The Instigator
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

DDO Official Tournament 2: That prostitution should be legalised

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
larztheloser
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,402 times Debate No: 26123
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

larztheloser

Pro

Hello and welcome to this first round debate for the DDO Official Tournament. Rules are as for all the debates in this tournament (including the fact that this is an acceptance round).

I doubt there will be serious definitional issues in this debate. The topic is not tied to any specific jurisdiction. Prostitution is exchanging some kind of sexual service for currency. Legalised means the government makes it legal to do it. It is presumed that prostitution is not currently legal. I will be affirming that prostitution ought to be legal.

Finally, I thank my opponent for suggesting this highly divisive and interesting topic, and look forward to a really fun debate.
lannan13

Con

I accept.

I might warn that I'll be posting some policy debate cards.
Debate Round No. 1
larztheloser

Pro

I have absolutely no idea what that warning means, but thank you very much for accepting! I'm glad to get this debate underway at last.

Prostitution will still happen

It is irrelevant whether prostitution is legal or illegal - there will still be prostitutes. I quote from an article published by The Economist (http://www.economist.com...): "Prohibition of gambling and alcohol have both been tried in varying degrees in dozens of countries around the world, always with the result of stimulating illegality and sleaze. The sex industry appears to be no different. All developed economies have conceded that the business is impossible to stamp out." There remains ongoing evidence of this to this day. In the United States, 15% of men admit to having paid for sex in 2004 - despite it being illegal in all states except Nevada (http://abcnews.go.com...). An even larger number of men probably didn't want to admit to a crime to a random person conducting a telephone survey. Similar kinds of survey effects happen with drugs as well.

There are a number of reasons for this. The most important thing is to consider why people become prostitutes, and the typical answer is that they need money. Prostitution is selling yourself - this is not a decision made on a whim. These are usually people who feel they have few other options. This is why an extraordinarily large proportion of prostitutes contemplate suicide. Prostitutes are the broke college students who need to make a little money to finish their degrees. Prostitutes are the homeless who can't find work. They're the hard working mothers whose day job doesn't earn them sufficient income to give their kids a good education. These people do not just magically disappear because you make prostitution illegal. There's no reason to think this kind of group - who probably need the work more than anyone else - will just accept unemployment as an alternative.

The main difference is that prostitutes would be more likely to honor local restrictions on how they can practice, but more importantly, where they can practice. For instance, there are good reasons not to allow street prostitutes to solicit customers right outside a public school, so it's good to put such restrictions in place. However, if prostitution is illegal everywhere, then prostitutes have little incentive not to solicit anywhere they want, so long as the police isn't watching at the time. The problem here is that the police can't watch everywhere all the time, so prostitutes tend to practice just as much in places where we don't want them as in places that are a little more appropriate.

Safety

The harm of having prostitutes work underground is that they cannot be monitored by the government. Prostitution is still relatively easy to do because unlike many industries, prostitution is by nature a secretive kind of business, particularly since many clients will be married or similar. Having support networks available for prostitutes to find out more information, share details about bad clients and get out of the industry if they want to is really important, but it this is almost impossible to organise when the government is trying to stop you.

The problem is that prostitution is one of the world's most dangerous professions. For instance, clients who do not get what they want or find themselves unable to pay will often rape the prostitute for that reason. More mean clients may engage in sexual harassment. Some clients abuse prostitutes or blackmail them. The difference is that while prostitution is illegal, if one party was asking for money from the other it's a crime. That means that the prostitutes rarely come forward to police with these kinds of crimes - because THEY'RE the criminals. Talking to other prostitutes is also very difficult because they're all trying to work secretly. The very fact that they're doing something illegal can also be used by clients as a form of blackmail. If the prostitute fails to deliver something the client wanted, and the client responds badly to that, the client may threaten the prostitute that they may end up in prison too. All this is bad for a number of reasons. First, it provides additional incentives for clients to do bad things to prostitutes. Second, it means more crime goes unreported. Both of these are particularly harmful since the sort of people who do bad things to hookers are exactly the kind of people we want in prison, as they are likely to also be bad in other aspects of their lives. In addition to putting them in prison directly, they are less likely to commit the crimes in the first place as their root cause is often a build up of sexual fustration - prostitution being a way for these people to let off steam. As well as clients, managers of illegal brothels are also rarely the nicest people, as the fact they are exploiting young women to do something criminal would suggest.

