure that is wrong. The true spirit of Christianity is positive: it upholds the goodness of God's world. "Lastly, Christianity is a religion of Spirit. True Christianity means having the Holy Spirit of God living within you. It means His Spirit is active in your spirit to guide you to what is true and good. Now this does not imply that we are to simply be guided by our feelings or whims; we must come to recognize the genuine voice of the spirit within. In this regard, the written Word of God must be our standard of discernment. In other words, the inner leading of the Spirit will always be in full harmony with the Spirit-inspired Word. Nonetheless, the practice of Christianity is not an attempt to attain God's favor by fulfilling a "written code"; it is an outflowing of the life-giving Spirit's presence within (see 2 Cor. 3:6). "In conclusion, then, we can say that Christianity is a religion that begins on the inside with faith in the heart — not with a list of rules on the outside. Being a true Christian means that you desire to live all your life in faithfulness to God, because His Spirit is in your heart and His law is written there (4)." Unfortunately, I've run out of space. Briefly, homosexual practice as it was known then is categorically different from what we know now. In gay rape and gay marriage, the mechanics are the same, but these are obviously dramatically different practices. Homosexual practice condemned by the Bible is rape, prostitution, and man-child sex, not loving affirming relationships between equals. I rescind my argument about atheistic judgmentalism. This was an invalid point and I should not have brought it up. Thanks and sorry again for missing the last round. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) http://nymag.com... (3) http://bible.cc... (4)http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org...

I have NOT conceded on moral grounds. It seems that my opponent is grasping at straws, not only proclaiming victory in a delayed argument, but consistently having to leave in snide remarks and comments at every opportunity. I believe one of the political parties did that last November...I forget which one, and I forgot how the outcome came out, but I DO remember that their mascot was an elephant... Anyways, back to debating. {quote}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?{endquote} Haha. Funny. Wrong, but funny. If this were a humor contest I might concede right now. But its not. 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. Prostitution on a larger scale would NOT mean more revenue. And because they are not taxed, Nevada can only profit from more and more brothels opening up - except these brothels would be opening in other states, taking away from Nevada's revenue. Not to mention, "instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts." I disagree but nevertheless understand the concept of prostitution, but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far. And I wonder if some of the other voters feel the same way. Maybe we have lived with this idea of prostitution and let it be. 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? Picture this. Your daughter, sister, mother, or best friend, degraded to a grocery. 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. Back to the economic arguments, however. Competition, competition. "Legalizing something and making it industry does NOT necessarily mean Vegas will suddenly lose their prostitution industry." True, perhaps. But my opponent does not stop at a rebuttal, but goes as far as to make a preposterous counterclaim that Nevada and the prostitution industry might benefit from such competition. Thinking about this just requires us to take a step back from it and analyze the situation objectively. As possible CONSUMERS, we would be excited for, as my opponent puts it, "glamorous interior scenery, good prices, and/or temporary places to stay for the night". 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. 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? It should be noted that currently, Nevada has stringent guidelines on STD testing and prevention, requiring the use of condoms. And as Nevada is the only state to legalize OPRs, this has not been a problem. But in a state that is maybe too liberal and does not require such guidelines, STDs may spread like wildfire - to children of the infected, to the prostitutes, and to the patrons of such services. My opponent will probably rebut with two things: 1) People should be able to choose if they want to have an STD. Is this really a question? If a baby cries to hold the knife, a parent has an obligation to keep it from them. Just like this, the government can protect people from themselves. 2) The guidelines can project onto the other states. Maybe for some. And temporarily, the job industry might spike, with inspectors and prostitutes getting jobs. But these guidelines will not last. Nevada is a strictly controlled and regulated bubble. When this bubble is popped, then extortion and lies will come out with the industry. Inspectors would be paid off by ambitious OPR leaders, perhaps to retain the eligibility of a popular prostitute. And this is only one example. Allowing prostitution would open a floodgate for more crimes and headaches across the U.S. I would like to note that my opponent has made no arguments of his own. Even if he prances off in his semi-delusional state in a "successful" rebuttal of my points, he would not have won this debate. He is trying to change the status quo. He is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prostitution business should spread out of Nevada and Rhode Island. If he merely responds to my arguments in Round 3, he will not have fulfilled this burden of proof, and would therefore lose this debate. Thank you. I await my opponent's argument.


