Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution should remain illegal to safeguard society's well-being. Let's delve into the rationale behind this position. Initially, we need to consider the example of Germany's recent legalization of prostitution. Historically, prostitution was not entirely outlawed in Germany, following the Saint Augustine's view that it should be tolerated. [1][2] In the 1500s, the Protestant reformation and the spread of syphilis led to a shift in attitude. By the 1800s, sex workers were required to register with local police and health authorities. In the early 1900s, the focus was on regulation rather than abolition, and government-operated brothels were prevalent under Nazi rule. In unified Germany, prostitution was never fully illegal, but regulations varied by municipality. In 2002, Germany altered the law to ostensibly improve the legal situation of prostitutes. [3] However, the results of this legal change are disconcerting. Germany has become a magnet for migrant sex workers, who are often coerced from impoverished villages in Bulgaria and Romania and exploited as virtual sex slaves in Germany's 3,000 brothels. The police are virtually powerless to assist them. [4] The German government, in a 2007 report, concluded that few prostitutes had taken advantage of regular work contracts and that working conditions had only marginally improved, if at all. The law has failed to achieve its intended outcomes. Prostitution should not be legalized, as it exacerbates issues like rape (non-consensual sex), human trafficking (sex slavery), and statutory rape (consensual sex with underage partners). The average age of entry into prostitution is between 14 and 16. It is also linked with organized crime and drug trafficking, even in places where prostitution is legalized and regulated. These are activities that governments should not endorse. [5] Moreover, prostitution should not be legalized because it poses significant health risks to society. The risks of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are maximized due to prostitution. The incubation period for many STDs before they can be diagnosed means that a prostitute with two partners daily could potentially infect 42 customers before it is possible to detect that she is infected. There is no foolproof method to prevent the spread of STDs. Additionally, promiscuity is associated with other medical risks such as prostate cancer, cervical cancer, oral cancer, heart disease, domestic violence, unwanted pregnancy, and birth defects. [6] There are

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.

I see your point, but even if it is stoped, that would mean that more people who don't want to do it illegally will do it, and so will all of the people who do it illegally.This would only cause more problems, and we would have more people running arund doing drugs. I honestly do not agree with this, and believe that it would make the world a mucch worse place to be.

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

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

conclusion: prostitution should be legal :)

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...

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

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.

That is true and as with great responsibility comes great power. If abortion were to be made illegal, can you imagine how expensive it would be, the present price not withstanding? Girls would be less promiscuous because it would not be as easy to go for an abortion. Men who perform illicit actions in either raping or having sex with minors would get more punishment as compared to now. I still ask everyone to assume it was their relative that an incident happened to. All I can say is that we would not have quark doctors performing abortions, all abortions would be done in major hospitals, Before an abortion is performed the Police would be all over to make sure it does not happen again, and the perpetrators would get the maximum penalties and anyone involved would have an answer if Abortion was illegal. Statistic show that in every 6 women 1 has been raped and in every 33 men 1 has been raped. http://www.911rape.org... For these men few ever come forward to say they were raped and men cannot get pregnant. Imagine if these men could get pregnant? an act would pass through the Senate so fast before we could blink our eyes and rape would have a death penalty. Unfortunately, most of the law makers are men, whose relatives have most probably never been raped and since abortion is legal, they have no pity or remorse for the women who undergo abortion. Let us make Abortion illegal and give justice to the body of the woman.

Just today I was watching a guy fu*k a 2 year-old girl in the a*s. She cried, But he just kept pounding. So I thought to myself how is this different from school? Some children cry and don't want to go to school. But we send them anyway. What about ear piercings, Or circumcision? There are videos of circumcision on youtube. You can see baby's penis getting cut while the boy is screaming in pain. That's legal. Videos of murder, Torture and decapitation are all legal. You can find them on websites like liveleak. Child porn should be legal too. If I want to see a 4 year-old girl being fu*ked like the little slut she is, I should be able to see it just like any regular guy can see porn when he wants. It would give me pleasure, The overall happiness would increase, And to be honest, I would have more interesting things to do in my life, Like sharing child porn. I would be too busy with that to actually rape children. So if you want to help children, You should make child porn legal. Now, I understand that if you don't want to help children, Or want to see them suffer, You would be against child porn. But even if you hate children, You could legally watch their suffering on child porn, If it was legal. So even if you hate children, Or love children, You should be in favor of child porn. If you accept this debate, State your reason why you think child porn shouldn't be legal.