It isn't just attack that prostitutes need to be afraid of. Given their volumne of sexual contact, they need to be very aware of safe sex practices. The trouble is that prostitutes are often afraid even of visiting a doctor because of the fear of being found out as a result. Doctors have several incentives to do exactly this, not least among them that few people like to visit a medical practice that breaks laws, and the importance of reputation in the medical profession. The harms of this are that sexually transmitted diseases spread more readily from one prostitute to the next, causing health issues in the population as a whole. For prostitutes, the most dangerous of these is one known as "pregnancy". It's dangerous because it financially ruins the prostitute - both because it stops their primary income stream, and because the resulting child costs the prostitute money (unless they get an abortion, which is also expensive, controversial and dangerous). In any event it's a quick and obvious way of being busted as a prostitute.

Within the wider prostitution industry, there is also the significant risk of human trafficking. This is much harder to do when you're a legal brothel or similar than when you're illegal. Connections to the prostitution network directly allow police to monitor warning signs that human trafficking may be going on somewhere. Other management practices that can also be monitored include the age of the prostitutes, which is impossible if the police are trying to catch the prostitutes rather than process them. Underage prostitutes sometimes, although more rarely, start practicing on their own, which would indicate immediate intervention is required in their lives. This is more difficult to monitor if, for example, they are not only too ashamed to open up to their family, but doing so would get them incarcerated and give them a criminal record as well. In general, having labour protections is important in any industry, but the rule of law does not extend to the black market, thus posing a significant workplace safety risk. Beyond the immediate risks of their own industry, forcing them into circles of people who engage in illegal activity may get them involved in other illegal activities, such as taking drugs.

Safety is relative not just to the threat but to whom you are putting in a position of danger. The worst part about this is that the poor and vulnerable and the most likely to be prostitutes, and perhaps the most in need of law to protect them. This is because they are the most likely to be sufficiently motivated by the need to get resources as they have the least of them. Making prostitution illegal stigmatises not only prostitutes, but this whole population who become typecast as frequently being prostitutes. That creates classism and harms the ability of the poor in any given country to work their way out of poverty.

Next round I'll do rebuttal and will add an extra point I didn't have space for, on the role of the state.
lannan13

Con

1st I believe we should define Prostitution- the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money. http://dictionary.reference.com....

Prostitution will still happen
Currently in the U.S. prositution is illegal. However this is where you"re wrong, prostitutes are brought in from over seas they"re either kidnapped or they are promised a better life if they make X amount of money. http://www.wsfa.com...,

____Human smuggling results in sex trafficking

US DOS 06. US Dept. of State, "Fact Sheet: Distinctions Between Human Smuggling and Human Trafficking 2006" U.S Dept of State Diplomacy in Action, January 1, 2006http://www.state.gov...

Human smuggling is the facilitation, transportation, attempted transportation or illegal entry of a person(s) across an international border, in violation of one or more countries laws, either clandestinely or through deception, such as the use of fraudulent documents. Often, human smuggling is conducted in order to obtain a financial or other material benefit for the smuggler, although financial gain or material benefit are not necessarily elements of the crime. For instance, sometimes people engage in smuggling to reunite their families. Human smuggling is generally with the consent of the person(s) being smuggled, who often pay large sums of money. The vast majority of people who are assisted in illegally entering the United States are smuggled, rather than trafficked. Smuggled persons may become victims of other crimes. In addition to being subjected to unsafe conditions on the smuggling journeys, smuggled aliens may be subjected to physical and sexual violence. Frequently, at the end of the journey, smuggled aliens are held hostage until their debt is paid off by family members or others. It is also possible that a person being smuggled may at any point become a trafficking victim.

____Sex trafficking is the strongest promoter of prostitution
Enriquez, 1999 (Jean, Director of the Coalition Against the Trafficking of Women in the Asia Pacific, November, "Filipinas in Prostitution around U.S. Military Bases in Korea: A Recurring Nightmare", http://www.catw-ap.org...)

