Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

The legalization of prostitution in Nevada is a necessary step. Despite my personal disapproval of prostitution, which I view as morally reprehensible, I believe it should be legalized. The state government should not dictate how individuals choose to use their own bodies. Moreover, legalizing prostitution could prove advantageous for our state. If you disagree, I welcome a discussion; I have debated this topic extensively in law class and have consistently emerged victorious. I am always up for a good challenge.

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

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.

Con's forfeiture was due to circumstances beyond their control, and they should NOT lose conduct points for it.1. "Killing" vs. "Murder".This is ultimately a semantics issue. I agree with Con that it is okay to kill another person, even a prostitute, if it is necessary to defend yourself or somebody else from physical harm. However, I maintain that it is wrong to kill them in all other circumstances, and always wrong to rape them.2. Exactly how is prostitution like rape?3. Con seems to be confusing morality with reality. It is wrong to rape people, but people still get raped. There isn't really a connection.4. Regardless of why men visit prostitutes, that doesn't give them the right to rape and kill them.

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 .

Actually it was you who strawmanned prostitution and marriage in one very logically fallacious move from round one but I went along with the strawman and defended the strawman itself and won anyway.From our wives to us husbands.http://www.youtube.com...

My opponent… “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.” Sex is not just a physical thing as my opponent tries to dumb it down to be, it also has psychological and emotional effect on people (mainly women). You stated that you were pro sex-education and the main point of sex education is abstinence and sexual awareness so what is expected of the sexual education teacher to teach? Sex is just fine no matter what age? Only protected sex is okay? Abstinence is the best way of preventing pregnancy unless you feel differently? The main reason society looks down on or even rejects promiscuity is because many are taught abstinence from a young age and they are taught abstinence from a young age to help women from being thrown into a situation they never planned to be in. “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.” Again, a big point teachers make in sexual health classes is the fact abstinence is the best choice until marriage. If a young girl commits herself for whatever reason (religion, personal, familial) to avoiding sexual activity and stays true to her commitment then it is obvious why praise is necessary. “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 girl’s appearance or behavior.” The concept of girls being cautious is, I feel, often misunderstood. This advice is not given to victim-blame but to prevent girls from being put in this situation. Example: If a car thief was on the loose you would not tell car owners to leave the keys in the car and the door unlocked simply because it is not their fault that their car could be stolen and the car thief should know better. You tell girls to use caution not to communicate to men that it is okay to rape but to prevent a woman from falling victim. My arguments First of all I would like to clarify that promiscuity in both males and females is wrong but for the sake of this debate I will argue how and why it is wrong in females. Unexpected Pregnancy One major social issue our society deals with is abortion. While some are pro-life and some are pro-choice I think it is clear we can all agree that abortion should be at least the last resort. The most effective way to prevent abortions is not getting pregnant and the most effective way to not get pregnant is abstinence. Effects of Unexpected Pregnancy The majority of the women who get pregnant before they are married will not end up getting married. This of course leads a huge burden on the mother having to deal with. According to the U.S Census Bureau %27.3 of single parents live in poverty. Also, the effects of children growing up without a parent can be drastic… Drinking problems.Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households Suicidal Tendencies.In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families. Disturbing news:Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem. Expelled:Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents. College odds:Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families. Criminal Behavior:The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way. As you can see promiscuity can lead to unwanted pregnancy which leads on to abortions and fatherless kids which carries out to more drastic measures such as the statistics mentioned above. Spread of STD’s Another result from promiscuity is the spread of STD’s. Often enough promiscuous women having unprotected sex will contract an STD. The woman could have it without knowing which is putting potential future partners at risk. Sad but true... A woman who is sexually promiscuous is more likely to be raped then a woman who is not. I am not saying that all rape victims are promiscuous or victim blaming in any way but a woman who dresses sexually provocative is more likely to be targeted by a rapist. Although it is not the victims fault in any way, women should make sure to be away and use protective measures to reduce the chance of falling victim to predators. I have proved that promiscuity leads to terrible things such as unexpected pregnancy, STD’s, and even rape. It is obvious that in today’s society men and women are held at double standards but I feel it is fair to say promiscuity is harmful regardless of your gender. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal :) http://www.policymic.com... http://www.photius.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.

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...

This is not necessarily the case. When prostitution is legalized, that does not mean that the legalization of human trafficking will take place. In the situation of human trafficking, the woman is acknowledged as the victim regardless of the legality of her actions - this will remain true even after prostitution is legalized.

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.


Question: Should the Sex Trade be Legalized?

The legalization of prostitution in the United States is a contentious issue that requires careful consideration. Advocates for the legalization of prostitution argue that it would reduce the risks associated with the industry, such as violence and sexually transmitted diseases. However, there are several reasons why prostitution should not be legalized.

