Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution ought to be legalized and controlled.

The act of an individual selling their time and offering sexual services in exchange for money, known as prostitution, should be acknowledged as legal under the law. Moreover, it should be regulated in a manner that would mitigate the issues currently associated with illicit prostitution. This would involve establishing guidelines and oversight to ensure the safety and rights of all parties involved, thereby reducing the negative consequences often linked to illegal prostitution practices.

I accept. I will be arguing that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. I also want to state that although I am taking the pro side and this debate is called "Abortion," I am not "pro-abortion." I am pro-choice. Therefore, I am not going to argue about whether or not women should get abortions, but whether or not they should be allowed to get abortions.

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.

Danger of Prostitution Prostitution is not without risk. The death rate of fisherman is 200. The homicide rate for prostitutes was 229. Murders of African American: 18-24: 102. (rates are per 100,000, per year) Sources: . http://jobs.aol.com... . http://www.feministcritics.org... . http://aje.oxfordjournals.org... In other words, being a prostitute is about as dangers as being a fisherman, and twice as dangerous as just being and African American male between the ages of 18 to 24. The homicide rate of prostitutes is likely to be exaggerated. The homicide rate of prostitutes was measured during the period 1967-1999 (32 years) during which overall homicide rates were higher. Also the sample sizeis small (117) and uses only samples from one town (Colorado Springs) that cannot represent all of the United States. The risks of illegal prostitution in Colorado is still relatively high. Prostitution can be safer. The only state in the USA where prostitution is legal is Nevada. A study about prostitution in Nevada brothels says: “Of more than 40 prostitutes we interviewed, from large and small, sub- urban and rural brothels across Nevada, only one reported any personal experience with violence in the brothels. ” “There is strong indication from the interview, document analysis, and ethnographic data presented here that legal brothels generally offer a safer working environment than their illegal counterparts. Regulated brothels offer particular ways of dealing with pragmatic safety issues and minimizing actual violence, including violence passed from johns to prostitutes and back to johns through diseases, viruses, and infections. Nevada brothels offer specific mechanisms to protect workers via the ways transactions are organized, the ways technology is ordered, the visibility of customers, the bureaucratic relationships among customers, managers, and workers, and the cooperation with police based on the mere fact of their legality. All of these mechanisms work to eliminate systematic violence and to discourage an atmosphere of danger and risk that, as a mirror image of fact, is significant. ” . http://esplerp.org... The publication below shows, that few clients asks for sex without condoms in Nevada Brothels, and no clients had penetrative sex without condoms: . http://ajph.aphapublications.org...; “Since those rules for Nevada brothels went into effect in 1988, the report said, there have been no cases of HIV infection and a negligible rate of STDs, the Los Angeles Times reports. ” Source: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... The issue with “risks of promiscuity” seems misplaced. If condoms are always used, the probability of the ripping of a condom, one of the partners being infected by an STD, and one of the partners being infected by the others, are relatively small. It is not an unreasonable risk. So: Prostitution CAN be relatively safe, especially if it is legal. My opponent claims that the number of prostitutes grew tenfold in Germany after legalization. This number is probably fiction, at least I did not find this number in any of the references he gives (but perhaps he can point it out to me where he got this number from). Clearly, after legalization, prostitutes do not have to hide their profession. So this may cause an increase in the number of known prostitutes. But in any case, there is nothing wrong with prostitution, as long is it is practiced safely between two consenting adults. So an increase in prostitution should not be necessarily be considered as a bad thing, especially if legalization also makes it possible to make prostitution safer. New Zealand study The New Zealand study shows that legalization in New Zealand was a success. Let me rebut the criticisms of my opponent: CON wrote:1. There was a move from managed (brothel and escort) to private sector following decriminalization. Danger to sex workers from both violence and disease increase when the go from a “managed environment” to “private sector. ” – “Street-based workers were more likely . . . to report refusal of a client to pay, having had money stolen by a client, having been physically assaulted by a client, having been threatened by a client with physical violence, having been held against their will and having been raped in the last 12 months. ” Rebuttal: I think CON confuses the 3 categories. There is “managed environment” (like brothels etc. ), “private sector” (prostitutes working for themselves indoors) and “street prostitutes”. Street prostitutes is definitely more dangerous than “managed environment” and “private sector”, but there is not a big difference between “managed environment” and “private sector”. “Private workers reported moving into private work because it provided a safer working environment, where they could earn more and attract better clients. “ In other words, the move to private sector was a GOOD thing! It made them safer! !! CON wrote: 2. The sample was not a random. The majority of participants were white, “between the ages of 22 to 45 years, had entered the industry after age 18, and had education levels of at least three to five years at the secondary school level with many having tertiary levels of education” – the New Zealand study is irrelevant to our situation where our demographic is much different. Demographics: Maori (non-white) 31.7%, NZ European (white) 50.7%, Pacific Island (non-white) 5.1%, Other: 12.5%. So barely a majority is white. This is probably not much different in the USA. What do you mean not random? The age group, demographics, education simply reflects the demographics of the prostitutes of New Zealand. Studies like the one in New Zealand haven’t been done in the USA as far as I know. Because of the illegality it is difficult to get reliable surveys on prostitutes in the USA. I have no reason to assume that the age demographic is very different from that of New Zealand. CON wrote: Even with these survey participants, the picture is horrifying. For example- “87% of all survey participants have a regular doctor but only half of these participants disclose their occupation to their doctor. ” This means 13% have no doctor at all, and 51% have not told a doctor that they are in the sex trade. THIS IS AFTER LEGALIZATION! 87% is not bad (probably higher that the percentage of people in the USA with health care). Half of the prostitutes disclose their work with their primary care physician. But many of them get check-ups from other institutions as well. They get regularly checked for STD’s even if they don’t tell their primary care physician. Conclusion: Prostitution can be legalized in a way that makes work safer for prostitutions as the Nevada and New Zealand examples show. Opponents of legalized prostitution like to depict prostitutes as helpless victims. This is not the reality of prostitution. Most prostitutes choose their profession freely, and we should be allowed to do so. But in the end, the most important argument, in my opinion, is freedom. Two consenting adults should have the freedom to have sex in exchange for money. Government does not have the right to take away the livelihood of a sex worker.