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized
Premise 1: The definition of consent is accepted, but it does not necessarily imply genuine agreement, as people can be coerced, threatened, or forced into prostitution. This is because consent in prostitution can be manipulated or obtained under duress.
Premise 2: In round 2, the argument was made that the purpose of a democratic government is to serve the common good. Laws exist to protect citizens' general safety and rights from external forces, which is indirectly related to serving the common good. However, legalizing prostitution may not serve the common good, as it can contribute to an overall harmful effect on society. Shoplifting can be used as an analogy, where a single act may have a negligible effect, but frequent occurrences can have a negative impact, which is why shoplifting is illegal.
Premise 3: Regulations in countries that have legalized prostitution have proven to be ineffective and even counterproductive. Legalizing prostitution can result in serious crimes being disguised as health and safety concerns, such as rapes and assaults by customers being covered up by management. Legalization also makes it more difficult to prosecute rapists, perpetrators, and traffickers, as the sex industry becomes more legitimized. Legalizing prostitution does not necessarily prevent STDs and AIDS, as testing only one of the two sexual partners is self-defeating, and prostitutes often avoid testing. Moreover, mandatory condom use cannot be realistically enforced, and 73% of prostitutes reported that men offer to pay extra for sex without a condom, and 45% of them said that men become abusive when asked to use a condom. This increases the chances of abuse and harm to the prostitutes.
Premise 4: Legalizing prostitution does not necessarily reduce rape convictions, as most prostitution is itself rape. Non-consensual sex is rape, and sex is only consensual if it is free from threats or coercion. However, 80% of Nevadan prostitutes want to leave prostitution, but many are prevented from leaving, and it is made very difficult to refuse clients. This means that most prostitution is non-consensual and therefore rape. Legalizing prostitution will not ensure that most prostitution is consensual, as Nevada has shown that brothels can abuse their employees.
Premise 5 & Argument 2: Legalizing prostitution for monetary gain contradicts the purpose of laws, which is to protect citizens' general safety and rights. The government cannot justify legalizing prostitution if it harms the common good. Legalizing prostitution for monetary gain would also imply that

Thank you for accepting con. First let me start by saying that all the important religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) allow the rape of your enemies, meaning nonbelievers. If you rape someone of the same religion as you however, you give the father 50 shekels and they become your wife, as you have violated her. Therefore God doesn't make a big deal, and sometimes approves totally, of rape. The biggest problem in rape is sex with someone you aren't married to. You can't rape your wife, because she is your property. Then lets go on to the next point: women deserve it and secretly want it. Women have ruined the whole white world with their stupidity and feelings. I do not like the blacks, Jews, Muslims or gays. Women don't like that I don't like them so they won't allow me to enslave blacks, kill gays, drive away Jews or ban Muslims. The female race has stripped men of their masculinity. Just look at men today! Look at education. We can't even beat our children! Pedophilia, incest and bestiality are about to be as okay as homosexuality. Like I said earlier, the biggest problem in rape is the fact that you aren't married. So, we should legalize rape, and do as the Bible says: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."" Rapists marry the whores they violated. This is the will of God.

"Actually brothels are the buildings that are actually licensed and the prostitutes, the contracted workers, are legally allowed to sell sexual services, but any prostitution outside the licensed brothels would be illegal prostitution. Yes I understand that they do not have it in you area, because Nevada is the only state in the United States that brothels are legal." Exactly, that is why we should make it legal in every state in this country or at least make it possible for whores to get licenses which they shouldn't have to have a license because it's their own body but I guess its better than nothing. "Actually there is no real proof of that it would break any such link a pimp has against the illegal prostitutes. In fact if legal brothels are state owned and so technically there is still a manager or pimp, which of course would be the state. And by what I have read there still happens to be forced human trafficking in the Netherlands, so there of course would still be pimps abducting and using violence for human trafficking and would easily be concealed in the opened as other legal prostitutions go on. So, It would still be unlikely for men and woman to be independent from pimps." Actually, if prostitution was legal without having to have a license for it then they would not have to have a pimp or manager.

