Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Advocating for the Legalization of Prostitution Nationwide
"Indeed, that's why we should advocate for its legalization in every state across the country, or at the very least, enable sex workers to obtain licenses, which they arguably shouldn't need since it's their own body. But it's better than nothing." Personally, I support the legalization of prostitution, but not "everywhere," as unrestricted legalization could lead to unregulated activities, including minors entering the trade. I favor the legalization of prostitution "almost" everywhere, allowing states to authorize brothels that can control who is permitted to engage in the trade and who is not, such as minors. Licensing would make it easier to identify illegal activities like human trafficking and forced prostitution. If legal brothels are mandated to undergo regular health checkups, unlike in the Netherlands, the spread of diseases like AIDS could be better managed. "Actually, if prostitution was legal without requiring a license, they wouldn't need pimps or managers." It seems you may have misunderstood my previous point or I didn't explain it clearly enough. Although prostitution is legal "everywhere" in the Netherlands, human trafficking and abuse of women still occur. It would be preferable for sex workers to operate within legal brothels that do not force them into prostitution or abuse them, as these establishments are state-regulated. Brothels should only be allowed in counties with a population of 400,000 or less. I suggest increasing this limit to cover more areas, and states should decide whether to permit brothels in their counties, as this could "generate revenue" for the state. To clarify my stance on prostitution, I believe it should be made legal in more states beyond Nevada, but only in designated areas like legal brothels.

Thank you for accepting my challenge, I hope it's an enlightening debate.To clarify what i am debating against, I will introduce an unofficial but popular term that describes my case perfectly: "Slut shaming" is defined as the act of making a woman feel guilty or inferior for engaging in sexual behaviors that violate traditional expectations. [1] Observe:In its declaration of sexual rights, the World Health Organization (the public health branch of the United Nations) states:Sexual rights embrace human rights that are already recognized in national laws, international human rights documents and other consensus documents. These include the right of all persons, free of coercion, discrimination and violence, to:the highest attainable standard of health in relation to sexuality, including access to sexual and reproductive health care services;seek, receive and impart information in relation to sexuality;sexuality education;respect for bodily integrity;choice of partner;decide to be sexually active or not;consensual sexual relations;consensual marriage;decide whether or not, and when to have children; andpursue a satisfying, safe and pleasurable sexual life. [2].Let us examine some particular points, like "right to decide to be sexually active or not", "right to consensual sexual relations", and the "right to pursue a satisfying safe and pleasurable sexual life". The declaration grants every human being, including women, the right to live a sex life as they desire, as long as it does not violate other people's rights. This means that if a woman finds it sexually satifying and pleasurable to lead a promiscous life style, she should be allowed to do so without any form of discrimination or social disproval, for she is only excerting the sexual rights mentioned above.Please note that I am not advocating for a society that encourages promiscuity, less one that promotes unprotected sex or other unsafe sexual practices. I am in favor of sex education (in fact, the delcaration states that as a right). My debate only rises from the common conception that a promiscuity in women is something rejectable and that deserves social criticism (whereas promiscuity in men is usually admired and even encouraged.) Virgin praising is yet another factor that contributes to this culture. It is usually desirable for a woman to be a virgin, and virgins are well seen by society. Why should a woman who choses to have sex automatically be relegated to a lower social category? Why should sexually active men prefer virgins over sexually active women? It is unfair, and should not be accepted under any circumstance.This phenomenum causes many social illnesses, like rape culture, victim blaming, sexual bullying and objectification, based on the belief that a woman who choses to live an active sex life is not worthy of respect, and just represents a source of pleasure for men. Not only are women judged on their sex lives, but also on the clothes they wear, the places they visit, or the partners they engage with. This constitutes an essential violation of human rights, for no person should be discrimintaed on the basis of gender [3]. Women should be allowed to chose how they dress, what places to visit and how many times they have sex without being frowned upon or objectified. Girls should not be taught to be chaste and careful just to avoid rape, instead, men should be thought rape is as unthinkable as cannibalism, and not justified in any way by a girls appearence or behavior. Women should not be told to dress conservative in order to "get respect", respect should be inherent, and men should be expected to respect any woman, regardless of her looks.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.un.org...[3] http://www.upsettingrapeculture.com...