CATW asserts that trafficking in women is inseparable with the issue of prostitution. The gender-based nature of trafficking exposes itself as serving the purpose of ensuring the steady supply of women to areas where men demand sexual services. We deplore trafficking and prostitution as violations of women"s human rights. We cannot consider it work, because among others, it compels women to perform acts that denigrates their person " their integrity as human beings. They receive no assistance from either the U.S. or Philippine government. Economically, "working in the clubs" meant irregular earnings and slavery, as many of them would be withheld of their salaries or are fined for any "misconduct". The women were abused physically, psychologically and emotionally. Some were murdered.. In Korea, the Philippines and elsewhere, the women are viewed as commodities to be bought, and being Asians, they are certainly perceived as less than human.

____Human trafficking cause HIV is one of the most significant issues of our time

Stein 2010 , professor at Princeton. Stein, Richard A. (2010) "HIV: The Hidden Face of Human Trafficking," World Medical & Health Policy: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 7.

\Human trafficking emerges as one of the most significant social, legal, medical, and public health crises of our time. A relatively under-explored facet of human trafficking is the victim' risk to become infected with HIV and other sexually transmitted pathogens. Several studies reported that significant percentages of trafficking victims are HIV-positive. In addition, some of the HIV-positive victims are co-infected with hepatitis B, tuberculosis, or syphilis. The large numbers of clients, together with the unprotected sexual relationships that many trafficking victims are forced to have, greatly heighten their risk to become infected. Furthermore, just like trafficking, HIV represents a taboo topic in many societies worldwide, and the marginalization of rescued trafficking victims by families and society significantly compounds their suffering and increases their susceptibility for further abuse. The interface between human trafficking and HIV represents an important area that needs to be explored in future studies, and should receive increased attention from public health officials.


____AIDs leads to extinction of the human race.
Ho 03 (Mae-Wang Ho, author, written April 3rd, 2003, http://www.i-sis.org.uk..., accessed October 15th, 2012, AL)
George Bush has taken Europe to the World Trade Organisation over Europe"s de facto moratorium on GM imports. In the week of the G8 summit in Evian, France, Bush blasted Europe for perpetuating starvation in Africa by blocking US food aid with anti-GM policies, and announced his pledge of $15bn to combat AIDS globally, especially in Africa. The UN Population Division reported earlier this year that by 2050, the population of the hardest hit nations will have risen by 400 million less than previously estimated because of AIDS. "This estimate could be the first sign that HIV-1 will cause extinction of human beings in this millennium unless an effective AIDS vaccine is developed," said a commentary by Veljko Veljkovic and colleagues in the Lancet, published in February.
Saftey
My opponent brings up that Prostitutes aren"t safe, because they aren"t monitored by the federal government. That is false a strong private sector is better than the public sector so therefore if legalized (which it shouldn"t be) a private sector should be were prostitution is legal. http://www.urban.org...
I would like my opponent to bring up sources for his evidense until then I can't view it as creditable. I believe that instead of prostitution being legal that the government stomp it out. (This also goes with point one.)

I agree that we need to protect prostitutes, but by rolling over and legalizing it will tell people that if you make something a problem then the government will leaglize it.
Debate Round No. 2
larztheloser

Pro

If we put aside the fact that my opponent just randomly dissed all Asians, especially those from Korea or the Philippines, as mysogynists, his entire case was premised on a view that all prostitutes are trafficked or smuggled into the country. Curiously labelled as a subpoint, he also argued that prostitutes are the major source of HIV, which will apparently eventually kill us all. Let me deal with these points now...

We agree on trafficking and smuggling people

Trafficking or smuggling any person (not just prostitutes) is a crime and rightly so. This is what police ought to be stopping instead of ordinary, legal citizens who are simply trying to earn a little extra money when times get tough. Right now, there is a situation where many of these "legal" prostitutes (legally citizens, not legally prostitutes) feel they need the protection of gangs and criminal groups to hide them from the police while they are doing their work. This is really bad for the prostitutes because this makes it very easy for the gangs and criminals to traffic them - the prostitutes become dependant on them. If government could keep an eye on prostitutes, they could stop this kind of trafficking from happening. It's because prostitution is illegal that prostitutes avoid the government at all costs, which allows this activity to go on without the government realising. If the smuggled prostitutes are caught, then they are often deported because they're there illegally, rather than being questioned or kept to use as evidence against the smugglers.