Firstly, experience has shown that when prostitution is legalized, sex trafficking increases. This is because legalization increases demand, and not enough women want to engage in prostitution voluntarily. As a result, the only way to meet the demand is through trafficking. In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, the majority of "legal prostitutes" are actually trafficking victims. Unfortunately, police are unable to distinguish legal prostitutes from trafficking victims or legal pimps from traffickers. This makes it difficult to rescue trafficking victims, as they often do not seek help due to manipulation by their pimps.

Secondly, prostitution is inherently violent and dangerous. Prostitutes are at risk of murder, assault, rape, and other forms of violence. They experience extensive physical and psychological harm, including mouth and teeth injuries, vaginal bleeding, internal injuries, head injuries, and broken bones. Prostitutes also suffer from psychological trauma, including PTSD, depression, mania, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, dissociative disorders, and drug abuse. These harms are not limited to street prostitution but also occur in brothels with so-called "safety policies." The psychological harms are inherent to the act of prostitution itself, and no amount of regulation can eliminate them.

Furthermore, regulating prostitution does not reduce illegal prostitution. Over 90% of prostitution in Nevada is illegal, and legalizing prostitution does not change this. The argument that legalizing prostitution would reduce the risks associated with the industry is therefore flawed.

The argument that legalizing prostitution would generate tax revenue is also problematic. The prostitution industry generates $14 billion a year, but it is impossible to generate $20, $30, or $40 billion in taxes from an industry that only generates $14 billion. This is because most prostitution would still be illegal, competition among brothels would bring prices down, and competition among states would bring tax rates down. Moreover, designating something as a crime should not turn on enforcement costs and potential tax revenue.

Finally, the argument that prostitutes consent to prostitution is misguided. Prostitutes often have no real alternatives and are forced into prostitution due to poverty, homelessness, past sexual abuse, or manipulation by pimps. Many women are beaten until they "consent" to prostitution, and the so-called "choice" is

Now, there are many arguments about sex. I am Completely PRO-SEX.My opponent, In his insolence, thinks sex a bad thing. He must be a priest.So alas: HERE COME IN THE CONTENTIONS.1. IT IS LOVED BY SOOOOOOOO MANY:Check out some of my sex debates:1.http://www.debate.org...I won, and I supported semen in food.2.http://www.debate.org...Imabench won this one, because it talked about us being able to have sex MORE without worries of pregnancies.3. http://www.debate.org...I don' even need to say anything about this one.Tons of people love sex. A. There are jobs about sex (i.e. Prostitutes, strippers, etc). B.There are movies about sex. Almost every box office movie about sex sells like sex itself.C.Sex is in our ears (not literally, unless you like that kinda stuff.) By in our ears, I mean that we listen to songs about sex. The majority of songs nowadays (that are popular) are about sex. Lil' Wayne, Enrique Iglesias, Flo Rida, Chris Brown, Rihanna, Big Sean, DJ Khaled, it's all they sing about.D. It's what SELLS (in the news). When you read a newspaper or read news off the internet, do you see "Celebrity has SEX with another CELEBRITY in HOT AFFAIR", or "Celelbrity and another Celebrity are NOT having sex and are happy and virgin!". Nuff said. 2. IT FEEL'S GOOD.Sex is so popular because IT FEELS GOOD. When you have sex are you like "Meh, never doing that again" or "God DAMN I gotta do that AGAIN!!!! WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!!!" That is completely obvious. When something feel's good, do you say "oh my, that is bad!" or "HOLY CRAP THAT'S F*CKING AWESOME". Therefore, SEX IS GOOD AND SWELL.3. Even the CHURCH IS GOOD WITH SEX!Now, I know that my opponent is indeed catholic, and I know i'm kind of splittin' hairs, but I never said that I was talking about sex in or outside of marriage specifically. Sex makes babies! Without babies, NO HUMAN RACE. God LIKES HUMANS. Therfore, HE LIKES SEX. SEX GOOD. INSIDE OF MARRAIGE, BUT STILL GOOD! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.Sorry for not trolling more, I will do so more next round, but for now I hand the reigns over to my opponent.Thank you, and GOOD LUCKYOU'LL NEED IT

Ok, im just going to say that doctors have malpractice insurance, and if say, 2% of 18+ people get prostitutes. That has no connection to rape, and if we assume that number, 2% s accurate, then over 5 billion people visit prostitutes. Then, say, 1% of prostitutes get an STD, then 200,000 stds can be blamed on prostitutes,so then if they are protected, it is almost exactly as likely to happen- government-supplied std information.

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...

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...

