Question: Should the Sex Trade be Legalized?

Negative Impact on Economy

Despite prostitution not being legally sanctioned, the women involved, both coerced and voluntary, could suffer financially. Prostitution is illegal because of its potential for violence and the risks it poses to individuals. However, legalizing prostitution might destigmatize it and potentially reduce the demand for such services. Amsterdam, with its legalized prostitution, functions adequately, but it is primarily a tourist draw, with visitors often partaking in prostitution as a novelty experience. The high fees charged by sex workers, facilitated by their marketing, might not be replicable in the UK due to cultural differences in sexual openness. Legalization in the UK could alter the dynamics of the sex trade, potentially leading to a wage-based system instead of commission, managed possibly more rigorously than under current pimp or madam arrangements. This shift might deter individuals from entering prostitution due to economic desperation, as alternative employment could become more appealing. The legalization of prostitution should be reconsidered, not solely because of the moral implications, but because it might not improve the lives of those within the industry.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

1. Sources- a. Look back at the prior arguments and decide for yourselves; links two and three were broken for me, and I called my opponent out on that. That isn't a Strawman, as I didn't build up an alternative argument; I simply attacked my opponent's sources which is more than acceptable in any academic debate. b. Wordpress is a blog hosting website[5]. Accordingly the things posted on these sites aren't accountable to anyone but the users and publishers; they aren't legitimate in an empirical impact calculus. Conclusion: Use your own discretion here. [5] goo.gl/XXolt 2. Devadasi- a. In India there is a caste system which exists as an unfortunate part of their Hindu belief system[6]. In earlier years, the devadasi were looked upon as very high ranking members of the Castes system, many of them still are -- it wasn't until British the invaded and colonized India that prostitution was looked down upon; they took the opportunities away from Indian prostitutes without changing the Caste system. Because of moral law, the Devadasi suffered. b. My initial argument mentioning the Devadasi was to illustrate this divide of cultural morality; ultimately prostitution is a different business with different rules in the United States than it is in India. Conclusion: It's the caste system, not prostitution which harms these women and children. [6] goo.gl/anOo4 [7] goo.gl/PImKs 3. Sex Trafficking and Protection of prostitutes- a. My second constructive argument spoke on how Canada's legalization of prostitution actually led to greater safety for prostitutes, who could now hire protection personnel and staff[3]. The think we need to realize here is that Canada is far more closely related to the United States in terms of culture and law, and so we can easily foresee this being the outcome of prostitution's legalization in the US. b. My opponent never responds to the argument of Canadian prostitution. He never argues against the higher levels of safety for these prostitutes and he never shows that prostitution would end or the negative impacts claims are unique to the Con. Conclusion: Canadian prostitution protects prostitutes. 4. Culture, Rights and Society- a. Women have the same rights as men in the United States. Unlike the Devadasi who many times don't hve any other option to support their family aside from prostitution, American citizens do have other options. For whatever reason, they choose that career themselves. b. The entirety of my opponent's arguments deal with India and Korea, there isn't even any link to the United States. This debate is not whether or not prostitution is good or bad, it's whether or not it should or shouldn't legal. Conclusion: The United States is not India or Korea. Prostitution would and does work differently here, Canada has a more immediate precedence and we can understand out system will be closer to their than to the Devadasi's 5. Burdens and Decorum a. My opponent doesn't get to claim that "I am not acting in good faith" just because he doesn't like my arguments or my style. I will avoid calling out his flaws as quite frankly it won't do anything for this debate. However I encourage all readers to use their heads and not let this debate become a he-said, she-said bicker session. b. The resolution says the United States; I've made that explicitly clear in every round. The arguments my opponent provides are completely unique to these other countries and completely ignore the negative rights argument which was the purpose of this debate in the first place. He never responds to the issue I present of making moral law from the personal beliefs of a given society. Conclusion: Wah, wah, whatever. My arguments are sound and I encourage you ignore my opponent's claims of abuse. Furthermore I ask you consider the issue of the scope of this debate being outright ignored. Underview- a. None of my opponents impacts are unique or relevant b. The US is not India or Korea c. Negative rights has been ignored.

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


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

In the United States, the act of prostitution ought to be legalized.
In the United States, there is a compelling argument to legalize prostitution, grounded in three primary points: 1) The government should not have the authority to impose restrictions on an individual's reasons for engaging in sexual activities. 2) Citizens of America should have the freedom to pursue any actions they desire, provided no harm is inflicted upon others. Aside from the harm caused by the prohibition of prostitution itself, the act of prostitution does not result in harm to others. 3) Prostitution laws are often rooted in religious beliefs, which is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state as outlined by the Supreme Court and the Constitution. Thus, laws against prostitution are unjustified and should be abolished.

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

If you legalize prostitution sex will become public. Yes there might not be people having sex in the streets but it will become more public than it is now. Also prostitution leads to an increase in both STD's and crime.