My opponent asserts breifly that where prostitution is legal, more smuggling happens. Empirically there is no evidence for this (http://eprints.qut.edu.au...) and everything my opponent cited was nothing more than opinion. Why? It's for all the reasons I've described already that the opposite is a logical outcome of the status quo in places where prostitution is illegal. In my country of New Zealand, where prostitution is legal, a recent government report indicated that we have no significant problems with human trafficking at all (http://www.justice.govt.nz...), notwithstanding perhaps two or three individual cases. Beyond that most victims of trafficking aren't prostitutes (http://www.jstor.org...), and most prostitutes aren't victims of trafficking (http://femlaw.queensu.ca...). But even if this were true, the solution is not to ban all prostitution just because some people do it wrong. Banning all prostitution because some people smuggle prostitutes is analogous to banning all TV because some people watch too much TV. Rather, it should be illegal to smuggle prostitutes, not to be a prostitute.

As one book put it (http://goo.gl...) "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."

Prostitutes are not a major source of HIV

Even if they were, prostitution will still be there. They will still be spreading the same deseases. The difference is that I want to give the prostitutes government support to help them find out more about safe sex practices, as I outlined in my previous round. My opponent wants to deny them this. Right now prostitutes in most of the world are not contributing more to STDs than your average person (http://www.thebody.com...) - the only real exception to this is in third world countries where protection is often not available. If ending unprotected sex among vulnerable groups is criminal, however, they advocate for sex being criminal for all young people, as this is where most diseases spread.

HIV is quite distinct from the apocalypse, for a wide variety of reasons that I do not have the space to describe. I don't consider it the main issue of the debate anyway, so I'm not going to launch a major defense of this argument. The point is that very little of it is spread by prostitutes because most prostitutes are very concerned about safe sex, given how much of it they do.

Safety

My opponent ignored almost all of my analysis on this point. This is a shame because my analysis was really good. Here's what he did say. First, that unregulated markets do better than regulated ones. Although I'm not sure his source supports that conclusion, I think we can all agree that if economic efficiency was the goal here, a legal but unregulated market would work better than an illegal and unregulated market. Such a view also supports the resolution. What I'm advocating in this debate, however, is that the government takes a role in ensuring the safety of prostitutes, because to me the impact on the economy of prostitution - while it certainly exists in the sense that spending is often (but not always) higher when prostitution is legalised - is nothing compared to the impact of a prostitute getting raped. We need to assure the safety of prostitutes if we want to have a safe society, because as I established and my opponent seems to have conceeded, you can't stamp out prostitution.

The other thing he said is that my safety point lacked evidence. This is a really general statement and I'm not sure exactly which of my points my opponent objects to. Therefore I must ask that this be clarified somewhat in the next round, giving details of what evidence my opponent sees as lacking in my case.

Role of the State

In general, prostitution fits a class of actions that the state has already deemed to be legal. The state decided long ago that people ought to be free to use their bodies sexually to make a profit - this is why the pornography industry exists. Sex is no more illegal than posing nude, so the only principally consistent application of the law is not to ban either of them when money is added back into the equation. If we accept the view that the state is to determine moral rules about what should and should not be done, we must also expect the state to actually have a consistent and coherent moral code. The harm of this is that the general lack of principle in what determines right from wrong reduces clarity in certain borderline situations, thus reducing legal certainty. It's a lot more difficult to respect both the law in general, and any given law, when you aren't really sure what the law is or why it's there. This is definitely the case with prostitution.

There are several arguments from specific perspectives on how the state should be behaving, in addition to the above argument from inconsistency in how the state is behaving. Prostitution is a privacy issue, because it concerns things done in the most private of all possible spaces. Government regulation over what we do on the internet, which is somehow also considered private, is not allowed - so then why is regulating prostitution allowed? Almost all of privacy law is about getting others out of our private lives - the only major exception is prostitution. This itself raises another question - since prostitution is so private and there are no spillover effects on others when it is managed and regulated correctly, why should the government even care? Prostitution law would therefore be a major overstepping of the state's role in our society. There are two impacts of this. First, there is a slippery slope towards more arbritrary "moralising" of our lives, including our private lives. Second, it reduces general trust in the law, which impacts on crime rates.