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution should be legalized.
The legalization of prostitution would likely result in an increase in the visibility of sexual imagery in media, potentially desensitizing children and leading to a larger population. Many sex workers lack formal education due to a history of substance abuse or a preoccupation with romantic relationships during their formative years. Legalizing prostitution may also attract individuals who are not fully aware of the implications of their actions, leading to an increase in people relying on government assistance programs for child rearing and living expenses, further straining the national debt. Additionally, a significant portion of prostitutes opt for cosmetic enhancements, such as breast augmentations, in an attempt to gain more clients, which can be indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills.

I'm not sure if this is satire. I don't think it is. To legalize toxic poisons is to support death and addiction. It does not matter if the buyer of a drug is aware of the dangers of the drug before buying it. People know that cigarettes kill them, but they still buy cigarettes anyway. Making something illegal is the best way to get rid of danger. I support marijuana legalization. I don't support meth, or LSD, or heroin. I don't think any sane person would support the legalization of those. If all drugs are made legal, the country will be left in a state of anarchy. It is wrong to drive while under the influence of drugs. It is wrong to take illegal drugs. It is wrong to sell illegal drugs. What you are suggesting here, sir, is a form of legal suicide. I don't think suicide is a very good thing to legalize. To ban drugs is not to regulate the human body. To ban drugs is to keep the human body safe. A person COULD potentially shoot themselves with a staple gun in the crotch, but it won't be very enjoyable. Drugs didn't exist in ancient times, sir. We invented them, and we must destroy them. They alter the mind, they change behavior, they are a highly lucrative and deadly business that must be kept under lock and key by law enforcement. There would be many problems if an individual had complete control over his or her body. Humans are irrational beings. Read "The Imp of the Perverse" By Edgar Allan Poe. Your second reason is equally absurd. Cocaine did not become popular because marijuana was expensive. Cocaine got popular because it took people on acid trips. It had nothing to do with marijuana. Marijuana was not only high priced in the old days- it was illegal. It was illegal because the big tobacco industries wanted to avoid competition from marijuana. Marijuana is actually simply a relaxing, smokable plant with very few side effects. I see no reason why it shouldn't be legalized. It's easy to grow and it brings in a hefty profit. As for cocaine, though- well, it's insane. Watch "Reeefr Madness" for some stupid propaganda. In reason two, you're ignorant about how economic processes work. The more money we put into the war on drugs, the more drugs lose. When we fight something, it declines. If we fight drugs enough, the prices will go up so high that nobody will buy them. That's what we're aiming for. And if drug dealers develop a new, cheaper, more powerful drug, then we simply eradicate that one as well. Lower prices would mean MORE drugs sold, not LESS. I think you think you've uncovered some sort of counter-intuitive loophole. You haven't, sir. Laws are exactly what they seem. Laws are for keeping people safe. If we legalize heroin, most people won't use heroin. But some people will. And they'll die, or they won't be arrested for possession of heroin. Today, you can get arrested for simply owning heroin. In your insane world, police won't be able to arrest people who are holding a big bag of heroin. Sane people don't use heroin. But insane people do use heroin. laws are put in place to keep the insane people incheck. I'm not sure why we would need to legalize a drug, if most people wouldn't take that drug anyway unless they had a death wish. It seems very risky. We could make murder legal- Heck, we could do the whole Purge. But it would suck. Big time. Nobody can have a good life while using drugs- aside from marijuana. Drugs are poison. Addictive, deadly poison. We must remove temptation to reduce temptation. 1 in 3 adults might try drugs during their lives. That does not mean they should have. Maybe they only took marijuana. That's fine. Heroin drives people insane. It kills people. It drives people over the edge. Drug addicts should be offered help. But it does not help them to legalize the very thing which hurts them. They would not be more likely to seek help if we legalized drugs. They would go on a drug binge and then die. There is a correct way to go about drugs. And that is to make them illegal.

My sole contention is going to base itself off of Cultural Relatavism which is defined as "the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture."[1] http://www.princeton.edu... Morality definition: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.[2 ]http://www.merriam-webster.com...Morality is subjective based on the culture, therefore we should base todays round on what is morally considered acceptable for that country. Porn is an equal exchange of services that if done traditionally, does not harm anyone on either side of the exchange. "75% of Danish men and 1/3 of Danish women watch porn according to a 2014 survey by the women’s magazine Q.Masturbating, “sexual inspiration”, and killing time were the reasons given to use pornography.The Local DK, 10-31-14" "A University of Sydney, Australia, study found that:70% of Australian men view porn online (the article quotes that some surveys show the number as high as 90%). The average first exposure to porn is age 11.80% of 15 to 17 year olds have had multiple exposures to hard core porn. Newcastle Herald, September 12, 2014"We see consistently throughout modern societies, porn is something that is being used by the majority of citizens. A majority following for that culture means it is considered to moral for that society. I'll give a hypothetical, slavery is frowned upon in current societies, therefore it is considered immoral for our societies standards, however, if a society generally accepts slavery as something that is acceptable, then it would be considered moral for that society to empose it.A non-hypothetical would be the Aztecs in the 1400s. When Europeans landed in the New World in 1492 they witnessed the human sacrifices that occurred in these areas and then imposed their morality unto them by determining that these people must be evil, because they had a ritual of killing people for the gods. However, to them it was considered moral because it was acceptable for their society. This is a very good example of cultural relavism.Porn is similar to this, as it is generally accepted and used as a means to enjoy onself.Back to you Pro