Here is my argument against legalizing Necrophilia: 1. It is Unsanitary This link states that "To those in close contact with the dead, such as rescue workers, there is a health risk from chronic infectious diseases which those killed may have been suffering from and which spread by direct contact, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, HIV, enteric intestinal pathogens, tuberculosis, cholera and others" (https://en.wikipedia.org...). In other words, if getting in close contact does these things then it is dangerous for a person to even consider having sex with a dead person. These diseases could then be further spread when the necrophiliacs encounter with other people. 2. It is Immoral Not only does this disrespect the dead (when they have permission or not), but it is a practice that is highly immoral. Having sex with the dead does absolutely nothing good. It only causes harm to the necrophiliacs mental state and it causes diseases to spread. The only thing it does is satisfy some creeps desire to have sex with a dead course. I can guarantee that the majority of people will not be interested in allowing some creep to have special privileges especially since the practice causes harm to society. 3. If you legalize this for the reasons mentioned you could also legalize pedophilia (https://www.google.com...). Are you aware that there is a movement for pedophiles to have the same rights as homosexuals (http://www.greeleygazette.com...)? These ideas about legalization are so bad that I couldn't have made it up. Your arguments could literally be used to support pedophilia. As long as the children agree to what happens and as long as it is deemed as safe, it should be legal. Don't you understand how messed up your argument is? The line has to be draw somewhere. Most of the time we make decisions on what benefits society. Since Necrophilia and pedophilia only (sort of) benefits some creeps and not the society as a whole, it should not be legal. Refuting your arguments: a. Economic Benefit? You make a huge assumption with this point. You assume that there are enough people out there that want their bodies to be molested by some creep after they die. I can assure you that most people don't want this to happen. The business' would fail because the majority of people wouldn't want necrophilia to be legalized. Normal people don't want to have sex with dead people. You also need to provide some evidence that this would benefit the economy. b. Happiness Benefits? This sure wouldn't make me happy. The only people it would make happy are the lunatics that want to have sex with dead people. But legalizing it would cause unhappiness to society since it causes diseases to spread. And furthermore, the governments main focus (if at all) is not on the happiness of the people. Governments have to think of the society as a whole and not just on the very few people out there that want special privileges. You also make the assumption that there will be many people would be willing to pay for such a service.

< > So, this would be so important for the American government to spend millions of dollars on? How about our school systems or ANYTHING else for that matter that would actually HELP our country. What about the independent street prostitutes? There would be so many undocumented sex selling vagrants wondering about the streets, it would be impossible to keep up. Not only that, but what about sex trafficking, underage prostitution and abuse of these working girls? There would be a mentality of, Well, it's legal, so we're really not going to pay very much attention to it. We're talking about legalizing a horrible lifestyle of drug use, neglected children, abuse, and depression. < > There are prostitutes right now having sex with nasty men breathing , and sweating all over them that they find repulsive right now. They don't like it. They are doing it for money. Why? They are probably lower class, uneducated women that got pulled into a world that they cannot escape. It's all fun for the person getting the sex, I'm sure. This is not an industry that you go in, punch your time card, work, go home, and bake a cake. There's an ugliness that your choosing to ignore. Women and men are not toy's to be used. <> Out of circulation? These are human beings we're talking about, not cattle. These women deserve better than to be in some kind of sick, sexual circulation. Having a whore house in my town is not an option. Please, don't try to deceive people into thinking that all the problems of this industry will simply disappear with legalization. It would make the related crimes soar. Which leads me to my next point… < > As I said before, with prostitution comes abuse(mental and physical), sex trafficking, drug abuse, which in turn attracts drug dealers, which bring crimes such as burglary, murder, kidnapping, you name it. Not to mention, legalizing prostitution would allow innocent children to live seeing they're mother's sell herself for money. This, could possibly lead to child abuse, and rape. < > OH, famous people you say? What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Just because your known, doesn't mean your allowed to set the standard for reasonable conduct. Plus, if you were able to ask those people if they were PROUD of the fact they solicited sex, what do you think they would say? < > Never, have I said you are bad for wanting sex. What I think is bad, is the exploitation of women for it. This should not be legalized. < > So, you just said it yourself. A derogatory comment towards prostitutes. Do you think making this practice legal, it will change the ideals we have about prostitution in this country? Please, don't fancy that all of a sudden beautiful women will decide they want men to be able to pay to fornicate with them. Classy ladies won't all of a sudden take the place of these "skanks" as you so lovingly call them. That term just proves that everyone looks down on these girls. < > There is absolutely NO WAY to insure this, and frankly the money spent to try would be a waste, and should go to something FAR more important. Such as schools, firemen, or… anything else. < > They're illegal because they're wrong. They ruin peoples lives, and towns. They're both disgusting and should not be tolerated by our government. My children surely will not be exposed to such filth. < > Please excuse me for not caring in the LEAST if you can find a clean hooker. This is laughable, and is handled by the government now as it should. It's illegal. < > It WILL happen, and it will happen often. This would open the flood gates to dark and , disgusting practices. Yes, there is a child sex trade. It's perverted people buying sex that keep it fueled. Why allow this perverted world to grow and flourish in the United States? We are far to advanced a nation to take such a step back. < > Please don't try to bastardize my words. The greed, and need for money is evil. My husband and I raising our family is not. Your grasping… < > Umm… let's not talk about my personal sex life, thanks. Have some couth. < > We're not talking about people being stupid for having sex. We're talking about the legalization of a degrading lifestyle. Oh, a high class hooker has a college degree? How many women are stuck in a brothel as a sexual slave right now? Making prostitution legal wouldn't fix this. It would make it easier to cover up. Yes, Google. I'm talking about real life. Not ask jeeves. Women being disrespected, and USED, and America allowing it. People don't want brothels in they're towns. I'm sorry your not having enough sex. Please, take a minute to think of all the lives that this lifestyle hurts. There's a bigger picture here. If you cover an old house with paint, it's still an old house. Meaning, you can make prostituion legal, but it will still be a disgusting world that women are abused in. Whatever spin you want to put on it, it will never be good, or right.