My opponent says, right at the end, that it's bad that illegal things should be made legal because them being illegal is a problem. I disagree. Government ought to be solving problems, not making them by keeping something illegal.

The resolution is affirmed.
lannan13

Con

I used this as an example, this is the way it happens the most. Abducting them by bribing them for more money and a better life after they do some things.
We agree on trafficking and smuggling people

____Human trafficking slips under national radars due to its stealthy nature

, Sovereign Market. Seaport Security News |. "U.S. Port Security Is A Global Issue." Seaport Security News |. Sovereign Market, 23 Nov. 2010. Web. 22 June 2012. .

Millions of people every year are the victims of human trafficking.Slavery, which is often thought to have ended with the civil war, is alive and well in the world of today. As a crime that is not being significantly impacted by the measures taken to preventit, the governing international bodies are currently working to improve conviction of the criminals involved with this crime and also in the aid of the victims of the crime. As defined by the United Nations Protocol to Protect, Punish and Suppress Trafficking in Persons, human trafficking is “…therecruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuses of power or of a position of vulnerability” (Article 3, par 1). This tedious definition can be shortened to two words: force and fraud. All human trafficking involves someone being forced through violence or the threat of violence or coerced through fraudulent representation. Because of the stealthy nature of the crime it often slips underneath national radars.In Eastern Europe many young woman are presented with an “Amazing modeling opportunity” in the West, only to find themselves trapped in the illicit sex trade once they arrive. Worldwide there is a high demand for women and children to work as sex slaves, sweatshop labor, and domestic servants. The inefficiency of laws and law enforcement have allowed the trafficking in human beings to be the world’s third largest market falling behind drugs and weapons. Though the largest number of victims comes from South and Southeast Asia, cases of human trafficking exist in nearly all the developed nations of the West. The State Departments conservative estimate calculates that 2-4 million people are trafficked annually, but some estimates range as high as 27 million.800,000 people are trafficked across international boarders each year; 80% woman and 50% children. According to Condolezza Rice, as many as 17,500 people are trafficked to the United States each year.


I'll refute his government claim when we get to states
This is a problem in the system the government should keep the prostitutes here and question them and use them as evidence, because without evidence there is no proof that human trafficking occurred. According to your source (2) it states that the prostitutes aren't covered and protected so therefore the claims you made in round 2 are irrelevant and should be thrown out since the argument was that prostitutes would be better protected by the government. You bring up a good point, but your source is from 2005 and mine is from 2008 so people that are human trafficked are still forced into prostitution argument still stands. Your book is written in 1998 and this source from the Washington times states that legalization fails to end sex trafficking and the card is from May 2nd, 2012, so therefore my source outdated yours and my argument still stands.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com...

Prostitutes are not a major source of HIV
My opponent argues that prostitutes don't contribute to HIV vs. the average person however yet again his source is from 05-06 and my card from round 2 is in 2010 so yet again I out date my opponent and my argument still stands. My opponent states that HIV is far from apocalypse well that is true, AIDs is the apocalypse causer. AIDs are when the body’s immune system is so low that the body can’t fight off diseases so the common cold can kill.

Safety

My opponent states that I ignored all of his arguments that are false. I have spread most of this out throughout the debate so it would be a waste of characters to restate them. However my argument still applies because private sector solves for safety as the source states so therefore this topic can be flowed over to the Con’s side of the debate.

Role of State

Those posing in porn films get pleasure from sex willingly while prostitutes are forced to do this and it might not be so pleasurable. My opponent states that states are for privacy however , this is irrelevant just look at PIPA and the Patriot act so this proves that states are against privacy so there view on prostitution won’t change. my opponent also agrees in the PM with me that we both agreed that we won't debate on states, so he violates this promise and do not let him get away with this.

Feed Lannan13 more… Feed Lannan13 more.