If abortion were to be made illegal, it may be more expensive but it would not stop people from getting them. It would just decrease the safety of the procedure. You are right that we should not have untrained and unlicensed doctors performing these surgeries but the fact is that we would have them if abortion was made illegal. So it is better for the procedure to be done right and professionally rather than in an unsafe environment. If it was my relative or family I would want them to be able to make the choice for themselves. Some girls may be more promiscuous but some may not, one can't say what would really cause girls to act that way. Abortion being legal or illegal does not directly relate to girls being promiscuous or not. Abortion being illegal does not deter girls promiscuity. Statistics of rape cannot be considered completely accurate due to victims not always coming forward which is a lot more prevalent in male than female cases.

Obviously I can't answer for every single sex worker out there as to why she/he (for the record, there are also male sex workers) chooses to be in that specific profession. Because that is what it is or should be hence the legalization - a profession. Sex work is a profession like any other - you do something you're good at, and you work to earn money, you work to pay the bills, you work to be able to buy the things you want. Whether or not sex work is immoral is a matter of opinion and possibly religion. Does a sex worker have no dignity? Of course, he/she does! To me, a person does not lose their dignity just because they choose to be a sex worker. But again that's just my personal opinion. This is something that we might as well agree to disagree upon, as I don't think we'll ever come to a common conclusion, which is completely okay. This debate isn't as much about our personal opinions and views as it is about facts, though. And the facts that I presented in my first argument are just that - facts. You mention that many people say we can avoid rape by legalizing sex work. Avoiding rape completely is basically impossible. But we can reduce it. When Rhode Island legalized prostitution, both incidence of gonorrhea and the number of rapes decreased significantly (gonorrhea by 39% and rape by 31%). * It has also been estimated that the number of rapes in the United States will decrease by approximately 25% if sex work was legalized.** Whether or not you think that legalization of sex work is the best solution because of the "immorality" of it is again a matter of perspective, opinion and possibly religion. But the facts will remain the same no matter what personal opinion we may have. In your argument you also say that prostitution is harmful to women due to the high risks of STD's, unwanted pregnancy and miscarriage. Yes, for the sex workers working on the streets there are very high risks of this, as the male clients most likely won't want to use a condom. This is where the legalization of sex work could have a huge impact. If the sex workers are working in legal brothels, wearing a condom will most likely be a requirement for the clients (it is in the legal brothels in Nevada), and the sex workers won't be exposed to STD's or unwanted pregnancy. If, say a condom breaks and a sex worker gets an STD or gets pregnant, the sex worker can receive treatment at the regular check up with their doctor (these check ups should be a requirement at legal brothels and they are at the legal brothels in Nevada). * http://www.nber.org... ** http://www.independent.org...

My opponent has put forth a good argument, but it has a few flaws: "There are many instances in which a person is justified to kill a someone (prostitute) in self-defence." This is true, but also irrelevant. "Murder" involves the intentional killing of another human being for reasons other than self-defence. The premise is that it is immoral to MURDER prostitutes, and so Con must prove that murdering a prostitute is morally permissible (or at least morally ambiguous), and/or that prostitutes aren't human, and/or that killing them is never intentional. "Seriously, rape on a prostitute is okay because anyway, she is used to it. She will be more happy if you rape her." Prostitutes are not asking to be raped. They are asking for money. Politicians, on the other hand, ask for both. "They are also providing sexual diseases and danger." In countries where prostitution is both legal and regulated, the prostitutes are generally safe and clean, and get regular STD check-ups (as required by law). If anything, visiting a prostitute is safer than picking up a girl in a bar. "Sometimes, they destroy a family when a married man engages to a prostitute." Men in happy marriages don't visit prostitutes. Why would they, when they're getting plenty at home? Any man who's fvcking hookers is already dissatisfied with his marriage. "Please let us also kill prostitutes because politicians have a lot of prostitutes. They have infected the politicans as well and vice versa." It's the "vice-versa" that is the problem.

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

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...