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 accept. My opponents arguments are formulated in a way where my rebuttals should be sufficient to support my case. I will argue the laws should take the Nordic approach -- specifically the Sweden model which has had significant sucess. It is the client, not the prostitute, who becomes the criminal under law. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...This model should be accepted because punishing the prostitute-type-reforms seem to be fairly unsucessful, and actually worsen current issues with prostitution. But since the Swedish model, in my opinion, seems to work, I will take their general mdel as my stance. Let's proceed.

1.Evidence- a. My opponent's first source is a religious website whose intent is witness and prayer for others. An moral implications (explicitly expressed or not) are invalid due to the intentions of this website. b. The link to my opponent's second and third sources are broken. c. Con's fourth, fifth and sixth sources are blogs powered by wordpress; their content doesn't serve as a reputable source on an empirical scale Conclusion: my opponent's arguments are not empirically sound. 2. Burdens- a. The Pro's burden in the debate is to advocate a vote for the legality of prostitution in the United States, not to reform it in other nations. That said, I do show how a vote for the Pro will revolution the safety and security of prostitutes in other countries through my Canada and Mexico argument. b. The Con has established their burden on economic security; accordingly social or moral implications aren't voting issues. Conclusion: This debate is weighing negative rights and freedom from moral law against economic security. 3. Scope- a. It is my opponent's responsibility to show how the economic issues he argues for are applicable to the U.S. Unless he explicitly shows this link, there is no impact for the economics of prostitution in India or Korea in this debate; he has not done this, do not make that link for him. b. Despite arguing on an economic framework, my opponent makes several moral arguments; gender inequality, unfaithful Korean men and human trafficking (which I cover in my Status Quo argument) are just a few. Conclusion: My opponent's arguments do not conform to the scope of this debate in terms of the U.S., Negative rights or the Economy. 4. Direct refutations- As a brief foreword; my opponent does not make his arguments in a clear format so I apologize if my refutations aren't clear. The following is meant as a response to the whole of my opponent's constructive. a. The problems my opponent poses aren't relevant to American citizens; they are dealing with the social negatives of prostitution in India and Korea. b. The negative impacts my opponent shows are non-unique, they would exist whether prostitution was legal or illegal c. U.S. Citizens have rights and options that Indians and Koreans do not; neither men nor women are 'forced' into prostitution in the U.S. They choose to become prostitutes by their own accord. d. Finally, as prior stated The con's arguments don't deal with the economic issue of prostitution, but of the moral discrepancies. First, gender inequality isn't relevant in this round as both men and women can be prostitutes and the argument of sex trafficking is an emotional fallacy. Second, the moral arguments are exactly what I contend to object in my constructive; we can't make laws just to enforce morality. Finally the appeals to potential consequence are exactly what I warn against in my underview. Not only that but they are non-unique, all the negative things my opponent shows would exist regardless of prostitution's legality; however I show in my second constructive argument how Canada's legalization of prostitution has actually made prostitutes safer and fought sex trafficking 5. Extensions- My opponent made no attacks, so these extensions aren't defensive in nature, but offensive. a. [2]"The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff". Legalization protects prostitutes not harm them. b. The Devadasi argument was one to illustrate the cultural morality which has led to prostitution being illegal in the U.S; the negative impacts Con argues for are a result of India's Caste system, not a result of prostitution. I would expand more, but that would lead me off on a tangent. Conclusion: The sex trafficking argument is ultimately an appeal to fear. In the US, legalization of prostitution would lead to greater protection of prostitutes, and it would exist either way in India due to their caste system.