My opponent said in his latest post that this debate was not about ethics but legality. these words are synonomous. according to dictionary.com ethics means A set of principles of right conduct. this is basically the same definition of law/legality. as for your charming dead monkey story, it is irrelevant. The homo floresiensis are humans, for the last time. homo means human. the sapien/ floresiensis bit just specifies what type of man referred to. also legalizing hobbit sales for criminal activity doesn't help your case. actually all that monkey story says is that they WILL hang non humans for criminal activity, not that it matters since HOMO FLORESIENSIS ARE HUMANS!!!! their brains are about 1/3 the size of ours so they can't be trusted to operate machinery or be hired by industries as my opponent thinks. I think it is obvious that CON is the way to go. Vote con and you won't have to worry about hobbits stealing your stuff, losing your jobs to miniature people, etc. thank you and have a great day. xoxo barlow

Pro begins round 3 with the illogical statement: (grammar mistakes quoted exactly) “being a prostitute is about as dangers as being a fisherman.” This is either an intentional attempt to mislead, or a poor understanding of math and statistics. He states that the homicide rate for prostitutes is 200 and then tries to compare that to the death rate for fisherman. A true comparison would be the homicide rate of prostitutes to the homicide rate for fisherman or the death rate for prostitutes to the death rate for fishermen. I would have more sympathy for this error if PRO had not misquoted the facts so obviously. Death rate by homicide in active prostitutes was 229[1], but the overall death rate (CMR) was 459. Compare this to the CMR for USA (9) or Canadian (8) general population.[2] This makes a prostitute 50 times more likely to die than an average citizen. I was surprised to learn that “Homicide is the second leading cause of death on the job for workers in the United States.”[3] The major factors were listed in the study as “ contact with the public; exchange of money; and working alone, at night, or in high-crime areas are risk factors for workplace homicide Several studies also report high rates of homicide associated with taxicab services, grocery stores, convenience stores, bars, nightclubs, and gasoline stations.” There is also a strong link to ethnicity of both the individual AND their fellow workers. These factors would not change by simply legalizing prostitution. PRO continues argue for the safety of legalized prostitution based on anecdotal (the worst kind) evidence[4] Prostitutes, clients and managers were interviewed– This is the kind of background work you do before designing a scientific study. Included in this study were quotes like “Panic buttons are a joke . . . usually they’re across the room, but if you can get across the room you can get out the door.” This was from a “study” claiming the safety merits of legalized brothel prostitution. Let me recap why Prostitution should NOT be legal Simply allowing the sale of sex for money will not remove the problems of prostitution. Because this is a state (not federal) issue in the US, the laws that grow up around prostitution will be a patchwork of local and state regulations that encourage sex trafficking and other criminal activity. We use legislation to protect society, and the dangers of prostitution merit tighter laws and more enforcement to keep people from getting into sex trades too easily. There are many health issues of promiscuity. These are not only issues for sex workers, but for their customers, and for the intimate partners of those customers. The best way to limit harm is to keep prostitution illegal, and to find more effective methods of enforcement. Prostitution has many links to organized crime and illegal drug use. These ties will not simply disappear if prostitution were legalized. This would give more money laundering opportunities to criminal enterprise. In The US the average age of entry into street prostitution is 12-14 years.[5] Sex slavery and sex trafficking are a core part of prostitution, even in countries like Germany where it is legal. Legalization only makes the numbers larger. We have legislation to protect the vulnerable. There are age restrictions for alcohol and tobacco. Many drugs are prohibited completely. Speed limits are enforced. In Prostitution, the dangers to the workers and their clients are so high (and there are no benefits) that it needs to be completely prohibited. The prohibition against men taking advantage of women by making them prostitutes is ancient,[6] and there is no reason to think society will get better by legalizing prostitution. As the USA moves towards universal health care and socialized medicine there is an even bigger need to reduce, not increase, prostitution. As the taxpayer ends up paying the cost for medical care of prostitutes and their clients you will pay a huge cost for legalized prostitution. “Prostitutes health care needs exceed those of most other women.”