I am putting the three point in favour of legalization of prostitution. Protective sex, Labour right's to prostitutes, Reduce violence Against Prostitutes Protective Sex: It would provide protective sex to prostitutes and to her customer, and also Legalized prostitution would allow the state to require a information that all prostitutes take regular health examine, and ensure that she or he is not carrying a sexually transmitted diesease like AIDs or HIV. Therefore Sex worker may get weekly tests. It would give employment rights to prostitutes: They can get rights like minimum wage, weekly holidays, freedom from discrimination , and a safe work environment etc.. Reduce violence Against Prostitutes: If prostitution is legalized then they can call the cops in case of any violence and may reduce force sex. Well-regulated and Legalized would pave way for licenses and registration, whereby workers would have their own identity, access to public facilities, and other services. Which leads to both safe and profitable.

I'm going to keep my opening argument short and sweet: People can sell stuff. People can have sex. Why then, can't people sell sex?

Today I'll uphold 2 main contentions, And then refute what was said by my opponent in the next round. Contention 1 is Crime Criminals don’t have access to the legal system, And must make their own justice. For example, They can’t file lawsuits or involve the police. As a result, Hardened criminals punish others themselves, Typically through violent assault or homicide, Much like in Breaking Bad. In Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, Tenured Harvard professor and fellow at the Cato Institute, Jeffrey Miron, Who has studied drug criminalization and its effects for 15 years concluded that legalizing illicit drugs would decrease the homicide rate from 25-75%, Saving thousands of lives. Additionally, Illicit substances such as methamphetamine and cocaine are the primary composer of the black market and much of the criminal underworld (i. E. Drug cartels, Gangs, Etc. ). If such substances were to be legalized, It would essentially kill a great deal of organized crime in not only the US but abroad. If one wished to take a counterexample, Alcohol prohibition directly caused the rise of mobsters such as Al Capone, And upon its repeal, The market was eradicated Oft human trafficking victims are become addicted via their kidnappers’ coercion, And become reliant on some sort of drug that can only be supplied by their gangster or pimp. Again, Legalization would kill their monopoly on illegal drugs, And they could try to buy said drugs at CVS or Walgreens. Additionally, The War on Drugs has directly led to mass incarceration, Which has made millions sit behind bars oft never accomplishing anything to benefit overall society. Contention 2 is Freedom Is it the government's duty to punish what are arguably victimless crimes, Drug use/abuse harms no one but the user. It isn’t as if drug users were actively going out and about harming others, Rather they’re only harming themselves. If we were to apply this principle equally across the board, Criminalizing any action that is harmful, The government would have to ban everything from food to sky diving to sexual intercourse. Which right do you have to decide what is permissible to go inside someone else’s body? Certain things are harmful to one’s self, Of course, But why does this mean they have to be criminalized?