You are basically living a double standard life dealing with abortion. I say that because you say that you morally don't agree with abortion, but you basically think it is okay because the law has made it legal. I believe that if you were against abortion then you would not say it was okay because it is legal. By sitting back and not doing anything about it is saying that it is ok. What make aborting an unborn child any different than me going out and killing someone

Thanks to Bob_Gneu for starting this debate. Legalization of various things is a hot topic on this site, but I hope to put some perspective on things. While what is being legalized was not specified, I assume that we will not talk about the legalization of serious crimes such as murder. I will use definition 2 of promote that my opponent offered; "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Therefore, I have to prove that legalizing something increases publicity, sales, or awareness to affirm. 1. Legalizing leads to publicity Companies sell products and services to the public for money. They are limited by 2 things: What the people will buy, and what they can legally market. So, as long as an action is illegal, companies cannot legally market it and display it to the general populace. However, if they sell a legal product, there a few ways to increase its marketing. The main way, is through advertisements. Advertisements are run all the time during out favorite shows, meaning that we constantly are seeing the newest thing. Now lets look at prostitution, since my opponent brought it up. Prostitution is something many people enjoy and pay for. But it is unmarketable by companies since it is illegal. But by legalizing something such as prostitution, it will be marketed. There will be several people or corporations looking to collect women and offer them for sale. "However, thats the status quo, right? Women are already collected and offered for sale, just illegally". Thats absolutely true. But there is one thing the black market will never have access to, and thats advertisements. Just as we dont see crack being offered on your average CNN commercial, we dont see prostitutes being offered either. However, under a legalization system, it will be perfectly OK to advertise it. You will see women being publicized all the time on your nightly news station. Similar things would happen with marijuana. Somebody will find the newly legalized good as a huge business opportunity, market it, sell it on a massive scale, and then advertise the crap out of it. Imagine a world where meth is advertised in commercials, albeit in a subtle way (like Viagra), or where you see ads for AK-47's in the newspaper. Advertisements are what promotes the object. Remember, we agree to define promote as "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Advertisements give publicity and increase awareness, as we see thr product advertised more often. But this is only possible if the product is legal. If it is not, it cannot be legally marketed, and therefore not advertised in public media. If it is legal however, then it is promoted through anybody seeking to make a business opportunity out of it. Whether promoting the once-illegal product is a good or bad thing is another discussion. However, I hope that I have shown my opponent how legalization of something does lead to its promototion.

Last time I tried to debate this, my opponent forfeited before finishing the debate. Please only accept this debate if you are going to finish it. My position is that all illegal drugs should be legalized. I'll post arguments supporting this in the next three posts. Definitions: Illegal- Currently banned under US law. Drugs- There are too many illegal recreational drugs for me to mention them all, but specifically, I will discuss heroin, cocaine/crack, meth, ecstasy, and PCP, and any other drugs my opponent wishes to mention. Legalized- Currently illegal drugs would be given the same legal status as tobacco or alcohol.


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

Prostitution Ought to be Decriminalized

The proposition is straightforward and should not provoke undue controversy. I assert that prostitution should be decriminalized. For the purpose of this discussion, legal references will pertain specifically to U.S. jurisdiction. Arguments regarding the legality of prostitution in regions such as Sudan or Somalia are off-topic. Let us begin by clarifying some terms:

* Prostitution: The act or practice of engaging in sexual activities, particularly for financial compensation. [Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
* Should: Utilized to denote necessity, appropriateness, or advisability. [Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary]
* Decriminalized: To remove legal prohibitions or penalties. [Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

There is no inherent immorality in prostitution

I contend that prostitution is not inherently immoral. If consensual sexual encounters are lawful, why should consensual sexual encounters involving financial transactions be treated differently? There is nothing inherently wrong with making a livelihood out of consensual sexual acts, as it does not cause harm to either party.

Summary

I acknowledge that my argument is concise and perhaps lacking in depth. However, I anticipate that my opponent may challenge the practical implications of decriminalizing prostitution rather than its morality. I am familiar with potential counterarguments, but addressing each one preemptively would be inefficient. I look forward to my opponent's response and wish us both a productive debate.

"This debate has sort of skewed on way. So now why not we look at the law side of things next?" i'm not sure what you are asking for. we are already discussing why or why not the law should be the way i contend. people are free to enjoy themselves and do whatever they want. but when it comes to potentially harming a putative someone else, it becomes an issue for society. one's rights end where another's begins. for all the reasons i stated above, we treated that putative someone as a person, but recognize the various factors in consideration, and not punish. for all the reasons i stated above, we to defer to that putative person as a person, because there's too many compelling reasons not to.... but we don't punish because there's so many compelling counter factors looking at the totality.