I interpret the Resolution to mean, "Abortion should be LEGALLY allowed." Next I will remind voters that they should vote based on the arguments made and not their personal opinions. If I were judging this debate, I would have no idea which side to vote for prior to finishing reading all the rounds. First I will address your arguments: 1) You say the woman has the right to treat her body as she chooses. I agree with this 100%. However, in a civil society, we must recognize that rights regularly conflict. This conflict means we must critically evaluate the priority and nature of individual rights to determine the most just course of action. An easy example: Nearly everyone agrees that people have the right to free speech. However, this right is curtailed when it endangers the safety and well being of another person, such as in the case of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. Simply stating that woman has the right to her body doesn't necessarily guarantee the right to an abortion. Critical analysis of conflicting rights must be done. 2) You say that people who oppose abortion should still allow the woman her choice in the matter. This would be a legitimate point if abortion were not a case where multiple people's rights conflict. The conflict of different person's rights means that other people need to get involved in order to preserve justice. For instance, people can't simply sit by and allow a thief to steal if he chooses because he is violating other people's rights. 3) You say every child should be wanted. Again, no one will disagree with you on this. However, this normative statement does nothing to impact the abortion debate IF abortion is indeed in conflict with a fetus' right to life. If a fetus has a right to life, then there is no difference between killing a fetus and a two year old. It is obviously unjustified to say that killing a two year old is legit because "every child should be wanted" and that particular two year old isn't. The only relevant issue is the right to life and woman's right of body. 4) You say if abortions were made illegal, more back alley abortions would occur. This is an argument we cannot take into consideration. If women chose to endanger themselves in that matter, it is their own choice and they bear responsibility for it. Many agencies exist that aim to help young women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. These agencies did not exist prior to Roe v. Wade and would work to make back alley abortions less attractive and less likely. There is also no way to weigh this issue. No one knows how prevalent back alley abortions would be or if they wouldn't even be used at all. The complete absence of compelling informative statistics means that this is an issue we simply are unable to consider. While we do not know what the prevalence of back alley abortions would be, there are statistics documenting the deaths caused by illegal abortions. In the 1960's the number of deaths caused by abortion was around 200-275 per year. This number pales in comparison to the 1 million plus abortions that occur each year. Furthermore, "back alley abortions" were usually performed by licensed doctors who chose to break the law. When one looks at the decline in deaths cause by abortion, the most obvious correlation to the decline is advances in medical practices NOT the legalization of abortion. Once again the issue of rights trumps this issue. Rights must be protected no matter what the consequences. Now for my own arguments: 1) The right to life outweighs the right to privacy. The most valuable thing a person can have is his or her own life. Life is a thing of ultimate value and thus its protection should be of the highest priority. Other rights depend on life. In order to have a right to privacy or the right to one's own body, one must have life. The right to body and privacy inherently presupposes the right to life. Once you are dead you do not have a body to have a right to, you do not have a life or interests to hold private. 2) The value of life is so high that we must err on the side of caution. If a fetus does have a right to life, over one million people are being legally killed each year. This evil is so great that we should err on the side of caution. If the legal system is wrong, we are killing people on a magnitude comparable to Hitler and Stalin. As a society, we should do everything in our power to avoid being responsible for such a horrendous act. The sheer magnitude of the possible evil of abortion is so great that it overwhelms the inherent uncertainty. Lets imagine a button that, if pressed, has a .001% chance of nuking New York. Even though there is only a small chance that any harm would actually be done by pressing the button, the magnitude of the disaster overwhelms uncertainty. No one should ever press that button. 3) A fetus has a right to life. i)A fetus has the potentiality to become a full grown human. A fetus relates to an adult in the same way that a two year old relates to an adult. Neither is fully-grown, but both will become an adult, barring death. ii)What makes murder wrong? The great evil of murder is that it deprives us of our future. It prevents all the experiences of happiness, pleasure, love, and success. If murder did not deprive us of our futures, it would not be wrong. Thus we can determine if an action is murder or is unethical on the same magnitude as murder by evaluating if the action deprives a thing of a future like ours. A fetus undoubtedly has a distinctly human future, a future where it will smell flowers and listen to music and swim. Depriving the fetus of that future is unethical on the magnitude of murder. iii)The pro-choice defender must demonstrate a morally relevant difference between a fetus and an adult if they are going to assert that a vast moral difference such as absence of a right to life exists between a fetus and an adult. Furthermore, they must explain HOW that moral difference means that the fetus doesn't have a right to life. Again I would like to emphasize voter impartiality.

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

How I abortion any further murder than using birth control or masturbate? Both are hindering the potential life of a human which seems to be the only argument that my opponent had to offer. And I think we've passed the "maybe she will learn her lesson and never have sex."I don't think that a one night fling with a condom that breaks really should be a punishable act with the fine of more than 18 year of commitment, 9 month pregnancy which is a pain already, birth, a complete lack of sleep for the first year or so, having her entire life limited hundredfold, and paying a minimum fine of $241.080: The costs of lego not included.Would you honestly be willing to choose between only having sex when you absolutely are certain you want children (because accidents do happen), something men don't really have to consider since they can sleep with whomever they want and then vanish off the face of the earth for all she knows, and have little or no restrictions. However, making abortion illegal poses serious restrictions to females and gives off the message that women do not have the rights to themselves and to choose. Either they have sex and if an accident does happen they just have to shut up and face the punishment or not be allowed to do what they want to, even if that is just to have a little fun under the starlight. This is a massive step backwards when it comes to female social position and equality: That women do not have a choice, do not have the ability to decide for themselves and should just be there for reproductive purposes. It is either the "murder" of something that never lived against brutally breaking the rights of someone that has been living for q minimum of nearly two decades, give or take a few years. To conclude:In the beginning of my case I asked my opponent a few questions that his entire case hung on, a few questions that he really needed to answer in order for his case to hold up. He did not answer these question; and in hindsight he didn't do much to even protect his case. I showed you, dear readers, how abortion, be it moral or not, is a needed thing and making it illegal is not a steo forward, it isn't saving anyone and there are a lot of cases where it just does not apply. abortions are not going away soon, they'll just change form if we would try and stop them. Abortions would no longer just remove the fetus, but possibly harm the woman and even killing her. This is not a future for us, and thus we conclude that abortion is not the dreaded thing my opponent wishes it was.thank you also for the debate.