Giving your body to another person without a lifelong commitment legally and publicly established is selling yourself short and/or taking advantage of the other person for momentary gratification. Your body is yours forever. If you give your body to another person temporarily, they are getting your body for less than it is worth. This is why a person who goes to bed for sex with people they are not married to is often referred to as "cheap". A cheap whore is somebody who does not cost much to get sexual gratification out of. A whore monger is a person who hungrily takes what he can get out of a cheap person. A homosexual, male or female, cheapens the gift of sexuality even further by denying the purpose of God in creating opposite genders. Homosexuality and beastiality are at the bottoms of the barrel of toxic waste of immorality.God cares what people do with their sexuality because He created it for the sole purpose of creating a lifelong bond between a man and a woman; a bond that would exclude feelings of being "loved and then left" which often leads disappointed lovers to suicide. a bond that would remain clean and pure and never allow pollution of sexually transmitted diseases to trouble the bodies and grieve the hearts and minds. People who truly behave normally in sexual expression will reserve that expression for nothing other than their spouse. God cares about what you do with your body because He wants what is best for you. If you think something other than what God wants is best for you, you are mistaken and God loves you, He cares what you do, He does not want you doing wrong. It is wrong to do things that degrade the goodness that God wants you to have. It is better to remain unmarried and completely celibate in all ways than to use your body to express sexual feelings with people you are not married to. Homosexuals are no more normal than pedophiles, beast-sex indulgers, necromancers, whore mongers, or prostitutes. Sexual behaviour outside of marriage is offensive to God because it is disrespectful of God's good intentions for us.This answers the first two questions of my opponent in his previous argument::"But why does God care about what gays do? Why should we not just leave them alone and treat them like normal people? God shouldn't give a crap about what I do in my personal time."Also, I must point out my opponents crudeness in referring to God's concerns as "give a crap". I seems my opponent thinks that if God cares for him, God's concern is "crap". I'm sure God finds my opponents implications here much more offensive than people who believe God's love is something to be appreciated.Moving on to my opponents next assertions, and accusatory questions against God: " God shouldn't give a crap about what I do in my personal time. Again, freewill. It's not "freewill" if you're going to hell for being gay. It's called "freewill" because I can do what I want without worrying about punishment."Again, my opponent crudely refers to God's concern as "giving a crap", and again my opponent displays total disregard for God's concerns. God cares about what you do in your personal time because it is time He gave you. God gives you time because He is good, and He cares about what you do with the time He gives you because the time is precious. The time is precious because it shows God is good in giving it to you. You are precious to God, because He created you and you illustrate His power, His glory, and His goodness in giving you life, speech, imagination, creativity, strength, and so on. Everything we have is because God gave it to us or because He gave us the power to get it. God gave us sexuality for one purpose, and that is to make a lifelong bond with another person of the opposite gender and nothing else. If we don't find anther person of the opposite gender suitable for marriage, God expects us to remain unmarried and totally celibate, reserving our bodies in honor of what God created them for. We were created for God's glory, showing He is good. If a person goes to Hell, it is not simply because they are homosexual; it is because they are a sinner. We have all sinned against God, Anybody who can read this is beyond the age of innocence and is guilty or breaking God's law as He spelled it out in detail in The Ten Commandments. We all deserve to go to Hell because we have al turned against God in breaking His law and there is no other place for Him to put us after we have separated ourselves from God by violating His law which He made for our protection and for preserving beauty, harmony, and purity in His creation. Now God's law shows us that we are guilty and we need His mercy to be spared from eternal separation in the only place God has to confine sinners, Hell. We are sinners, and our sin burns against God like a fire, Our passion for our own life is like a burning fire, as sinners, no matter how good or nice we are, we are burning the candle at both ends and our time is running out. If we are steadfast in making our own laws and not honoring God's perfect law which He intended for perfect liberty, perfect harmony, perfect purity, perfect beauty, perfect pleasure and joy in being created by God and for His pleasure, then no matter how nice we are to other people, we are offensive to God. Our sin is like a fire that devours our life contrary to the perfection God intended to be preserved by His law. Our sin cries out for the fire of Hell. God gives us time, not wanting us to be lost in Hell forever. He loves us so much that He took on the form of a man, He came down from heaven as the Son of Man, the Son of God, God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, to die in our place to pay for our sins so that if we believe on Him; trust in Him, receive Him as our Saviour, we will be forgiven and not have to pay for our sins in the fire of Hell. You can't blame God for the choices you make with the gifts and abilities He gave you. You will give account to God with how you used every moment of the time He gave you. There are different levels of punishment in Hell, and you will receive the punishment you deserve if you don't care about God's concerns for you and you use your time however you feel like using it to do whatever you feel like doing no matter what God's law says about it. If you use your freewill to murder, because that is what was in your heart to do, you can't blame God for giving you freedom to act out on your feelings of hatred. If you use your freewill to express yourself sexually with other than your opposite gender spouse, you can't blame God if you pick up AIDS or if you feel suicidal when your partner leaves you. You can't blame God if He rejects you and lets you go to Hell when you do not care what He says about your behaviour. Saying, "God, you let me have freewill so why can't I do whatever in the name of Hell that I want to do" will get you nowhere but into the place in the name of which you dare to blame God for your abuse of the freedom He gave you. The only way we don't get the Hell fire that we deserve for our sin against God is if we find His mercy. God's mercy toward is is found in that while we were sinners, Christ died in our place to pay for our sins so we can be pardoned from paying for our sins in Hell. Will you be pardoned from paying for your sins in Hell? Will you believe God or will you continue in disobedience against His perfect Law? Breaking God's law brings consequences, and you are responsible for your own actions. If you finalize your death insisting that your actions are God's responsibility because He gave you free will, the God will take the responsibility for you and the fire of Hell will burn against you the same as your pride burns against God. If you rake responsibility for your own actions and admit that you are a sinner against God, believe He died in your place to pay for your sin so He can forgive you in His resurrection, and call on God in the name of Jesus Christ to have mercy on you and save you from Hell, you will be saved. You won't be saved from Hell if you will not admit that your attitude is sinful against God and your violations of His law justify His rejecting you and leaving you to burn forever like garbage in the fire of Hell.Moving further along in my opponents accusatory rhetorical statements and questions against God:"Why should I not get another breath of air? Because God gave me life? That's extremely stupid. It's like a father saying,"Hi son, I'm going to have to kill you now because I helped create you." It makes no sense.Here, my opponent again denies his own responsibility and attempts to blame God for his death. We die because we have broken God's law. If we were perfect, if we had never broken God's law, we would never die. God gives life. Sin brings death. God created us and He wants us to be restored to life. We are condemned to die because of our sin. God pad for our sins with His own blood so that we can be pardoned for breaking His law and restored to eternal life. Our bodies of sin must be destroyed. If we believe on Jesus in His resurrection and receive Him as our Saviour, He becomes in us a new sinless nature, we become new creatures in Him, so that by Him we are born again and God will give us a new body like Jesus's resurrected body. without sin and fit for heaven. after our sin stricken bodies have been destroyed.None of us should get another breath of air. We get another breath of air because God is giving us more time in this world for a purpose. He has a purpose for every moment of the time He gives us. What we do with that time is on us, We are responsible for our choices. My opponent is insisting in his reasonings that God is unreasonable and makes no sense. God is trying to reason with my opponent to get him to see that He is being more than fair to give him another breath of air before letting him go his own way blaming God for his placement in Hell.Out of characters, I will respond to the "Westboro" argument later.