Debate Round No. 3
larztheloser

Pro

I thank my opponent for what has been a very enjoyable debate. In this final round, I'm going to summarise why I think I've won.

Prostitution will still happen

My opponent's arguments have all been that prostitution is bad. The presumption here is that banning prostitution will actually stop prostitution. The fact that my opponent keeps bringing up statistics and sources from the United States is proof that simply making it illegal does not solve the problem. Prostitution will still happen whether it's illegal or not. My opponent never engaged with any of my other analysis on this point. The most important issue in the debate is therefore...

Safety

I said earlier that prostitution is the most dangerous profession in the world. This was not an understatement. Indeed, my opponent has several times proved exactly this point, such as in saying that prostitutes are often illegally trafficked and vulnerable to STDs. What my opponent missed is that it's easier to regulate an industry and minimise these kinds of harms when the industry is legal. My opponent failed to say anything about more than half of my impacts, such as underage prostitution, pregnancy risks, the incentives on clients to rape, the lack of recourse on the part of prostitutes if crimes are committed against them, the relativity of safety, and so on.

My opponent argues that just because his source says the private sector is safe, prostitutes must be safe. First, sorry to break it to you, but your source could be wrong - no source is divine truth. Second, as I explained last round, prostitutes are not working in the private sector under the status quo - they're working illegally. Third, the private sector can still be the private sector if it's regulated, so you're misreading "regulated" as "not private sector". Fourth, as I explained last round, the paper and I have a different understanding of "safety". Which brings me to my other point...

Role of the State

We agreed not to debate this as it pertains to any specific jurisdiction, as my opponent originally wanted to limit it to only the United States Federal government. The question of what an arbitrary state's role is is quite distinct, however, from what a specific state's role is - this debate is not, for instance, about the constitutionality of prostitution, and I think that's fair. This is why I must also object to the use of US-specific statutes to attack my privacy point, which was somewhat more universal. PIPA and the Patriot Act are also pieces of US-specific legislation I oppose, but this debate really isn't about that.

My opponent's counter-argument is that prostitutes never get pleasure from their work while pornographers always do. There are two problems with this. First, few people enjoy working as rubbish collectors, but that's no reason to outlaw rubbish collecting. They do it to earn a living which makes them happy, as they can feed their families and live well. The same is true of prostitutes. Second, prostitutes often do enjoy their work, meeting new people and having fun with their clients. There is simply no evidence for this blanket assumption.

Trafficking

While this may have been my opponent's main point, I have already conceded that it's bad and that it's a problem. What my opponent assumed, however, is that it's a problem because prostitution is legal. No empirical evidence did he present for this - only a few opinions from the opinion columns of minor newspapers like the Washington Times. I said that most people who are trafficked are not prostitutes. I'll bet that in the US, most of them are coming over the border from Mexico for a better job. I also said that most prostitutes are not trafficked, and provided empirical evidence of this from New Zealand's legalisation experience.

My opponent states prostitutes would not be better off if they had government protection because government is not protecting them from traffickers right now. This was actually one of my points under safety - government has the wrong attitude to prostitution, and should be putting traffickers in jail - not prostitutes. Criminalising prostitutes in fact undermines their ability to catch traffickers, and my model delivers this.

STDs

This was the most minor point in the debate, because thanks to my opponent's framing it was premised on the point above. Not only does it fail because that point fails, but because the reason why STDs are sometimes prevalent is that unsafe sex happens. Why? Because prostitutes can't get government or medical help! I explained this in round two. Furthermore, prostitutes don't contribute more than anyone else to STDs right now. My opponent's source merely says that trafficking spreads STDs, but recall that trafficking is more than just prostitutes - my evidence shows that among prostitutes, this problem usually does not exist.

I don't want to debate whether AIDs is the apocalypse causer because even if it is, prostitutes don't cause it - but I hope my opponent understands stuff like that it can be completely repressed with medication and that there are genetic immunities to AIDs. That's another debate though.