No, I was using my Turn to better understand your argument... But, the debate is not "is criminalizing abortion dictatorial?" The debate is "should abortion be legal?" If you have already agreed with me that abortion is murder, then how can you argue that abortion should be legal? Are you suggesting we make murder legal? And if you are worried that by criminalizing abortion would create a dictatorship then shouldn't we legalize all forms of drugs? Because by not accepting that act is another form of what you called "normalization" as a matter of fact, every law would be "not accepting the queer" in one way or another... Where do we draw the line? Or do you suggest we go to an anarchy

One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman"s choice is to be valued. Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn"t really human yet. They don"t have feelings, they don"t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn"t even have organs at that time. We can"t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn"t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that"s her loss. Also, it"s a woman"s choice. It"s a woman"s choice whether she wants a child. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn"t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it"s a woman"s choice. What if the child can"t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can"t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities? Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don"t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather"s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you"re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason. To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?

Rule Violation Pro extended his arguments in Round 2. This is against the rules set forth in the debate. Pro was supposed to rebut only and therefore this should be deemed as misconduct. But because I like TheHitchslap and his arguments, and this could be my last debate in DDO, I will continue the debate. However, I ask the reader to ignore Pro's extended arguments, as I may not be able to respond to them. R1: The Niqab Promotes Sexualization First of all, Pro makes a false claim that the Quran commands wearing the veil to prevent themselves from being sexually assaulted. This is completely false [1]. Also, it's completely irrelevant because I'm not a Muslim. I'm not here to argue for or against Islam. I'm arguing whether it ought to be legalized or not. This comment is irrelevant. Pro then continues that "Women do not have a responsibility to not be sexually assaulted, that responsibility is on the perpetrator of the one doing the sexual assaulting who needs to cease." This is a red herring. I actually agree with Pro. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the niqab. The comment above is true whether the niqab or hijab is legalized or not. Pro amuses me when he says "The idea that men want to bang everything that walks is also unfair". This is another red herring, and to blame the niqab for it is outright ridiculous. Pro then says that the "niqab furthers dangerous thinking that should be shunned, not perpetrated within a free and democratic society". This is a bare assertion. Pro doesn't show that the hijab is the cause of sexualization or that it promotes it (or promotes dangerous thinking). The sources he provided are completely irrelevant. One talks about sexualization, and one about the hijab, but neither relate the two. So it's simply a bare assertion from Pro. Pro then continues that "It also means that women are no longer women. They become nothing more than sex objects by virtue of the sexualization in the first place." What? Where does Pro come up with these ideas? Did he ask a woman wearing the niqab? Semaa Abdulwali writes: "The niqab makes me feel liberated, and no law will stop me from wearing it" [2]. To argue that Semaa has become nothing more than a sex object is absurd. To turn this argument against Pro, some argue that pop videos [3] and female video characters [4] promote sexualization. Does that mean the government should ban them? That's absurd and therefore Pro's claim is invalid. Pro then argues that "dehumanizing promotion is correlated with increases in sexual assaults, rapes, depression rates increasing, eating disorders being enhanced, et cetera." (Poor source again). I don't disagree with Pro. But Pro needs to understand that correlation is not causation [5]. Even though that Pro didn't provide any data, let's assume for the sake of the argument, that hijab is correlated with increased sexual assaults. I repeat: Pro didn't present such evidence, but even if there was such correlation, it doesn't mean that the niqab caused this sexualization. And therefore, there is no evidence that banning the niqab leads to any reduction to sexualization! R2: If the Niqab was banned, its generally cool with Muslims This is not a contention. It's irrelevant. Who cares if they're cool with it or not? It's the women who are impacted that should be taken into account. Clearly many women weren't cool with it being banned [2][6][7][8][9][10], so this point goes against Pro. They also explain that they