"A complete red herring. Of course Nevada brothel's aren't taxed, I never disputed that. HOWEVER, I am arguing that when prostitution becomes a legal industry, customers SHOULD get taxed per "bang for a buck", if you get my drift (everything they pay for sexual offers). Because if prostitution does become a recognized business, then why not institute taxes throughout? " The fact is, people are extremely resistant to changes, such as taxation. The logistics of setting up taxation in Nevada on the prostitution industry is quite difficult. The logistics of legalizing and setting up tax systems to tax prostitutes throughout the U. S. would not only be difficult, but damn near impossible. The taxes, I'll address later. "There is nothing immoral with it. Whatever "image" will be projected on the prostitutes by customers, it is the women/men THEMSELVES who chose to live with their profession. They aren't forced to become prostitutes - they chose to. Therefore, it is their burden to carry whatever consequences come along. " Yes, people are the ones making such choices. The image however, is not only allowed but actively supported by a government supporting prostitution, creating and recognizing a group of people who have no choice or desire but to be at the sexual whims of whoever happens to pay them. Next, is the claim that people aren't forced to become prostitutes. It must be noted, however, that many prostitutes are forced to be prostitutes, as seen with examples of other countries, where prostitution is legal. For example, in Germany, forced prostitution, underage prostitution, and human trafficking is more easily lost under the cover of legal prostitution. Also a quote regarding the prostitution being a legitimate business. A legitimate businessman or businesswoman does not face these things: "Few activities are as brutal and damaging to people as prostitution. Field research in nine countries concluded that 60-75 percent of women in prostitution were raped, 70-95 percent were physically assaulted, and 68 percent met the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans and victims of state-organized torture. Beyond this shocking abuse, the public health implications of prostitution are devastating and include a myriad of serious and fatal diseases, including HIV/AIDS. .. " Yes, will always break the law. But a tendency to not stray too far from legal behaviors is all too common. Prostitution being widely illegal makes it quite easy for police and other law enforcement to see when people break the law, and this fear can keep people from doing it as well - a double win. This isn't all, however. Child and forced prostitution will become a real problem. When prostitution is illegal, any prostitution is easily stopped or caught (relatively). When prostitution becomes legal, child or forced prostitution can be somewhat masked by this new legal aspect. If investigations are made, a skillful or lucky manager might hardball or flatter an inspector into a temporary trust, where they might not press the investigation but rather investigate other evidence first, leaving time for these criminals to run away. Maybe a bit more theoretical, but perfectly possible, especially as it wouldn't be possible today. A prostitution ringleader would be jailed on sight today. "True, but there is a crucial difference in this scenario: the fact that prostitution will BECOME a legal business. True, Nevada will lost at least some of their potential customers to other competitors (though I suspect not many), but OVERALL, their net income will increase. . .. Making prostitution a legit industry will introduce a whole new aspect to the economy, and Vegas will surely be the first to benefit, and probably monopolize, from it. " It is quite clear that my opponent has been inundated with ideas that hard work and ability will triumph in our country, without fail. As anyone can see, this is not the case. First of all, there is no guarantee that prostitution will become a legitimate business, being taxed. Yes, it might be legal, but won't necessarily be taxed. Next of all, competition is horrible for business. Not only does it stress the businessmen out, but also the idea of trying to outthink your opponents does not help either. IBM was the leading and pioneer computer industry. Does anyone CARE about them now? They have been beaten down by copycat and improved innovators, by Apple, Dell, HP, among others. "This perceived "problem" is easily circumvented. Like the porn industry, the prostitution industry will have hard guidelines and regulations concerning STD's until medicine can catch up. This means that customers will have to be given a mandatory STD checkup every time they come for services, while prostitutes will have to take a mandatory STD checkup every few months or so. In fact, I can imagine great expansion on these guidelines. Customers have their own "profile" when they go to a certain business to avoid redundant checkups, sex with condoms will be cheaper, etc. " What people don't understand or know is that testing is not a concrete process. Even after being infected, a prostitute can go up to 12 weeks without symptoms. Jeffrey J. Barrows, DO, Health Consultant on Human Trafficking projects that a prostitute can expose above 500 clients to this disease. Another thing to know is that condoms, the only commonly used defense against prostitution, does not even work in some cases. Ambitious condom makers, (due to competition, it might be noted) have started to created air holes for a smoother and more comfortable wrap. These holes are guaranteed to keep sperm in the condom, but there is no mention of the possibility of STD viruses traveling through, which are much smaller than sperm. MY OPPONENTS CORE ARGUMENT 1. Vegas shouldn't be the focus of attention 2. No evidence/reason to show how legalizing prostitution will lead to men "degrading" women who aren't prostitutes 3. Vegas will profit from legalizing prostitution, because it's the birth of a NEW industry 1. I have never contended that, just that it would be hurtful to the city and state. 2. This has been refuted with a ridiculously large helping of extra evidence. Note the quote with percentages and listings of all the abuse that occurs to prostitutes, mental and physical. 3. It takes only a bit of logic to see that the second lemonade stand on your block might steal your profit. HIS NEXT 3 1. Legalizing prostitution is not immoral 2. Legalizing prostitution will help the economy - both Vegas' and USA in general 3. Legalizing prostitution will curb the spread of STD's 3. refuted by quote and projection from Jeffrey J. Barrows. 2. Maybe, but really a stretch. 1. Morality is a subjective measure. I would argue that it is not immoral for consensual sex, regardless of pay or no pay. However, I WOULD argue that the abuse and STDs spread from prostitution IS immoral, along with the opening of a new crime industry. Finally, people like Charles H. Ramsey, former Police Chief of Washington, DC, stated on Washington Post "I believe that two crimes make a city look totally out of control. That's open prostitution and open air drug trafficking. " Do we want the whole U. S. to be subject to such depravity? For the good of America, and most importantly our future perception and code of integrity, and perhaps also for our children VOTE CON. My opponent may have a degraded sense of morals and a completely blind eye to reputation, safety, and other issues, that shouldn't mean that you, the voter, should have the same depraved morality. Thank you for enduring this debate, sloppy perhaps, but making my first debate enjoyable and memorable. :]