You try to convince me that rape is not a big deal if the police who knows that it is illegal and the perpetrators simply do not care. As a human being we must all try our utmost to help another person less fortunate than us. It is indeed unfortunate that many young girls in Kyrgyzstan are subjected to this type of crime. The fact that the police does not act on these such incidents gives the women a sense of hopelessness as they have no one in authority to turn to in their time of need. To hide under the umbrella of culture is simply nothing but a matter of convenience. You try to equate Jay walking to the atrocious act of rape. I see that as comparing stumping your toe on the coffee table with that of being run over by a herd of stampeding elephants. In every society Jay walking is a traffic offense and rape is a vicious act against a female. As a result it is of paramount importance that we protect them. To think simply because this act has been allowed to go on for generations makes it right or legal. You have seen the type of emotional pain it's end results. It wasn't me that felt girls committed suicide rather than live with the man who rapes her, it was the mother of a victim,who also have first hand knowledge of this as she too was a victim.You ask me that "if they enforce the law who cares?" We'll the obvious answer any reasonable person would vehemently shout out would be "THE VICTIM" . We must not allow ourselves to fall victim to what is the norm, we as individuals can make a conscious choice as to what is wrong from what is right or legal. Through the video there was no mention that this practice of bride kidnapping was at one time or another found to be legal and that's what this argument is all about. In ancient time it was illegal also. The video shows that it was practices even less in ancient time and only started to increase in frequency after gaining independence from the Soviet Union. Therefore to say that it's traditional practice is a bit weak as it's done more often in modern times than then. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... As a West Indian it is considered the norm or a cultural thing to smoke marijuana, however it is also illegal to do so persons are arrested and charged for their act. Likewise bride kidnapping may be viewed by the perpetrators as cultural tradition but it's illegal and as a result those responsible should be punished. You said that someone from one country should not tell people of another country how to live. Unfortunately in many instances they do, that's the reason why institutions such as The United Nations, and UNICEF. We all are human and belong to one world even we are from the west and they are not we must lend a helping hand to the less fortunate and the women of Kyrgyzstan fit that mold completely . They have no one to turn to in their country as the police refuses to come to their aid and they are brainwashed into believing that what is being to them is for their own good and happiness. They feel that hopeless and we see they are also defenseless. For any reasonable person to allow or think that this practice should continue is some who struggles with the truth.

-REBUTTALS Con starts off with 'Ok, first off, STDS can be spread rapidly during prostitution, and unwanted pregnancies can lead to abortion.' I have already addressed the issue of STD's , in R2 . 'If prostitution was legal we could regulate the market in ways to make prostitution safer such as require prostitutes every couple of years to test for STD's. ' . The debate is not over abortion , I would like to point out that not everybody considers abortion morally wrong and that additionally it is likely for business owners to require their prostitutes to use contraception as why would a business owner want to loose a worker through their pregnancy? surely not every prostitute would have an abortion nor would many prostitutes want to get infected with a disease or get pregnant. If there would be enough support the government could introduce a regulation telling all prostitutes to use contraception although I wouldn't support this . An online doctor-adviser says this about prostitutes in Amsterdam - 'Yes, I'm sure that a visit to the GUM would be a good idea. However, having once gone to a medical seminar about the working girls in Amsterdam I can tell you that in my opinion they are the cleanest sex workers in the world. They can get a condom on a guy even if he doesn't know they're doing it! And your friends are right about them being tested regularly.' Read more: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... Referring back to what I said in R2 - ' A sexual act between one person and another in which one person agrees to pay for the service is a voluntarily relationship , a contract . It is possible for one of the people included in the act to end up with an STD this is however the result of the person being irresponsible and choosing to have sex and taking that risk. It is my opinion that we should stop making excuses for irresponsible behaviour as this is counter-productive . Unless my opponent also advocates for people not being aloud to eat foods that contain high-fat , high-sugar and high-salt content he cannot make the argument that we should not legalise prostitution because of the spread of STD's . Not mentioning the fact that if there was a legal market for prostitution it would be safer than the current one. ' I think I made a very valid argument there that you did not take into account when typing up your own argument . Volenti non fit injuria - It is an old principle that states if someone willingly chooses to do something that may result in harm then he cannot blame others for the harm being done . 'This defies morality, and sex should be between loving, consenting adults, ' You did not back up your argument with evidence , it is a baseless assertion . You do not have the right to tell others (consenting adults) who they can engage in a voluntarily relationship with such as a sexual one nor do you have the right to steal taxpayers money and spend it on something useless such as fighting prostitution . ' No man will have sex with a pregnant lady, so that drains her livelihood.' Volenti non fit injuria - It was her choice , she was being irresponsible and now has to pay for it . ' so i not only have made my case, but regrettably had to rebut my opponent in the process, sorry about that. Your move. Good luck' I don't see where my opponent has refuted any of my arguments .