did so out of personal choice, and not under pressure by family. R3: Public Policy Isn't Always Rational, Sometimes it is Purely a Values Policy What? Is Pro serious? What does Pro mean that we ought not to be rational in our public policy! That's outlandish. We have to be very rational, and we must respect equality. Pro actually states that "I [Pro] hold too that as a Western Society we value equality". So if Pro values equality, then why should those women who want to wear the niqab are not treated and respected equally? You're entitled to wear what you like to wear, but they don't have the same right? How is that "equal"!? This is insane... Pro continues with bare assertions that "the Niqab, however, clearly does delegate the person to being a second class citizen by very nature of the dress". According to whom? That's Pro's opinion. But what about the women who wear the dress who feel liberated as I've shown? Shouldn't we respect their opinions? Should the government ban BDSM which are erotic practices that involve dominance and submission [11]? One could argue that it's demeaning to the person (the Masochists). I personally find BDSM very disgusting to be honest, but that still doesn’t warrant making it illegal. I ask Con a very important question. What values are these that he's referring to? These values are highly subjective, and they defer within the country and between different cultures and religions. Evangelists argue that abortion and same-sex marriage are gainst their values, and some atheists argue that teaching the Bible in school is against their values. Amish people argue that living in luxury is against their values, and Muslims argue that insulting their religion is against their values. Do you get my point? There's no "objective" value reservoir that all people should adhere to, and therefore the government ought not penalize a certain group of people based on the values of others. Also these values are not static, they change. Hundreds of years ago, slavery wasn't against the values of many Americans, but that doesn't make it right and not ought to be banned. This is a very important and I ask Pro to seriously consider my comments above. I mean this sincerely. R4: Illusion of Choice Pro is really interesting here. He brings a source showing that women want to wear the hijab, but he simply dismisses that claim as an illusion. Based on what is Pro making this claim? None. It's a bare assertion. To argue that all the women I listed above are living some kind of illusion is implausible. Pro's claim ought to be dismissed. But let me make this clear, even if it is an illusion, they have the right to have the illusion. By denying them "what they think" is right, you would be oppressing them. And let's say that a woman was forced or coerced to wear the niqab, it doesn't follow that we should ban the niqab. Let me explain. A boyfriend pressured a woman to drink, does it follow that we ban drinking [12]. And when a man pressures a woman to have breast implants, is that a pretext to ban breast implantation [13]? And many men force their wives to cover their cleavage and not to wear revealing clothes, does that mean we should ban any clothes that are not revealing? If there's an argument to be made, is an argument against the cause (the person who forces). The niqab is not the cause and therefore it doesn't follow that it should be banned. R5: Slippery Slopes, Slippery Slopes EVERYWHERE! I really dislike Pro's argument here because it's invalid. So I'll explain the Slippery slope fallacy (Also called the Camel's nose fallacy) [14]. An example of this fallacy is: "You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you." Pro argues that if one wears the niqab, then the one wearing the hijab would be considered less covered (and therefore less pure). How does it follow that it ought to be banned? What kind of non sense is that!! If we use Pro's analogy then the hijab ought to be banned, because a woman wearing the hijab would be less covered and less pure. And why cover the sleeves? Maybe we should ban them too because women would be considered less covered otherwise. By the end of it, all women ought to be naked, so no woman would be labeled "less pure" than another. What nonsense! It's none of your business or mine to decide what someone ought to think, and how someone ought to consider something as pure or not. If one considers a woman not wearing the niqab to not be pure, then he's an idiot, but that's his prerogative and opinion. It's none of the government's business to ban something just because some weirdo's think in a certain way. As I stated earlier, I will not be able to answer Pro's extended arguments in the second rounds as I ran out of space. That was in violation of the rules. [1] http://www.irfi.org... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk... [4] http://www.academia.edu... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.thestar.com... [7] http://www.cbc.ca... [8] http://ipolitics.ca... [9] http://niqablovers.blogspot.ca... [10] https://medium.com... [11] https://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://www.dearcupid.org...[13] http://isitnormal.com...[14] http://www.nizkor.org...