I say NO it should not be legal, i only see it able to be legal is if it's Rape, Other then that it was their choice to have sex, and they know the consequences of that action/s .

Abortion should be legalized because everybody mistakes and the baby might have defects that family can not support and the baby might be in pain for life with that defect. Sometimes young women make mistakes and accidentally get pregnant, if they are unprepared financially and emotionally they should have the option of having an abortion. When the person finds out the baby has a defect and the family can't support the costs to support the child or the child will live in pain for his/her life because of the defect, it is ok to put it out of its misery.

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

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.

I would like to jump right in, but considering this is my final post, I will be refuting con's points, while hopefully leaving room for a conclusion and some further points of my own. . Lets begin. My opponent's first rebuttal is to pornography. The sources that Con has cited are from what he says a "Feminist Warrior" and a feminist activist. I'd be surprised to find an anti-porn feminist that revealed statistics that showed that porn has a positive effect on society. One thing that research has taught me is that everything can be spun, and everything can be misinterpreted to promote an agenda. These are clear and cut examples of Bias sources, they weed out the bad, and ignore the good. I can play that same game. "Over the years, many scientists have investigated the link between pornography (considered legal under the First Amendment in the United States unless judged "obscene") and sex crimes and attitudes towards women. And in every region investigated, researchers have found that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. " (1) That quote is from Milton Diamond, a writer for The-Scientist. There is another Article entitled "Porn Up Rape Down" (2) that shows that a survey has revealed that Sex crime has seen an 84% Decrease since 1980, especially since porn has been readily available on the internet. There are dozens of similar articles showing the same thing. We are in a free society. What we choose to do with our own bodies is our own business. Con has tried to show a link between Pornography and Sex Crime using Bias Sources by authors with clear agendas. I have shown you sources that, while not necessarily being without bias, at least are written by people that do not seem to be Porn enthusiasts, or Porn Directors or Actors. I would also like to point out the Fallacious attempt my opponent makes to support his argument. We can both agree that Child Pornography is immoral. In the Dines interview she has deduced that watching porn led these men to commit Child-Rape. Saying that Porn leads to rape is like saying that since many murderers use knives, then owning a knife is the cause of murder. The tendency to rape is not Caused by porn, and in fact, it allows an outlet for sexual frustration. I also would like to mention that while my opponent argues a causal link between porn and sexual violence, I could, in the same vein, argue that Catholicism causes Catholic Priests to commit Child Rape. I wont because the notion is ridiculous, But I would argue that this is a case of sexual Violence for which no porn is present, and the Catholic Priest, while not an accurate representation for the common christian, is clearly on Religion's side of the fence. My opponent's next debate topic is a long and drawn out semantic argument that Christians are led not by the bible, but by god in their heart. He can quote scriptures and pastors all day, but it doesn't change the fact that there is simply no factual proof of this. Besides, my opponent nullifies all of this sidestepping with the following. "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. " Not only has my opponent admitted to drawing morals from the bible, but his lofty language such as "Voice of the Spirit Within" simply means, "Interpretation. " So what exactly is the "Voice of the Spirit within" for the passages that condone slavery, or rape, or incest? are these symbols? then what is real and what is symbolism? My opponent stresses the term "True Christian," and promised examples and sources. So far he has yet to provide me with anything but opinions of Pastors and bible quotes. The bible quotes are the most interesting. I find it fascinating that you try to prove yours isn't a religion of written codes by quoting a WRITTEN CODE that says so. What's most interesting is that my opponent seems to say that In order to be a true christian, you must not always follow the bible but follow god. If one sees that the bible condones eternal sin and one believes that this is immoral, (And it does, Jesus himself condemns anyone who denies the holy spirit for eternity. ) then they are making a SECULAR judgment based on SECULAR morality. the idea that this thought that is contradictory to God's word is somehow inspired by him is completely paradoxical. My morals come from me, they don't come from a collective or a religion. I am the decider of my own morality. It's a great way to dodge pesky things like atrocity and immoral actions in a "holy book. " My opponent, by listening to "god in his heart" is making moral decisions based on Logic and secular judgment. By arguing against the rules set in his holy book, I believe he has only supported my case. Now onto some new points. Secularity is tied to prosperity. I would like to quote an article from the Sunday Times "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today. According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems. "(3) If my opponent discredits these studies, then he must also discredit the studies he has shown to demote pornography. There is a statistical link between Atheism and the positive morality of a country. "Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions. He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy. The study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from " uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested. " In Conclusion: I believe I have shown you that beyond a shadow of a doubt, both logic and statistical proof have shown that Secular Morality is not only more beneficial to society, but is also a must used by the Atheistic and Religious alike. For the Atheist, it is things determined by their logical minds that they have deemed wrong and immoral, based on their own observations. For Religious, it is the cause for Special Pleading or the insistance that "This quote is misinterpreted," or "That quote isn't meant to be taken literal," or even, "times have changed. " Indeed they have, and it's time to stop drawing our morality from a Bronze Age Archaic superstition and draw them from what we know, what we can observe, and how our actions affect those around us. not because god says it's a good Idea, but simply because it's the right thing to do. nothing could possibly be more elemental to our continued existence. Thank you. Vote Pro. That is all. (1) . http://www.the-scientist.com... (2) . http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu... (3) . http://www.timesonline.co.uk...