Thanks to Bob_Gneu for starting this debate. Legalization of various things is a hot topic on this site, but I hope to put some perspective on things. While what is being legalized was not specified, I assume that we will not talk about the legalization of serious crimes such as murder. I will use definition 2 of promote that my opponent offered; "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Therefore, I have to prove that legalizing something increases publicity, sales, or awareness to affirm. 1. Legalizing leads to publicity Companies sell products and services to the public for money. They are limited by 2 things: What the people will buy, and what they can legally market. So, as long as an action is illegal, companies cannot legally market it and display it to the general populace. However, if they sell a legal product, there a few ways to increase its marketing. The main way, is through advertisements. Advertisements are run all the time during out favorite shows, meaning that we constantly are seeing the newest thing. Now lets look at prostitution, since my opponent brought it up. Prostitution is something many people enjoy and pay for. But it is unmarketable by companies since it is illegal. But by legalizing something such as prostitution, it will be marketed. There will be several people or corporations looking to collect women and offer them for sale. "However, thats the status quo, right? Women are already collected and offered for sale, just illegally". Thats absolutely true. But there is one thing the black market will never have access to, and thats advertisements. Just as we dont see crack being offered on your average CNN commercial, we dont see prostitutes being offered either. However, under a legalization system, it will be perfectly OK to advertise it. You will see women being publicized all the time on your nightly news station. Similar things would happen with marijuana. Somebody will find the newly legalized good as a huge business opportunity, market it, sell it on a massive scale, and then advertise the crap out of it. Imagine a world where meth is advertised in commercials, albeit in a subtle way (like Viagra), or where you see ads for AK-47's in the newspaper. Advertisements are what promotes the object. Remember, we agree to define promote as "Give publicity to so as to increase sales or public awareness." Advertisements give publicity and increase awareness, as we see thr product advertised more often. But this is only possible if the product is legal. If it is not, it cannot be legally marketed, and therefore not advertised in public media. If it is legal however, then it is promoted through anybody seeking to make a business opportunity out of it. Whether promoting the once-illegal product is a good or bad thing is another discussion. However, I hope that I have shown my opponent how legalization of something does lead to its promototion.

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

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.

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

I will label each argument I'm referring to by your quotes of me by 1. 2. 3. etc.. (in order) 1.I said an independent agency. Not a federal. A federal law would establish the need for one, and I'm positive someone like Hugh Heffner would immediate jump on that to fund it. The underage prostitution. I hate it. Nothing we can do about it that isn't already being done. By making prostitution into a company, we create accountability, a system for complaints, and abuse disappear. I have never heard of a prostitute abuse case from Amsterdam or Nevada. Pimps are created because it's ILLEGAL if you take away the illegality then the pimps disappear. Industrialize the industry of sex and you make it clean and sparkly. "life style of drug use, neglected children, abuse, depression" I already sufficiently proved you wrong in the department of drug use, abuse, and neglected children (condoms). Depression? Sex releases all of the Endorphins in the body and makes you anything BUT depressed. Further, turning "prostitution into a a company means that there are support groups for the one in a million shots that someone will be depressed. Street walking hookers are depressed because they get abused by their pimp (which would disappear with legalization) and because they don't make much money. Street walkers don't choose that lifestyle, but prostitution itself is not bad and many choose it if it can be done with class. 2.Ok. So what? Your husband is probably a, "nasty man breathing, sweating" all over you... The point being that legalized prostitutes would enter that profession willingly and be able to get out willingly. Let's compare this to a masseuse. Do you think they want to be rubbing a million people's backs? All of their skin etc etc. No matter what that person looks like they have to touch them in some very intimate places. Should they stop working? Also, don't characterize men who can't get sex the normal way as nasty. You are a terrible person for saying such a thing and it's not an objective way of looking at it. 3.Are you worried about hurt feelings or preventing 500 people from contracting an STD. Priorities lady. 4.All of those things that you say it pros. entails...would dissapear. If you make something illegal, the people who want it and need it who associate with it are going to do illegal things. For example, a good quote I like to quote about another issue, but very similar in concept. "If you criminalize guns, only the criminals have them." Making Pros. legal removes hookers from that illegal industry of drugs and abuse. 5. When I say famous people, I say people of note in history. It's been a longtime tradition to use hookers and it only became immoral in recent history, but you wouldn't know that because you didn't read my whole post. The Romans had nightly orgies. Hookers were commonplace. They were one of the smartest most intelligent societies on the planet. Prostitution was not a problem in their city, it was a release. Their issue was over expansion over time. Here also is an article about Greece...http://en.wikipedia.org... 6.The exploitation would end as soon as you remove the pimps and regulate everything like a corporation. A business. 7.I have no idea what you're talking about. If I were to use a hooker legally I would want to be able to meet her, make clear want I want in a friendly environment without an angry pimp staring at me waiting for me to finish so he can make more money. Then I would want to be taken to a clean room, not a raunchy motel. I'm not the only one that thinks like this. Look at the Redlight district in Amsterdam where it is legal and brothels are very clean and run like a business. 8.Your point was that prostitutes attract drugs. If you remove them from the parts of the world that have heavy drug use and put them in clean brothels off the street and don't allow drugs...they would go away. 9.Yes it will happen. Forever. As long as there is a market. I hate it. We agree on this. 10. Don't try to weasel your way out of your words. The concept is there. 11. You said sex dumbs you down. Logically, you and I are both idiots. 12. It's only degrading to you and your fellow pros. haters. The rest of the world who likes it doesn't seem to agree. Degrading is a subjective term, I already went over this, but you ignored it. 13. The lifestyle hurts people because of the state it's in. If you remove it from the streets and take it inside and make it a business with clients and accountability (and the possibility of moving around to other brothels and therefore creating competition) You've lost this argument. All of your arguments are subjective relating to YOUR values. YOUR children. and YOUR life. It is not the role of the federal government to dictate how I get my sex, or god, or anyone. Non interventionism. I can't believe I wrote all this out. Look at amsterdam. They have very happy well paid hookers who enjoy what they do and very happy clients. They don't have drug addicts, pimps, hookers wandering the streets.... QED.