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

The legalization of prostitution should be determined by individual states. Let's delve into this argument. Firstly, prostitution is a matter that should be regulated at the state level. If states like Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Georgia decide to legalize prostitution, it should be their prerogative. It's unfair for other states like Kentucky, Florida, California, and Minnesota to impose their views on such a specific issue. Secondly, your argument has some flaws. Prostitution does not inherently force women into the trade. Nevada is a case in point where prostitution is legal, and women are not coerced into it. Legalized prostitution actually provides a safer environment for women to engage in the trade, as opposed to the dangerous conditions in states where prostitution is illegal and women have to operate in the shadows. Thirdly, it's sexist to equate a woman's worth solely with her vagina. This argument implies that a woman's value is diminished if she chooses not to have sex or if she engages in sexual activities. This perspective ignores a woman's other qualities such as being a good person, an intelligent individual, a loving parent, and a productive member of society. A woman's vagina is not her most important attribute. Fourthly, the most effective way to combat teen pregnancy has consistently been through comprehensive sex education. Legalizing prostitution and adopting a relaxed attitude towards sex will not increase teen pregnancy rates. The real problem lies in not educating children about the consequences of sex. Fifthly, in today's society, premarital sex is widely accepted. Having sex outside of marriage is now the norm, and society has come to terms with it. There is no significant harm in having sex outside of marriage, nor is there any considerable disadvantage to having a child out of wedlock. The crucial issue is the emotional compatibility and commitment between partners, regardless of whether they are married or not. A wedding ring and a legal title do not guarantee a successful relationship or make it more important. In summary, the decision to legalize prostitution should be left to individual states. If they choose to allow it, it could potentially be safer for the women involved. Legalizing prostitution does not diminish a woman's value, and it will not lead to an increase in teen pregnancy.

I was not able to post my argument for round 2 because my internet connection was lost. Though I was not able to post, it cannot be taken against me. Debate should be decided on arguments not on technicalities. So please judge this debate based on arguments. I did not post an irrelevant argument. What I did was to rebut my opponent’s contention that being human, you cannot be killed or raped anymore for whatever reason. He believes that his contention is absolute, which of course, not. This the fallacy of general rule. He destroyed exceptions to the rule. Further, he is trying to confuse us with the ambiguity of the words. It is clear that when I said killing, I was referring to murder. He committed the ambiguity fallacy. There is similarity between rape and what a prostitute does. I am talking about the end result, not the prior (which is asking for money) How about those countries that do not regulate prostitution? Prostitutes there are not that safe as you might think. It does not mean that a married man goes to a prostitute that he is no longer happy with his marriage, it may be a fact that by nature a man is like that.

1. Illegality vs Advertising Con: California has illegal marijuana, they still advertise it California has legalized medical marijuana (1), so they can have ads. As such, your argument is actually supporting my side because you show how legal medical marijuana has lead to advertisements, which promotes use. Con: High Times magazine popularizes marijuana This is non-responsive to my argument, which is about advertisement of the good being sold, not mentioned in tabloids. Con: Escort services bypass law and still promote Even if prostitution can be promoted illegally, it doesnt mean legalizing doesn't do the same. As such, this is also non-repsonsive because it doesn't answer how legalizing can promote awareness. Secondly, even if it is promoted iillegally, legalization would give prostitution much greater access to the public than just these sites, namely with TV commercials. Under a legalization system, not only would prostitution be on the sites you give, it would also appear in newspaper ads and the ads section on Yahoo. Thats promoting the action by raising awareness. 2. Legality and promotion Con: Legalization allows the activity, it does not promote it Legalization does allow the activity, but it also causes it to be promoted through the links to marketing and advertisement I have given. Con: Legalizing -> Promotion must be a direct link Not necessarilly. For example, pressing "D" on my computer does not "directly" lead to the letter showing up on the screen. Technically, pressing D leads to a series of electric signals in the mainframe, which lead to the letter showing up. But it would be foolish to say that pressing the "D" key does not cause it to show up on the screen. In the same respect, if legalization leads to something that leads to promotion, the link is still strong enough to attribute it to promotion. Con: Legalization must be necessary for increased promotion I have proved that it is. My opponent has never denied that companies can't advertise illegal activities on the TV or newspaper. This is a huge point in the round. At that point I prove that legality is necessary for this type of promotion. 3. Conclusion Con: Interracial marriage rates maintained after legalization Invalidate this because 1. There is no source showing us this, and 2. This would be hard to measure anyway considering that interracial marriages were illegal, and thus would be harder to track. At the end, my opponent concedes that advertisements and marketing are easier after legalization. I should win the debate right here for two reasons. 1. He has not denied that advertisements promote the action, so promotion increases after legalizing. He concedes to this. 2. Legalization leads to advertisements being inevitable, therefore I prove a correlation between legality and promotion. I urge a pro vote. 1. http://abcnews.go.com...