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Decriminalized?

The legalization of prostitution is not advisable as it is morally reprehensible and poses significant risks to the health and safety of the individuals involved, particularly women. In contemporary times, we are well aware of the potential consequences of sexual activities, including the transmission of various diseases. This knowledge underscores the argument against the legalization of prostitution.

I am aware that trans-gender operations currently exist, including surgery and hormone therapy. However, I was not referring to these when I had this argument in mind. In fact, absolute sex change is impossible, as it would require the alteration of an individual's DNA in every cell of his or her body. DNA analysts have yet to find a method of replacing DNA with a high success rate, without the great risk of also provoking cancer. This is why I referred to this argument being hypothetical, with an object like SPC-113 that would alter one's physical sex without the need of incisions or other preparations. If this was readily available and easy to perform, it would also be cheap; if it was not readily available or difficult to perform, then of course it would be expensive. Criminals, regardless of their ability to avoid being linked to their activities, always pose a threat to society; if sex change were possible (on a DNA and physiological level, as described in the fictional article), then the possible ways an individual could imitate to escape identification would only increase. I understand that current methods of imitation without surgery or hormones can be quite effective, but this only aids the potential. Individuals would also find ways to avoid regulation and documentation. This has happened already in the past with alcohol, which was temporarily banned in America between 1920 and 1933, by bootleggers smuggling the substance into unregulated ports. Illegal substances such as cocaine continue to manufactured and dispersed across America to this day, despite enforcement being much stronger in recent times. While traffickers and manufacturers have been caught and arrested before, illegal substances still run rampant, and affect individuals of a wide age span. If sex change involved a procedure, then the lack of regulation would still be a possibility. Examples of unregulated procedures include botox injections, where unlicensed practitioners can avoid being held accountable for the act. Con says that Americans have the right to free expression. This is true, but in other countries people are actively oppressed. Uganda for example, has attempted to pass bills that would render homosexuality and transgender illegal. Even with the 2014 Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act being denied on August 1st, homosexuals and transgenders in the country currently face persecution, and Uganda plans another anti-homosexual bill very soon. Radical religious zealots have also revealed their potential influence in this case, with many accusing Scott Lively, a pastor heavily imposed against homosexuality rights, being the main influence of these bills. I will abandon my other points, seeing that your counters mainly emphasize a lack of reasoning. I have nothing against homosexuality and transgender, but that I also see the ignorance of others being disastrous if complete physical sex change were a possibility. [1] http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com... [2] Tracy, Sarah W. and Caroline Jean Acker; Altering American Consciousness: The History of Alcohol and Drug Use in the United States, 1800"2000. University of Massachusetts Press, 2004 [3] http://ezinearticles.com... [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I believe it should be illegal to have sex till marriage because it will help lower teen pregnancy and abortion ratings. Also because studies have shown children born in wedlock live better easier lives. And because sex is something special not something to be thrown around to a hundred people in a night. People used to save their virginity for one person and it was important to them now people try to get rid of it so fast it could be mistaken for poison. we should do something to stop it.