Now, the next thing that I am going to do is to respond to his arguments. "As a Catholic, I am fully aware that it teaches fornication as a carnal union between two persons who are unmarried. .. " You will notice that the debate is specifically about premarital sex. Many people consider premarital sex and fornication to allways be one and the same act. This is not allways the case. You see the word fornication comes form the latin word fornix, which translates "as a cellar used for prostitutes; a brothel. " Furthermore, quoting the article,"the original Greek Scripture word for fornication is pronounced pornia, which is defined as "to have sexual intercourse delivering woman/wife to/upon man/husband during/under/for MONEY. [My caps lock. ]" It means prostitution. . http://www.the-goldenrule.name.... Now, what about two unmarried adults, consensually engaging in premarital sex? That isn't exactly the same thing as a guy and an exploited prostitute. I would concede that this is immoral because prostitutes don't really have a choice, they need the money, they are often being exploited. But even my opponent didn't mention sexual exploitation, he just misused the word fornicate. In his first round my opponent did not widen the grounds to prostitution, or sexual exploitation of any type. Therefore, I would argue, this debate is only about the immorality, or lack thereof, of consensual premarital sex. He's going to have to use a different word than fornication in order prove that the bible prohibits all premarital sex. "Next, is that it can lessen danger to people. " What can lesson danger to people? My opponent needs to spell things out. Then he went into all the risks of engaging in premarital sex: STD's, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, etc "(for people who don't use contraceptives)" his concession, not mine. And he's exactly right, I agree with him, those who don't wear condoms are at risk of having unwanted pregnancies, and catching bad diseases, and everything else. It is true that the spread of STD's and fatherless children, and all those things are ethical issues. But as he put it, these things happen to people who don't use contraceptives. So, as long as people remember to put on a little piece of rubber, these risks are mitigated. Now, it is true that these risks don't go away 100% of the time, but the risk fo pregnancy for example, is reduced to 2% if condoms are worn properly. . http://www.babycenter.com... So, if a condom is used properly, the risk goes down to 2%. That's tiny. Even if my opponent was going to go back and 'clarify,' his concession, (which he can't do), arguing the immorality of taking on such slim odds is silly. It would be like saying that it is immoral to risk the lives of your family when you take them on a car ride (and after they have taken the precaution of wearing seat belts. ) Now, as the oppostion, I don't have to prove that premarital sex is right, or moral, and I am arguing that consensual, premarital sex is morrally nuetral. Both religiously and practically speaking. The religious immorality has been proven wrong because the forbidden fruit if you will, fornication is really a word for using prostitutes. The practical immorality of risking certain bad consequences has been proven wrong, not in all cases, but in the vast majority of cases of safe sex. So the protected sexual act, between (for the sake of argument) a straight couple, that isn't brother and sister has not been proven immoral by my opponent. Let's see how he does with that in round 2. Furthermore, while there is some health risk involved in safe sex, it is also something which is natural and which is, in many ways healthy. It relieves stress. It burns calories (it's obviously a workout. .. ), and it even boosts the immune system. . http://www.webmd.com... I have to go soon, I've been rather busy, so I'll bring up more arguments in my next round. I'm Jewish, but I believe in evolution. I believe evolution was god's will, and we can have a debate about that some other time. But I do need to ask my opponent this. As a Catholic who believes in Creation, you believe God created man. Tell me this. If premarital sex is wrong, than why did god create us with sexual urges? Why did god make it fun for human's to have sex? Because God wanted to discourage it?