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.

First of all, I am glad to be able to debate this interesting topic against such an experienced debater, I hope it's a good debate.My opponent stated:"II. We can only assess what should/should not be legal when operating a under a compelling framework that provides proper justification for the existence of the state. For this reason, my main contention will be that dueling should be legal because states exist to protect rights. "I consider the final sentence is too broad when it comes to defining the purpose of the state. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty. The state consists, most broadly, of the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are settled in the form of laws. [1]So, by this definition, the state not only exists to protect rights but to establish order and security in a given society. More than a simple purveyor of rights, the state is the entity in that ensures the well-being of its people. Accompanied by this idea, philosophy of law has evolved throughout history to the point we can no longer synthesise the role of the state solely in the defense of freedom.My opponent stated:"Dueling is a right"My opponent declares that dueling is a right because free will entitles people to consensual dueling. This is true if examined strictly from a deontological viewpoint of law. Deontology is the view that the laws should protect individual autonomy, liberty, or rights. [2] However, my opponent falls in the mistake of taking this normative of law as the only and correct normative of law, when it's clear society is moving from the defense of free-will towards the defense of virtue. Take for example prostitution; a consensual exchange of money for sexual services. It's deemed illegal in many states, because other factors like exploitation, inequality, gender roles, ethics, morality and social costs and benefits are considered. Now that we've settled the "free will" approach is not the only approach to consider legality, I will discuss other approaches. Utilitarianism is the view that the laws should be crafted so as to produce the best consequences. [3] According to utilitarianism, it is evident that dueling should not be permitted. Human life is the basis of society, so it should be in the best interest of the state to protect it. Life is obviously the better consequence over death. Lets observe several ways in which the legalization of dueling enters in conflict with the utilitarian theory of law: Life is a preferable consequence over death in a society that values the human being as its basic unit. The winner of the duel gets the psychological burden of committing homicide. [4] A clean conscience is a preferable consequence over a psychological burden. The loser of the duel dies, meaning he or she can no longer pay taxes, contribute to the labor force, raise a family, etc. Having more people is preferable, unless we are faced with the problem of over population (which never justifies ending lives). If killing a person becomes legal, the mere act of homicide becomes socially accepted. This is a fact, we can see an illegal drug like marijuana being frowned upon by society while equally dangerous drugs are considered acceptable because of their legal status. A society that rejects homicide is a preferable consequence over a society that accepts it. Family and loved ones of the duel's loser are left with feelings of anguish and maybe even desire for revenge. This is, again, a less favorable consequence. If dueling is not properly controlled, it can be used as an excuse to commit murder. The same way as murderers sometimes claim self-defense, they can claim they were dueling against their victims and even get free if the process is not strictly controlled. Legislations and institutions for regulating duels cost money to the state. It is preferable to spend money on preventing deaths rather than promoting them. Aretaic moral theories such as contemporary virtue ethics emphasize the role of character in morality. Virtue jurisprudence is the view that the laws should promote the development of virtuous characters by citizens. [5] Here the result is even more evident. It is of lesser virtue to kill than not to kill. Killing other humans goes against nature and against ethics. We are supposed to be moving towards a post-conventional society (morally speaking). It wouldn't be convenient to go back to a pseudo-barbarian state where killing is justified by feelings like anger, wrath or even honor, with all virtue neglected. According to modern conflict theories, conflict will always exist, so the state should promote virtuous solutions like dialogue instead of fostering violent solutions. Now, my opponent also noted some "advantages" for the legalization of dueling. Let us go deeper:"Advantage one: Legitimitizing dueling could cut down on other acts of violence"I think both, my opponent and I, have insufficient information to make such a claim. It is not safe to assume dueling will replace street fights to some extent. We have to first know the demographics of these street fighters. Are they people interested in legality and honor more than they are in making damage? Prior to the debate, we agreed that the steps in order for the duel to be legitimate would not be taken into consideration, but since we are talking about legalized homicide one must speculate some kind of control is taken before the duel (to ensure its legality). Having said this, we cannot assume the average street fighter would choose to go through the complications of scheduling a duel rather than just fighting. Additionally, who can assure legal dueling will stop people from seeking vengeance after someone is killed? I personally consider too many assumptions have to be made for this claim to even be considered. "Advantage two: Promotes a sense of honor. "While it is true, it also brings dishonor into the value system of society. Moreover, it brings forward a choice that people normally don't have to face: Death or Dishonor? Both are undesirable choices, for it is obvious people would like to avoid both. We have to consider the social repercussion for a person who, thinking about his life and family, declines a duel. It is not fair that the state endorses a person to sentence another to or a life of cowardice and social disapproval."Advantage three: Supports governments proper purpose"This is only true if you limit the governments' purpose only to granting rights. If we consider a government that must protect common interest, virtue and human value, legalizing dueling does not serve a proper purpose.Finally, I absolutely agree with my opponent when it comes to the state's role in protecting certain rights. Human rights, for example, are considered vital in any society and any form of government must protect them. However, when we discuss the right of two human beings to kill each other, I think it ought to be reconsidered. Do we really want to go back to a society were people can just lose control and decide to legally kill one another? We should seek for a government that protects us from emotion-driven action, serving as a voice of reason. The day human beings are allowed and encouraged to answer recklessly to their emotions, that is the day when the state really fails.Sources: [1] http://www.britannica.com...[2], [3], [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.killology.com...