Many thanks to Rob 1 Billion (any relation to Bernie Madoff?) for accepting this debate and please accept my apologies for pressing Con instead of Pro. It would appear that we both broadly share the same view of peddlers of paranormal products but differ on the best way to tackle the problem. My opponent has made a number of contentions which I would like to address as follows: Contentions 1 & 4 My opponent rightly points out how supernatural con-merchants would seek to circumvent any regulations and continue to rip-off willfully misguided customers. Indeed, I have no doubt that many of these swindling tricksters would adopt his suggested ploys or even seek to rebrand themselves as follows: Before / After Fortune teller / fortune guesser Feng shui practitioner / furniture rearranger holistic medicine seller / placebo merchant Witchdoctor / ethnic dancer Shaman priest / voodoo stick-waver Astrologist / storyteller Never mind this though, what they will be doing will still be illegal, no matter how they dress up their nefarious activities. There is a precedent here. A drug dealer may sell a customer a wrap of cocaine for $100 and both the pusher and the punter will be happy with the arrangement, even though the customer knows that the drugs will do him harm. That's why the law steps in to protect him from himself. Of course, drug dealing continues to be widespread despite being illegal but that is no reason to decriminalise it so that we can go down the street and pop into a Megabucks Colombian Crack House for half an ounce of Charlie and a cappuccino, or walk into a branch of Smacko Bell's for a line of coke and, er...a glass of Coke. Contention 2 Once again, I agree that there is a fine line between superstitious beliefs and religious beliefs - a very fine line indeed. And, true, who is to say that a belief in Christianity is any more legitimate than a belief in astrology or voodoo magic? The reality is that certain religions are recognised by the state so that, in the United States for example, a Christian preacher doesn't pay income tax on sales of bibles whereas a Shaman priest flogging voodoo dolls or a gypsy peddling lucky heather does. I know it's not right, but certain religions occupy constitutionally privileged positions in many countries and there's not much that can be done about that. Contention 3 We, as a society, must make a collective judgement on which, if any, religion or superstitious belief is rational and beneficial. The most qualified people to do this are scientists as they concentrate on evidence, facts and the balance of probability to arrive at a conclusion. Religious people cannot be trusted to make an impartial decision - a devout Jew, for example, is unlikely, after considering all the evidence, to reach the conclusion that Pastafarianism is the one true faith and that we should all pay homage to the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Of course, scientists will never be able to prove absolutely that the pattern of tea leaves left in the bottom of a cup cannot be used as a reliable predictor of future events but the burden of proof should be that superstitions are, beyond reasonable doubt, irrational and without merit, and making a profit from them should be outlawed. In conclusion, it is a government's prime responsibility to protect its citizens, from enemies from abroad and also enemies within, whether they be drug dealers or grasping spirit world mediums who prey on berevead relatives hoping to make a profit out of their grief. Thank you.

In class this evening I was asked why legalizing prostitution and or marijuana would be a good idea, explained my position and from across the room a group of people threw their opinions in the air, saying that they believe that legalizing them is promoting them, and I don't see the tie. A parallel argument can be applied to the alcohol industry, where we had prohibition and times before and after to compare. Before prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store or from a friend who would make moonshine. During prohibition the problem was simply finding a corner store that would sell you the alcohol they had, and hopefully the moonshine wouldn't make you blind. After prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store, taxed and regulated, or from a friend who would make moonshine. Criminalizing the distribution and manufacturing of alcohol didn't stop people from getting it, it drove those people into the back rooms and basements to get it without being seen. It drove the crime syndicate nuts and there were a number of people who saw bad things occur afterwards. But in no way does the legalization of alcohol mean the government, or the authors of the changed legislation, promoted the consumption or manufacture of alcohol. For the purposes of these discussions, Promote means one of the following: 1.Further the progress of; support or actively encourage. 2.Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness. 3.Advance or raise to a higher position or rank

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

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

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...

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.

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

Pro, Your suspicion that you would be debating a male was incorrect. I am indeed a female, despite constantly being referred to as "he" on this site. In fact the assumption that I am a male on this site is not proof that women do not wish to debate, but rather enforces the notion that debating is generally perceived as a "man's sport," and therefore non-inclusive to women. Further, history shows us that women have been punished and/or discriminated against either blatantly or socially for vehemently expressing their views. For instance, you not-so-humorously portrayed feminists in a negative light in your round, while at the same time non-directly critisized women who were NOT feminists and who enjoy reading frivolous magazines instead of taking a stand in politics. I would like to state for the record that your insecurity with your manhood and/or sexuality in patronizing women should not be a deciding factor in this debate. That said, your contribution regarding a mock meeting between Condoleeza Rice and a foreign minister has absolutely no merit in this debate. For one, you completely negate its value of contributing to your point when you said, "Now that would be properly sexist, but I'm not condoning that sort of prediluvian attitude towards women, far from it." So if this waste of space example has absolutely nothing to do with your point, then why include it in this debate? It has clearly taken up your time and mine, as well as the readers/judges who have unfortunately been subjected to your attempt at being funny (Making fun of Condoleeza's race and role in government with blatant disregard for women?! How clever! You're about as original and genuine as Carlos "Ned Holness" Mencia, mate. Gee I've honestly never heard that before :| ). So what exactly are you advocating? Well you have asked a fellow debater to prove "that the controversial comments [you] may make in the course of [your] arguments should be kept to [your]self." You also state that "men should not feel ashamed to express their admiration for attractive women for fear of being accused of sexism." So alright... a few things. First, I hope that in pointing out your less than amusing/original sense of humor, I have demonstrated why you should keep those "controversial" a.k.a. trying-too-hard-to-be-witty-and-shocking comments to yourself, for the simple fact that they do not contribute to your argument, and instead just take up space and waste time (put it this way - we're not laughing WITH you...). Second, there is a difference between saying things that can be CONSIDERED sexist, and saying things that are downright offensive. Men CAN express their admiration for attractive women without being sexist, therefore one should find more intelligent and socially acceptable ways to vocalize their views (especially during a debate on debate.org, where one would almost certainly get called out for being "abusive" if they did not comply with traditional debate etiquette). Now since you are Pro, the burden is on you to prove the resolution to be true. Even if I agree with you, you have offered no acceptable evidence that would compel anyone to vote Pro. You mentioned chanting songs that repeat phrases like "Get your t~ts out" are acceptable because most women oblige, however you cannot prove that to be true (personal experience doesn't count, because I can say that in MY personal experience, that is not the case). I don't think men are too restricted in what they can say; they can say anything they want, and unless it's unlawful, they will not be penalized other than MAYBE having a few people call them sexist. To that I say quit whining and grow a pair of balls! You're saying that women shouldn't bit