Conclusion

We need to protect the vulnerable in our society. Prostitutes are vulnerable, and thus worthy of our protection - not our condemnation. We feel sorry for those who are trafficked, but the prostitutes are the victims here, not the criminals! And yes, STDs are a problem, but they're not a problem with prostitutes. My opponent's whole case was based on trafficking, which is not a problem with prostitution. What this debate was instead about was, given that prostitution will still happen either way, who can best protect prostitutes - government legislation and assistance if required, or gangsters and criminals?

Even if you're like me - somebody who would never hire a prostitute in their lives - there are many good reasons to legalise prostitution. It's about taking a stand against all the negative consequences of prostitution and being able to better fight those consequences - from giving prostitutes the ability to testify in court against these criminals, to giving them medical support to prevent them from contracting an STD like AIDs. We need to understand that most of these problems came about because of the legislation to criminalise prostitution in the first place. I'm proud to have proposed this motion. Thank you all very much for your time.
lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent this has been a great debate. May the best man win. Now I'll summaries why I won.

Prostitution will still happen
Prostitution will always happen, but what my opponent fails to see is that my side on this is that if legalized then Sex Trafficking will increase and prostitutes still won't be safe, so since my opponent has failed to see my points you can flow the debate over to Con.


Safety
My opponent is blind as a bat when it comes to seeing my points he comes out and says if legalized prostitutes will be safe however I stated that prostitutes are going to wipe out the world by spreading AIDs and by voting Pro you are voting for your own death just because you want some sex on the side. Actually my source is telling the truth, because it talks about both Pros and Cons of the private sector and one of the Pros state that they get better protection/ coverage so therefore this argument can be flowed to the Cons side of things.

Role of state.
He is his exact wording of his quote on this debate in the PM, "That way you don't tie it down to any given jurisdiction, but the resolution broadly implies that prostitution is illegal in that place in the status quo. I think what this debate shouldn't be about the role of government and the effects of prostitution, and this way of framing the topic ensures that." on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 @ 10:29:20 PM. So by this he goes back on his promise and by just this you should vote Con for him breaking his promise and you can pretend this argument never happened.

Trafficking
My opponent ignores my source from round 2 that states people are buying people and smuggling people to the U.S. and force them into Sex Trafficking. http://www.wsfa.com...,
I would just like to clear things up I didn't state that trafficees should be arrested I stated that they should be questioned and used as evidence in court then returned home with some cash in their pocket.

STDs
I believe this is the most important part of the debate and Pro is just kicking it to the curb. I brought up an impact and as the Pro it is his job to prove me worn and after one solo attempt to disprove me, but his source was outdated by mine so my argument here still stands.

So In conclusion,
Vote Pro and you may get sex at every corner, but you'll have AIDs and die and the world will become extintic, because of you.
So Vote Con.

Feed Lannan13 more... Feed Lannan13 more...Feed Lannan13 more...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mr_Debater1993 4 years ago
mr_Debater1993
honestly i would vote pro for this debate con as little or no reasoning abilities. what a shame.
Posted by Zaradi 4 years ago
Zaradi
Ill vote in a sec.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I'll vote on this soon.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheHunter 4 years ago
TheHunter
larztheloserlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons failure to equate human trafficking to a victimless crime, prostitution. Also, Pro's ability to establish the role of the state.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
larztheloserlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's contentions revolved around blanket assumptions which focused solely on conceptual faults with prostitution. The problem is, as Pro pointed out, that these don't go away with making prostitution illegal, thus laying the foundation for his safety contention. Con lacked an effective counter. Furthermore the role of the State contention went unrefuted, Con just claimed prostitutes didn't derive pleasure which was unsupported. S/G goes to Pro for Con's repeated grammatical/stylistic errors.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
larztheloserlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro addressed many of Con's arguments in R2, but Con ignored the points and never got around to making effective counters. It's inexplicable as why Con didn't argue along the lines that "we have murders despite laws against it, because the practice is discouraged." The data did not adequately support the human trafficking argument, but possibly stronger data could be found. As it stands, a clear win by Pro.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
larztheloserlannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros R3 defence was spot on, including a specific example of a place where prostitution is legal, but human trafficking is virtually non-existent. Con's following counters were not enough to sway me back to his side after that. I'm not convinced that human trafficking goes hand-in-hand with prostitution, nor that this would be reason enough to ban prostitution and not just human trafficking.