[7] Not only is there a high price to pay for medical treatment of prostitutes, but most sexually transmitted diseases have an incubation period where the disease is infectious, but not yet diagnosed. This makes the transfer to client and coworkers a danger as well. New strains of multi drug resistant STDs are appearing among prostitutes who use antibiotics “just in case”. [8] [9] “The rapid spread was associated with transmission in high risk individuals (that is, prostitutes and their clients).” This was in the Netherlands where prostitution is legal and carefully controlled. In Germany the legalization of prostitution did exactly what would be expected. The number of prostitutes went up, and the price of a prostitute’s service went down. Homicide rates went up. Incidents of violence increased. Human Trafficking increased. These are not good for society or individuals. Pro states that prostitution should be legalized. He wants us to work hard to change our laws so that more harm can come to more people. His position would increase costs to the taxpayer. (for the possible benefit of lowering the cost of a prostitute) There is no good reason to legalize prostitution. There are many good reasons to increase enforcement. Vote CON [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://data.worldbank.org... [3] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... [4] http://esplerp.org... [5] http://www.womensfundingnetwork.org... [6] http://www.biblegateway.com... [7] http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu... [8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [9] http://sti.bmj.com...

StructureRound 1: Acceptance and brief summary of position.Round 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Defend against opponent's r3 rebuttal. I think we should legalize prostitution in the USA. I base this on two fronts. A. Government should not form laws against non-violent sins, AKA separation of church and state.B. Elimination/reduction of black market of prostitution. Thanks for reading and accepting in advance.

You make an astounding argument about the girls and the procedures and I cannot argue about that, but I beg to differ about its legality and the standards involved. Right now, as legal as it is, we have doctors both qualified and unqualified who perform these operations with no regard to whether if botched, they would be responsible. If it were made illegal, these doctors would rarely risk to perform them in unsafe environments nor be caught at it, the health of the patients and these operations would be far in between and not as frequent as they are now. Some abortions are induced abortions and even though are a hazard to the women, they are done all the same with or without consent. A debate for another day. http://en.wikipedia.org... As for having the females make their own choice, Statistics show that 35% choose to have the operation," a decision that indicate there is problem not only with the promiscuity of the teens but with the decision to keep or remove the pregnancy" as stated by Choice Pregnancy Care center. http://www.choicespregnancy.org.... Lets us make the decision for our children, let us protect them and let us make Abortion illegal.

I am assuming that my opponent believes that pedophila shouldn't be legal, so I am going to debate that it should be legal. deinition of pedophila (from urban dictionary)-When big buisnesses in the TV/Movies/Music industry try to get their cosumers aroused to increase sales by making sexy people seem sweet and tender and making them dress up and behave like schoolgirls/boys. Often times, instead of imitation, they'll use actual children. Point One- It is considered freedom of speech. Many court cases have made pornography considered freedom of speech. Pedophila could be another type of porn but pedophila is alot more safer. Anyways, companies have a right to post a sexy woman on a car and try to convince them to buy the car. Now I will refute my opponent's case. Pedophila is nasty: This is highly opinionated. Some people might enjoy Pedophila. Childrens' lives are ruined because of them: This statement needs to be backed up with proof. Point Two- It is the adult's right to submit their kid into that business. Most parents sign a form allowing their kids to paricipate in that event. If that is made illegal, that hinders their first ammendment right and the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

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.