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution should remain illegal to combat human trafficking and protect individuals from exploitation.

Human Trafficking: It is a fact that in countries where prostitution is legal, human trafficking rates tend to increase. This is concerning because human trafficking is a heinous crime that involves forcibly taking someone and using them for sex or labor. Even though it is illegal, prostitution can enable this crime more often. It is important to note that the effects of legalizing prostitution may differ in developed countries like the United States or Canada compared to underdeveloped countries with corrupt governments and high levels of criminal activity, such as Mexico or Ethiopia.

Consent: While consent can sometimes alter the legal status of an act, it does not make a crime acceptable. For example, having sex with someone against their will is rape, a serious crime. However, having sex with someone who consents is consensual sex. It is incorrect to say that consent makes a crime acceptable. Acceptability is determined by the people involved, even indirectly, as long as they are involved. For instance, bondage is legal and widely shared on the internet, but tying someone up and having sex with them, even if they cry, is still legal. However, if a man pays a woman to have sex, even without bondage, it is suddenly unacceptable and illegal. Consent does not make a crime legal, but it can make it acceptable.

Choice: The argument that a woman's choice to engage in prostitution should not be considered illegal if it doesn't harm anyone is flawed. While it is true that there will always be bad things in the world, not every prostitute is homeless. The difference between a person asking for change and a woman offering her services is that the woman is using her skills to earn money. However, this choice should not be equated with a legitimate job. The deportation of individuals involved in prostitution is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.

Violence against women: It is difficult to accurately measure the rates of violence against women in prostitution due to underreporting. However, it is important to consider that the United States is not the same as other countries, and statistics from Istanbul cannot be directly applied to America.

Sexism: The argument that prostitution is a result of biology is flawed. While women may have the ability to attract men, it does not justify the exploitation and objectification of women in prostitution. The claim that men are entitled to sex is ridiculous. Sex is a natural human desire, but it does not give anyone the right to exploit or degrade another person.

Conclusion: Legalizing

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.

I have two problems with your arguments. 1. "By your logic I could sell a felon a handgun just becuse I can own one." Sex is not a dangerous activity, and cannot kill people, unlike guns (although arguably ANYTHING could kill someone, sex is not generally related to killing or death, unlike a gun). 2. "Sex is one of those things that is not acceptable to have in public." Who said anything about having the proposed sold sex in PUBLIC? Legalizing prostitution does not mean legalizing public sex. I agree that it may have been a bad idea to use "that kind of simplistic logic," but the fact remains: it applies to this case, and not of gun sales. I'm sure that I am not the only one who can point out the differences between a bullet and a blowjob, as well as the effects they have on the human body.

In class this evening I was asked why legalizing prostitution and or marijuana would be a good idea, explained my position and from across the room a group of people threw their opinions in the air, saying that they believe that legalizing them is promoting them, and I don't see the tie. A parallel argument can be applied to the alcohol industry, where we had prohibition and times before and after to compare. Before prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store or from a friend who would make moonshine. During prohibition the problem was simply finding a corner store that would sell you the alcohol they had, and hopefully the moonshine wouldn't make you blind. After prohibition you could buy your alcohol at a corner store, taxed and regulated, or from a friend who would make moonshine. Criminalizing the distribution and manufacturing of alcohol didn't stop people from getting it, it drove those people into the back rooms and basements to get it without being seen. It drove the crime syndicate nuts and there were a number of people who saw bad things occur afterwards. But in no way does the legalization of alcohol mean the government, or the authors of the changed legislation, promoted the consumption or manufacture of alcohol. For the purposes of these discussions, Promote means one of the following: 1.Further the progress of; support or actively encourage. 2.Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness. 3.Advance or raise to a higher position or rank

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.