Pro says that people have the right to their bodies but that doesn't mean that people have the right to kill an unborn child. Why even have unprotected sex if you are not ready to face the consequences of your own actions. Many people say it should be illegal because of rape but, just because someone hurt you doesn't make it right to hurt someone else. Every day thousands of babies die. There are over 900,000 babies that have died since January 1, 2016. Every 30 seconds a baby is aborted. There are about 1.2 million abortions each year. If anything I think giving up for adoption would be a healthier alternative. In conclusion, I don't think someone else should determine whether you live or die. The infant was brought to this world for a reason it is a gift from God. The decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong and should be overturned. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that the right to privacy defended in Roe v. Wade is "utterly idiotic" and should not be considered binding precedent: "There is no right to privacy [in the US Constitution]." In his dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that an abortion "is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution..." Furthermore, the 14th Amendment bars states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Supreme Court overreached in Roe v. Wade when it excluded unborn children from the class of "persons." If women become pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. People need to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Having sexual intercourse, even when contraceptive methods are used, carries with it the risk of a pregnancy. The unborn baby should not be punished for a mistake made by adults. If women are unprepared to care for their children, they should at least put them up for adoption. Furthermore, the legalization of abortion sends a message that human life has little value. Pope Francis condemned "'the throwaway culture'" in Jan. 2014, stating that "what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves, who are discarded as 'unnecessary'. For example, it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day..." House Representative Randy Hultgren (R-IL) wrote in Jan. 2014 that "When we tell one another that abortion is okay, we reinforce the idea that human lives are disposable, that we can throw away anything or anyone that inconveniences us." Abortion may also lead to future medical problems for the mother. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages are attributed to a prior history of induced abortion, and stated that "Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy." A 2013 Chinese study published in the peer-reviewed Indian Journal of Cancer found an association between breast cancer and a history of abortions. A Feb. 2014 study published in the peer-reviewed Cancer Causes and Control found that abortion "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer" and that "the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of [abortions] increases." Having an abortion done always carries the risk of not being able to become pregnant ever again in life. In conclusion, I believe that abortion is wrong. The reasons for this is because, even though abortion may take a burden off of some women's shoulders, afterwards it's just putting weight on again. Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. Another reason why abortion should be illegal is that killing a baby-an innocent human is wrong but torturing it is even worse. Also lastly a lot of religions forbid abortion. People can do a lot of things to avoid an issue like abortion. One of them is, to try to avoid unwanted pregnancies. A baby deserves the right to live. https://letters2president.org... https://abortion.procon.org.../ http://youthvoices.net... http://www.healthguidance.org...

< > 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.