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution should be decriminalized in the United States.

Prostitution, in its various forms and interpretations, has long been a subject of controversy and debate. It is crucial to recognize that at the core of this industry are people, whose rights and well-being should be prioritized. As American citizens, we are endowed with certain inalienable rights simply by virtue of our existence. The societal stigma and negative connotations associated with activities deemed "profane" have been prevalent throughout history. While true equality between men and women may remain an elusive goal, the issue of prostitution extends beyond the borders of the United States and is a global concern.

To address this issue, it is essential to consider the United Nations' 2000 "Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime." This protocol clarifies that prostitution cannot be equated with human trafficking if the industry is legalized, regulated, taxed, and integrated into the economic framework. According to the UN, "'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs." These actions cannot occur within a legitimate and legal business environment.

The benefits of legalizing prostitution in the United States are multifaceted. By decriminalizing the industry, we can enhance the health, safety, and labor rights of those working in it, while also reaping economic advantages. Additionally, legalizing prostitution would allow law enforcement to redirect their efforts towards more pressing issues, such as violence against women. This ancient profession will not disappear, and it is crucial to address it through a legal and regulated framework.

One of the primary advantages of legalizing prostitution is the improvement in health and safety for sex workers. In states where prostitution is legal, such as Nevada, sex workers are required to use condoms and undergo regular testing for sexually transmitted diseases. This is in stark contrast to the situation faced by illegal street prostitutes, who may be

As Pro has not defined euthanasia, I will do so: 'the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die' (1) I will be arguing that this practice ought not to be made legal. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com...

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...

Hello I believe that abortion should be legalized. I will challenge you in this debate. I adamantly believe in the pro choice ethos. I will argue for on the basis of welfare, education responsibility and moralization. May the better debater win. Yours Sincerely BEM 1019.

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

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

Rules:1. Shared BOP.2. Sources don't have to be credible, provided they are relevant.3. No wanking.Opening argument:It is my contention that prostitutes should not be raped and murdered because they are people too, and it is immoral to rape and kill people.http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk...Also, it is ungrateful to kill prostitutes, because they're providing an incredible service to all the lonely, undesirable men of the world.And finally, because it's better to kill politicians instead.