"That may be true where you live but I'm talking about every state in America. Where I live, there is no such thing as a license for being a prostitute. If money is involved, they can get arrested. They can't get a license in my area." Actually brothels are the buildings that are actually licensed and the prostitutes, the contracted workers, are legally allowed to sell sexual services, but any prostitution outside the licensed brothels would be illegal prostitution. Yes I understand that they do not have it in you area, because Nevada is the only state in the United States that brothels are legal. There are countries that have already legalized prostitution such as Netherlands, Germany, Austria and New Zealand but this has impacted the Netherlands with child prostitution dramatically in a 5 year period; 4,000 children engaged in prostitution during the year of 1996 and in the year of 2001 it has increased to 15,000 children involved in prostitution according to The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization. So legalization of prostitution may most likely lead to the results of children prostitution. "Actually, that may come out as a positive thing because where prostitutes won't make as much money, they might try to live an honest life or maybe they will just lower their price" Contracted prostitutes in state licensed brothels are capable of setting their own prices for any services at any given time, so therefore they would only of course absurdly raise the pricing of their services when there is a customer that they find repulsive. They of course would not do this to everyone because they would need to pay for their staying at the brothel. I would say the contracted prostitutes are already living an honest life due to the fact that they are not in the streets and paying the costs of their living which includes eating, and sleeping, at the brothel. "Making prostitution legal would break the link between their managers or pimps. These individuals subject prostitutes to physical abuse and threats of violence, retain a portion of their earnings, and often encourage them to become addicted to drugs. The provision of a secure environment in which to work would allow men and women to be independent of these individuals." Actually there is no real proof of that it would break any such link a pimp has against the illegal prostitutes. In fact if legal brothels are state owned and so technically there is still a manager or pimp, which of course would be the state. And by what I have read there still happens to be forced human trafficking in the Netherlands, so there of course would still be pimps abducting and using violence for human trafficking and would easily be concealed in the opened as other legal prostitutions go on. So, It would still be unlikely for men and woman to be independent from pimps. "Legalisation of prostitution would bring clear economic benefit for governments. A tax on the fee charged by a prostitute, and the imposition of income tax on the earnings of prostitutes would generate revenue." By which you would be referring to legal brothels because that is where prostitutes would most effeciently be controlled by the government and taxing of the clients. State brothels are better alternatives to prostitution "everywhere". "The problem of a high concentration of sex tourists in a short number of destinations will disappear once a larger number of countries legalise prostitution. Supporting this motion, therefore, will reduce the problem of sex tourism." I agree with that thought, but do not agree in trying to globaly make other countrie's cities into the Netherland's Amsterdam. I would like a better alternative than Amsterdam, because in the Netherlands prostitutes are not required to have mandatory health check ups...... so they might be dirty, not like they already are lol.

Definitions [4] Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority. Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action; a person who is tricked or duped. Rape: unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim. Sexual Assault: any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Pimp: a man who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking part of their earnings in return. Prostitution should not be legal for 3 main reasons: it promotes children to be trafficked, most of the prostitutes are victims, and whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job. The average age of a girl entering prostitution is 12-14 years old, although some can be as young as nine [1]. What's worse is that at least 100,000 children are used as prostitutes each year as part of the $9.8 billion U.S, sex trafficking industry [2]. If prostitution were to be legalized, America would be legalizing something women and girls want to escape from. Studies have shown that as much as 95% of prostituted women want out of prostitution but can't leave due to circumstances like having no other job skills, needing to be able to provide food and shelter for themselves and possibly family, and being under the control of their pimp [1]. Most of these women are victimized by how 65%-95% of those in prostitution were sexually assaulted as children [1]. They are also considered victimized by how pimps target those who already have a history of abuse or are runaways [2]. "I had started having sex at ten years old; I knew how to please men, even if it killed me. But at night when I came home and I showered I scrubbed and lathered to try and get the streets off me. I hated being touched by tricks. Each time I did a call I felt as if I was being raped again. Working in call I never knew what my day would bring. My best friend was raped in the room next to me and I never heard a sound. The trick muffled her cries and walked out like nothing was wrong. Every day I would try to drown out the thought that I might be next. My mantra was get your money and get them out, but I was dying inside." [3] Many prostitutes fight for their lives everyday. They suffer from rape, physical assault (client or pimp), and any other type of abuse that harms them physically and emotionally. Legalizing prostitution would be like legalizing another crime instead of taking action. They need help from prostitution, not support for it. Sources: [1]- http://www.ksufreedomalliance.org... [2]- http://thinkprogress.org... [3]-http://www.prostitutionresearch.com... [4]- Google Definitions

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.


Question: Should the Act of Prostitution be Legalized?