The following are reasons why dueling should be legal:1. Consensual AgreementBoth parties that participate in a duel agree being involved in such an event[1]. Both parties involved assume responsibility for the results of their agreement. [1]. http://definitions.uslegal.com...2.No Bar Room Brawl or Street Fight. Dueling is not spontaneous or an event built in with instincts of anger. Dueling requires seconds to exchange with each other the rules and location of a duel. Then they must be agreed upon by both parties[2]. Normally there will be a negotiations to stop the duel before it happens. There is more than enough time for a duel to be called off. Both parties will have had time to consider what they wish to do. The duel simply can be called off when the offending party apologizes for the offense to the offended party. [2]The Code of Honor by John Lyde Wilson3. Weapons are agreed upon. The weapons to be utilized in a duel is agreed upon by both parties. Normally, weapons utilized in a duel are pistols or swords. But weapons that will result in incapicitation or death can be avoided if the particpants wish. Participants can even duel in hot air balloons if they want[3]. [3]. http://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk...4.It is a Great Event. Many great people have dueled ranging from kings,aristocrats,and nobility to professionals,politicians,and commoners. President Andrew Jackson was in multiple duels in his life[4]. A duel can be the event of a lifetime. [4]. http://hubpages.com...5.An End to Grudges. Instead of holding grudges,a duel can allow for grudges to end.6. Peace Through Strength(V is for Victory)Allegedly,Mahatma Gandhi once said "An eye for eye makes the world go blind[]. "I tend to agree. That is why I say if they take your eye,you take their life. The fact of the matter is that if they can take one eye what prevents them from taking the other eye,an arm,a leg,or your life or your loved ones' lives. It requires faith in someone that had the intent to harm you to allow them another chance. If they did it once what would prevent them from doing it again? There is absolutely one person that can be trusted in this life and that is yourself because that is the only person you can control. Let us not put faith in those who have had the intent to harm us and still do. In the best or worse case scenario depending on your perspective someone can be rendered incapacitated or lifeless as a result of a duel. Your foes can become impotent. []. http://quoteinvestigator.com...7.Builds Character. The legalization of duels will prevent the slanderous from verbally abusing people they dislike in public. Now they could suffer for their sharp tongues in a duel. As a result, duels will encourage self-restraint and re-introduce honor into American culture.

I believe it is the persons right to decide what they want to do with their body. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't do with our bodies. Our bodies are our own business and if we choose to make this an occupation we should be free to.

Prove it. Your arguments: 1. Drug Use. No warrant, no evidence. No argument. 2. So? So is swimming. Basketball is hot, should we make it illegal? Rock climbing is hot, should we ban it? 3. That is yet to be proven. My arguments: 1. It should not be illegal since that would be detrimential to society. I'll show why later.

Abortion should be legalized because everybody mistakes and the baby might have defects that family can not support and the baby might be in pain for life with that defect. Sometimes young women make mistakes and accidentally get pregnant, if they are unprepared financially and emotionally they should have the option of having an abortion. When the person finds out the baby has a defect and the family can't support the costs to support the child or the child will live in pain for his/her life because of the defect, it is ok to put it out of its misery.

Abortion should be illegal. If a woman is running around having unprotected sex with either one guy or multiple partners, that woman and that man should take full responsibilities for what precautions they did not take. Imagine ripping a life out of the woman's womb. The baby is innocent and had nothing to do with you and your partners carelessness so why punish it? For example say this woman is trying to relieve some stress and goes out with her girls to a party. Relieving some of this tension this woman decides to drink some vodka shots and some tequila, wakes up the next morning and a few weeks later she finds out that she is pregnant. Not knowing who the father is she decides to go to a clinic where she has to take a pill and the fetus will just flush out. How gruesome is that, forcing yourself to have a miscarriage because you got drunk and didn't know what you were doing. Well now the woman is sober and she does know what she is doing she is taking an innocent life and the mother knows. My next point is that financially you and your partner are not capable of providing a safe home for the child. To nip this in the butt you have choices to make such as give the baby to a relative and when you two are ready take the baby back or simply put the baby up for adoption. Many couples are trying to have a baby but can't and you can provide them with a healthy baby and the baby in a nice home as opposed to death the "easy" way put of this. Putting the baby up for adoption would be the best possible choice because you and your partner will feel happy knowing that your baby will be safe, have a happy life, and you won't have to live with the fact that you didn't have to kill your first born similar to what Abraham almost had to do with Isaac. The next best thing to do is give your baby up to a close family member because than you could know for certain that the baby is perfectly fine. One can go across town and visit the baby when ever the couple wanted to and the family will still remain close. One of my last points in which I will defiantly expand on later is the fact that women get postpartum depression. Imagine a woman who keeps her child but still feels depressed now compare her to a woman who was three months pregnant and is having her baby removed from her by unnatural causes the mother and the baby obviously will be negatively effected. With therapy a woman with a naturally born baby will recover from her experience but how do we know for certain that the mother who aborted her baby will ever recover? We don't, women are very emotional and in this situation a man will be emotional too little things will remind her of what she has done and it won't be pretty. The woman could go back to her old ways of partying or start abusing drugs or crying her eyes out every minute or something to fill up the void. My major idea that I am trying to portray is the fact that this baby you didn't plan to have is an innocent life and I don't want to see the baby be put at harm for something two horny teenagers didn't take it serious enough and risked the life of someone else.

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...