I'm not a person of your country, but anyway, I start my reply. I referred to this cite. (http://www.idebate.org...) First, basically, government have no right to engage private life like intercourse. But if the benefit of public is bigger than the private right, the regulation was based on the legal step of the law, the regulation is based on serious and careful consideration, and they are not violating the essential parts of the freedom and right, government can also regulate right of people. Basically, the justice of prostitution is based on the right to decide of their own body. But, this right is also can be restricted because of violating the dignity of human. I have the intention to argue that prostitution can violate the dignity of human so regulation of prostitution should be needed even if the rule was made by the government in this debate. Second, prostitution basically violate the rule of marry. The essence of the rule of marry is the exclusive right of the intercourse with a spouse. As long as the rule of marry remain the fundamental of the society, we should keep it. In addition, the use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sex. So, the overwhelming of freedom also can harm to the society and individual. It should be well adjusted by individuals or even by the government in the some situation. And I can tell you more side effects of prostitution. Finally, Laws regarding prostitution are also based on the serious consideration not only religion but also other aspects. I can show you this evidence by showing this site. - http://www.idebate.org... - The regulation of prostitution are not only based on the faith of religion. Violation of the right of prostitutes, the economic aspects, the side effects from the country which allow prostitute, and so many other aspects are also considered by the officials in the USA government. I'll wait your reply.

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

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

I accept this argument given the agreed definitions in the comments that "everywhere" refers to worldwide legalization, and that the con is arguing that it should not be legalized everywhere, as well as that this debate refers exclusively to homosexual marriage, rather than whether homosexuality is morally wrong in itself, so that my opponent does not pursue such a line of logic.

prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry. prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking. prostitution does not control the sex industry. It expands it. prostitution increases clandestine,hidden, illegal and street prostitution. prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings

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

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

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...


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

The legalization of prostitution should be considered. Sexual activity is a fundamental human requirement, as outlined in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which highlights the importance of physiological needs. Prostitution, therefore, serves a critical function in fulfilling this basic human necessity. (n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs)

(Pro) "Should trust a legislature to understand a mother"s body better than she can" I would like to know who's decision is it to get pregnant? Who's decision is it to have a penis inserted in to her? Who's decision is to have the penis inserted without a condom on?

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

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

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

Dissatisfaction with partner would have started before hiring a prostitute, anyone that is happy in a relationship is unlikely to cheat on their partner which means that if they are dissastified with their partners it would have happen before hand. Like any profession there are dangers that will take place and it is up to the worker to decide if they want to be put in that place. Police are at risk of shootings on a daily basis and scientist could make a deadly chemical reaction while conducting experiments, doctors are at risk at being exposed to deadly dieseses if one were to arise. There are dangers with every job that the workers have to take into account. The prostotute or the person paying for them, are responsible for making sure STDs are not transmitted. If they are transmitted it was the fault of both people. STDS are risks people would have to take if they want these services or give them.

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

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

Abortion should be legal because:1. Some woman have certain circumstances where abortion is needed, for example rape, incest, abuse etc.2. It is not the job of the goverment to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion. 3. If a woman even wants an abortion, the baby is unwanted. It is better to terminate a small blood cell, then to let it grow up unwanted or in a bad environment.

Rebuttals should occur in Round 3 . The Case from Morality- It is wrong to ban prostitution as it is not inherently an immoral behaviour and this is because it doesn't include the initiation of force . 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. The Case from safety- As it has been shown through the alcohol prohibition in 1920s and early 1930s when you criminalize certain parts of culture crime increases . 'In a study of more than thirty major U. S cities during the Prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24 percent. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9 percent, homicides by 12.7 percent, assaults and battery rose by 13 percent, drug addiction by 44.6 percent, and police department costs rose by 11.4 percent. This was largely the result of "black-market violence" and the diversion of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the Prohibition movement's hope that outlawing alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to Prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations. ' -Charles Hanson Towne (1923). The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States. New York: Macmillan. p. 159–62. Prostitution has been a part of human culture for a long time and we haven't seen it end . The fact that it is illegal in so many nations means that there has to be a black market and this black market cannot be regulated which leads to poor management and violence . The Economist says (. http://www.economist.com...) ' Governments should seize the moment to rethink their policies. Prohibition, whether partial or total, has been a predictable dud. It has singularly failed to stamp out the sex trade. Although prostitution is illegal everywhere in America except Nevada, old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). And prohibition has ugly results. Violence against prostitutes goes unpunished because victims who live on society’s margins are unlikely to seek justice, or to get it. The problem of sex tourism plagues countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where the legal part of the industry is both tightly circumscribed and highly visible. ' 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. Marjan Wijers in her article in the book Global Sex Workers wrote "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. " To this I can only add that I agree 100% . The case from Economics- We already addressed Morality and Safety . Now let's address legalising prostitution from an economic stand point . If prostitution was made legal the market itself could be taxed and this would produce large amounts of money for the government . 'Another benefit of legalizing prostitution resides in the ability to generate tax revenue. Once the applicant has successfully obtained licensing she may work at a brothel, enjoying legal income taxable at the appropriate rate. The average annual income of an employee at one Nevada brothel working only one week per month is at least $100,000 (Ayres). Based on this figure, each legally licensed sex worker would contribute more than $20,000 in federal income taxes per year. ' -(. http://people.emich.edu...) There is massive potential for a new booming industry and not just in the USA , this new field of legal work could provide jobs and money not only for those seeking employment but it would also help the state through tax revenue . Let me reference back to the quote from the Economist that I included in my case from safety - 'old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). '. These are large sums of money which can improve the conditions of many countries economically. In addition as this is my last argument I would like to point out that legalising prostitution would also lower rape rates . Legalising prostitution could make it easier to access and make it more available . 'If prostitution were legalized in the United States it is rational toassume that prices would resemble those in the Netherlands, this would result in an I of80 and a decrease in the rape rate of 10 per 100,000. The population of the United Statesif roughly 275 million so this should result is a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapesper year. ' -(. http://www.independent.org...) I hope that I have made a well thought-out argument for legalising prostitution and I wish good luck to Con.

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