The legalization of prostitution would offer a solution to the hidden issues within the industry. While your argument is valid, I believe that after the legalization of prostitution, the women involved will have easier access to mental health professionals, allowing them to discuss and address their emotional and psychological struggles. This open dialogue will likely lead to more effective problem-solving. Prostitutes will no longer fear discussing these issues with others, and upon uncovering such problems, researchers will be better equipped to propose viable solutions. Without legalization, society remains unaware of the challenges and obstacles that come with this profession.

Pro's argument is that we should actively distribute these illegal substances instead of simply making them legal. He argues that we shouldn't even try to get addicts to quit taking these illicit substances, but let them keep doing it since they will eventually enter 'spontaneous remission' anyway. Knowing this, my grounds for opposition will be to argue that we shouldn't encourage others to use these illicit substances, but that we shouldn't prosecute them for using them either. Instead the solution is to simply make usage of these substances legal and allow the market and society to solve the problem itself. Before I get into my arguments any further, I should note that my opponent has failed to provide any evidence for anything he has state thus far. Evidence is not always necessary for a debate, especially when there are premises that both sides openly agree on. However when the likes of 'Spontaneous Remission' are made, legitimate evidence is necessary to show that said claims are true. I challenge Pro to provide evidence for the arguments he has already made in this debate in his next round. To make this claim fair, I will not source my arguments until he does so. With that out of the way, my argument is that we should in no way encourage use of such dangerous substances, but we shouldn't prohibit either. The natural precedent to look at for such an issue is prohibition. After making this substance illegal the nation entered a period of immorality and high crime rates. It should be interesting to note that substances such as heroin and other opiates were once legal as well, but when they were outlawed the reaction was not as severe, but we'll get to the impacts of that in just a moment. The attempt to regulate morality here backfired and prohibition was eventually repealed. Since then public concern and social movements have done a much better job at lowering usage of alcohol than policing morality ever have. If we were to allow heroin and other opiates to follow this precedent, then we would also leave such social programs in place to take care of this problem. Making it legal would take the danger out of heroin usage, but still provide an outlet to treat addiction as an issue of public health.

Most sex workers are female and the selling of sex makes the women seem like an item. This does not help the current problem of the demeaning women in all parts of the world. Also, it enhances the changes of rape and violence. Some people who are prostitutes call it rape and again, make the women seem like an item.

Just today I was watching a guy fu*k a 2 year-old girl in the a*s. She cried, But he just kept pounding. So I thought to myself how is this different from school? Some children cry and don't want to go to school. But we send them anyway. What about ear piercings, Or circumcision? There are videos of circumcision on youtube. You can see baby's penis getting cut while the boy is screaming in pain. That's legal. Videos of murder, Torture and decapitation are all legal. You can find them on websites like liveleak. Child porn should be legal too. If I want to see a 4 year-old girl being fu*ked like the little slut she is, I should be able to see it just like any regular guy can see porn when he wants. It would give me pleasure, The overall happiness would increase, And to be honest, I would have more interesting things to do in my life, Like sharing child porn. I would be too busy with that to actually rape children. So if you want to help children, You should make child porn legal. Now, I understand that if you don't want to help children, Or want to see them suffer, You would be against child porn. But even if you hate children, You could legally watch their suffering on child porn, If it was legal. So even if you hate children, Or love children, You should be in favor of child porn. If you accept this debate, State your reason why you think child porn shouldn't be legal.

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...

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

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

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

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...

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

Some of your points/reason are repeated, basically you are trying to say- Legalization of prostitution gives legal rights to pimps or sex industry to expand the prostitution , and it doesn't promotes women's health , doesn't enhance women's choice and may cause increment in child prostitution. So my point is : Legalization of prostitution doesn't means that anyone who wants to run prostitution can got permission from government, now government's have control on it. After legalization, pimps have to take license from government to run the prostitution. And practicing of unfair means by them can cancel their license, so it creates a fear for them, so they can follow the prescribe rule to run the prostitution. In case of expansion, So it is a choice, if anyone prefer it so she/he can go in it and if pimps try to make force on her/him then she/he can go for complain. Legalization of prostitution, doesn't means that governments give allowance for child prostitution, there would be minimum age which is decided by government, same as government define minimum age for marriage and minimum age for drinking, and if any case are found regarding child prostitution there should be complain of it and should be punished. Legalization of prostitution definitely protect women(prostitutes) because now what they are doing is legal so they can go to cop or state court if any unfair means happens to them and got a help from a state. State would not give licence for street prostitution to pimps, and also after legalization government have information of where prostitution is going on because every sex industry or brothel's which are running now they try to got a legal license. After legalization of prostitution state would conduct protective steps to ensure health and safe environment for prostitutes and provides labour rights and prostitutes have identity in society and if 100% is not followed but still these condition is much better than condition what prostitutes suffer in these day's.