It is plausible that legalization opens the door to promotion, the position being argued for is that legalization is what “promotes”. While my opponent made a great attempt, his examples indicate no causal connection between the two. Just because a good or service is illegal does not mean that it cannot be advertised, marketed or promoted. Examples include prostitution and marijuana, which are promoted in many forms through today’s media. In California, Marijuana is illegal, but there are advertisements for the cannabis card membership in newspapers and magazines. We have magazines like High Times which popularize marijuana growth, culture and gives cultivation tips on how to grow without police interruption. Prostitution is likewise illegal in California, but being an “escort” is not. Telephone sex lines are another prime example of allowing people to skirt the issue. There are a number of websites that connect consenting adults together for sex that lead to the exchange of money, and even boasting hints and tips for the johns. See http://sex.perkel.com.... At some point she will ask you if you want to "get comfortable." This means "are you ready to have sex?" Your job now is to lead her to the bedroom and get naked. To protect herself legally, she will wait until the client is naked before she undresses. I suppose the legal idea here is that you've paid for a massage, but when she sees your irresistible naked body, she can no longer control herself and has to **** you. As seen by these examples, illegality does not deter promotion. More importantly, my opponent has failed to show that legalization is a catalyst to “promotion”. Rather, he stated that “advertisements are what promotes the object”; meaning there is a middle man between the law and the alleged promotion. To show a causal link between the two, one would need to show that legalization is a necessary component to the increased publicity, sales or public awareness of the illegal goods/services. If promotion does not require legalization, the argument breaks down. Legalization “allows” an activity; it does not necessarily promote it. Here is another example of a court case which has legalized without promotion: 1967 – Loving v. Virginia – The Supreme Court legalized interracial marriages. There are no statistics showing a causal link between the legalization of interracial marriage and the increase thereof. While my opponent is correct that advertisements and marketing are easier post legalization, his position fails the definition of “promote” because he has not shown a causal link that the law, in itself, is the catalyst that increases sales and/or public awareness to a particular issue.

I have clearly stated that by accepting you agree that the BoP is shared. First of all i would like to make a little speech why I think drugs should be legalized . The war on drugs has been going on for decades , now it has cost world economies billions and thousands of innocent people were put into jail for a victim less crime but humanity has been using drugs for thousands of years of human history it is a part of human culture that we are not gone rid of by criminalizing it from Alexander the Great's opium to modern age cannabis use criminalizing people for drug use will not stop people doing it . Now i will explain why legalizing drugs is a good idea 1. Violence&Black Market Why do we associate drug use with violence? It is because people who want to use drugs have to go to a black market to buy them this market is unregulated and uncontrolled , different factions involved in drug trade are fighting against each other and by legalizing drugs we would give people the chance to buy drugs from a more reliable source such as the government or a regulated private sector . This market is regulated which makes everything better , don't you think most people would rather buy from it than from a drug dealer in a dark alley that has no knowledge of business management , The black market would collapse 2. Freedom. In a truly free society people shouldn't restrict the freedom of others this is very relevant to the issue of banning drugs as drug usage is a victim-less crime and I consider banning it to be immoral. 2. Safety. Why do so many people overdose on drugs? for example heroin apart from its addictiveness is not as harmful to your body as let's say cocaine as heroin addicts can survive decades and the only reason why they die in the end is because of overdosing. The reason why people overdose on such drugs is because like I explained before they are forced to buy them from an unregulated market where drug dealers can put stuff into the drug to increase the value therefore customers are not sure how pure it is and might inject too much causing an overdose. 3. Price. Drug addicts often have to engage in criminal activity to get money for their next fix but if drugs were legalized the price would go down and it wouldn't be such a hard job to get your next fix so your life can be a lot better. 4. Prison Overgrowth . For this example let's look at the USA , 5% of the worlds population lives in USA yet 25% of all prisoners in the world are in USA , around 80% of all drug arrests are simply for having drugs on you ,this is putting innocent people in prison and over crowding prisons that have to be paid for. 5. Money. Taxing those who produce drugs will give the government a lot of money , this is a simple argument not much to add to this argument 6. Statistics. in 1970 there were 9000 convictions or cautions for drug offenses and 15% of young people had used an illegal drug. In 1995 the figures were 94 000 and 45%. Prohibition doesn't work. Sources . http://www.drugwarfacts.org............ . http://www.poppies.ws............ 'Alexander the Great introduced poppies to the Near East, starting the flowers long history in Asia. Opium was largely used as a social drug in India and China. Ancient Asian texts described the medical properties of opium. ' . http://www.spiegel.de............ ' If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs. ' . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

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.

The problem of what substances should be legal or should not be legal has been debated over and over in the past. Firmly, I believe that all drugs in the United States should be legalized. 1. Firstly we must recall the main argument for pro-choice members of the US. They use the argument 'It's her body' with that in mind, anything you do to your body should be legal. The fact that a woman can cut a fetus out of her body, but I can't smoke a bit of weed is illogical. 2. It would be a major source of revenue for the United States. Instead of not being able to tax the hell out of all drugs. Right now, even though people are getting drugs, the government doesn't have anything to tax because the dealers definitely aren't the most legal people themselves. If retail stores such as Walmart or Target carried narcotics, it would be a large amount of goods taxable by the US government. 3. People are stupid. They are going to acquire drugs one way or another even if it is illegal. This would also clean out our prison system by keeping people who aren't really hurting anyone in jail, while we are wasting money fighting drugs instead of important things.