First: "Do you think that the government will seriously check and test these girls after every day, week, or even month for STDS? Legalization fundamentally increases the risk of getting aids because more individuals visit these sites (explained in Contention 1), and the government cannot possibly monitor these sites every time they have sex, nor is it likely that they will every 500 times they have sex. " One thing that I forgot to mention was my actual answer to his question, which is YES. A few points that I would like to make: under my system brothels must have licenses to operate and would be tightly contolled and possibly taxed. Any brothel that doesn't comply will be shut down and the proprietor and other guilty parties jailed. The competition from legal brothels would drive illegal brothels (which would probably be dirtier and more expensive) pretty much out of business - thus reducing their share of STD spread. Legal brothels would not spread STDs as much because they would be required to send their prostitutes for regular (weekly) STD checks and to require customers to wear condoms. Any violation would result in immediate jail for the proprietor and others involved (zero tolerance). This would provide a large incentive to actually go for the weekly STD check and to require customers to wear protection, the opposite situation of what happens today, where there is little incentive for either. Also, if the IRS can tax every single business in the country (paying taxes is something very few businesses are eager to do), I fail to see how it would not be possible for the government to regulate prostitution (on things that brothels shouldn't be unhappy to do, like require protection), which would very likely remain a minor industry. Next, a clarification: in my previous post, I wrote: "There is a clear choice: unless it is a truly serious case of trafficking (in which case laws that are only anti-prostitution would not apply since it would fall under the 13th amendment and kidnapping and rape laws, so these cases are irrelevant to our debate). " I forgot to finish the sentence after the parenthetical statement. It should have ended with "there is a choice; the person in question can choose either to be a prostitute or not to be a prostitute. Taking the first option away doesn't make them seriously better off (in fact, as I have argued, it makes them worse off). " If we want to reduce prostitution, outlawing it isn't the way to go, since many women who choose to go into prostitution desperately need the extra cash; if a social welfare program can lift them out of the economic region where prostitution is the lesser of two evils (the other being poverty), that will reduce prostitution in a way that makes both the former prostitutes and any remaining prostitutes better off as well. And, to finish off this relatively brief post, I offer a few quotes (gathered from . http://wiki.idebate.org...): (from Marjan Wijers, LLM. Chair of the European Commission's Expert Group on Trafficking in Human Beings. "Women, Labor, and Migration: The Position of Trafficked Women and Strategies for Support", a chapter in 1998 book "Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance and Redefinition") - "Criminalizing the sex industry creates ideal conditions for rampant exploitation and abuse of sex workers…[I]t is believed that trafficking in women, coercion and exploitation can only be stopped if the existence of prostitution is recognized and the legal and social rights of prostitutes are guaranteed. " (from Rita Nakashima Brock, PhD, Founding Co-Director of Faith Voices for the Common Good. Sex Workers Outreach Project. ) - "Prohibition gives cover to traffickers. It allows them to use the laws against prostitution to intimidate, especially when it comes to children. Women and girls being held against their will are afraid to go to police because they will be treated as criminals. " (from "Trafficking in Human Beings - Third Report of the Dutch National Rapporteur. " The Bureau of the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking. ) - "The fight against THB [trafficking in human beings] for sexual exploitation is often confused with the battle that some people wage against prostitution. .. [T]here are disadvantages associated with a repressive approach, since such an approach does not distinguish between victims and independent sex workers, and clients will not play a role as a potential source of information on trafficking practices. .. It is often said in the media that the lifting of the general ban on brothels has led to more THB. This is not a correct conclusion. Before the lifting of the general ban on brothels, THB and other (criminal) abuses were taking place in all sectors of prostitution. Some of these sectors are now under control and can be assumed to have rid themselves of their former criminal excesses, or are doing so. .. It is possible that THB is increasing in the illegal, non-regulated or noncontrolled sectors. If this were to be the case, it still cannot be assumed that the extent of THB is now at the same or even above the 'old' level it was at before the ban on brothels was lifted. It is in fact likely that this is not the case, merely because not every client is keen to get involved in the 'secret' prostitution sector. " (from David A. Feingold, PhD, Coordinator of Trafficking-HIV/AIDS Programs, Culture Unit, UNESCO Bangkok) - "Sweden, for example, is much praised by antiprostitution activists for a 1998 law that aimed to protect sex workersby criminalizing their customers. But several independent studies, including one conducted by the Swedish police, , showed that it exposed prostitutes to more dangerous clients and and less safe-sex practices. "

Hopefully, you will be able to respond to some of my arguments. Affirmative Case The following arguments are the reasons that abortion should be legal in the United States. Argument 1: Unwanted children negatively impact society Section I: Sexual and psychological abuse of children Firstly, I believe it to be axiomatic (i. e. obvious) that there are not enough people to adopt unwanted children, hence the existence of foster care and the frightful statistics that follow. Of the children sent to foster care, a study by Orlow (2009) found that, “As many as 75 percent of all children in foster care, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse” [1]. Given that in 2011, the amount of children in foster care was roughly 400,000, approximately 300,000 children will experience sexual abuse [2]. Worse still is there is a global trend towards “newborn abandonment,” which means that if unwanted children are not aborted, these instances of sexual abuse committed against children will happen at an increased rate [3]. Clearly, permitting abortion would prevent sexual abuse of children. As for psychological abuse, it is well documented that children suffer from a range of things, even if the adoption is considered “successful”. For example, Adopted Child Syndrome, which is a Dissociative Disorder (basically, a condition wherein the adopted feels “rejected” no matter what), is such a powerful psychological disorder that it has been used in successful legal defences [7]. Legalising abortion would prevent these soul-destroying psychological disorders from burdening these people and society at large. Section II: Better crime outcomes Steven Levitt, studying the homicide rate since Roe vs. Wade (wherein it was declared that the interest of the fetus should not come before the interest of the mother), found that there was a 40% decline in homicide rates which was tied to a decline in unwanted children [4]. To corroborate this conclusion, another study found that, “One of the strongest predictors of criminal activity, and the externalities that result, is family background. ” From this, it was found that children who are adopted are more likely to commit crimes *of all types* than kids who are not adopted [5]. If abortion were legal, there would be better crime outcomes for the community. Section III: Non-adopted children For children who are not adopted, when they exceed the age restriction of foster care, they will have to find work, enter college, enlist in the military etc. *all on their own*. They do not have the luxuriant wallets/purses of their parents to burrow. There are many, many instances of where these children end up “not falling off a cliff, but definitely clinging to the edge” [6]. Clearly, by not being aborted, these unwanted children are left on their own eventually, struggling to fend for themselves. Argument 2: Rape pregnancies devastate mother and child Section I: Psychological impacts on the mother In the United States, the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 32,101 for females aged 12-45 [8]. Of this 32,101, a study found that rape pregnancies were closely linked to family and domestic violence, so much so that 50% of rape pregnancy women abandon or leave their child for adoption (for further impacts on the latter, see the previous argument) [9]. Other psychological difficulties routinely found in these women include: ambivalence towards the child (which harms the mother in the sense that she feels distant from the child, and this obviously harms the child, too), trouble telling the child about the rape pregnancy (once the child gets older), and distress and pathological denial of pregnancy (cognitive dissonance) [3]. Rape pregnancy women normally have to share custody with their rapist. In the constant interaction with the rapist, the mother has to pretend that she likes her attacker, of which has a tethering effect. This tethering effect dissolves her resolve, which leads to experiencing and re-experiencing feelings of rape continually. This causes serious psychological harm: depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation [8]. A clear majority of rape victims suffer from a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTDS), and a further third of rape victims develop a particularly vicious form of PTDS: rape-related PTDS (RR-PTSD). Suffering from PTSD and sometimes RR-PTSD negatively effects the ability of the mother to parent properly, as she fears any sort of contact with the rape event in order to avoid flash-back of the rape [8]. Finally, rape trauma (which is basically reliving the rape within her mind) can be reactivated by giving birth to a child conceived through a rape, regardless of the mode of birth. This has been found to occur often for women who have rape pregnancies [10]. Aborting rape pregnancies would avoid these devastating outcomes for these 32,101 women. Section II: Harms to children There is often found a stigma attached to children produced through rape, one which is found throughout the world. Some communities in Rwanda call them “devil’s children. ” Communities in Timor-Leste engage in calling these children “children of shame”. In Nicaragua, “monster babies” is the term used. “Dust of life” is what they are called in Vietnam [11]. This perception is compounded by the previously cited “ambivalence” of the mother towards the child, easily instils a feeling of neglect within many of these children [3]. For women who birth rape children, there is a greater risk of: preterm delivery, low birth weight and infection [12]. Finally, consider the mother and parenting climate in which these children are raised. Mothers are very often deeply psychologically scarred (for example, with PTSD or suicidal ideation), which contributes to poor parenting decisions, such as the decision to outright abandon the child (which is part of the 50% statistic wherein mothers either give the child up for adoption or abandon the child). Argument 3: Aborting to save a mother’s life There are documented cases wherein the life of the pregnant is at risk, and the only way to save her is to abort the child. To quote the gynaecologists of this article, “Abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. ” Quoted within the article, a study published in Guttmacher’s International Family Planning Perspectives, found that a “risk to a woman’s health” was the primary reason for 2.8% of United States abortions [13]. An example of this “risk to a woman’s health” can be found in an article at the Salon. With the fetus going to die anyway, the mother almost lost her life because of failure to abort the already doomed fetus. There was only risk of the mother dying due to the refusal of doctors to perform the abortion. This is so obviously a case wherein abortion would allow the best case scenario (and it it) [14]. Argument 4: Outlawing abortions leads to many dangerous abortions Abortions do not cease when they become illegal. An article in the New York Times writes, “A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. ” To elaborate, the researchers saw that abortion performed in a safe way in countries which it were legal, but dangerously in countries where it was outlawed. On a global scale, these illegal abortions account for 13% of women’s deaths during childbirth and pregnancy [15]. References [1] . http://www.hg.org... [2] . http://www.acf.hhs.gov... [3] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [4] . http://tinyurl.com... [5] . http://www.mit.edu... [6] . http://www.npr.org... [7] . http://www.amfor.net... [8] . http://georgetownlawjournal.org... [9] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [10] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [11] . http://www.thelancet.com... [12] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [13] . http://www.usatoday.com... [14] . http://www.salon.com... [15] . http://www.nytimes.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...

This is not necessarily the case. When prostitution is legalized, that does not mean that the legalization of human trafficking will take place. In the situation of human trafficking, the woman is acknowledged as the victim regardless of the legality of her actions - this will remain true even after prostitution is legalized.