Indecent Exposure law should be abolished.
I seldom miss an opportunity to engage in an intellectual sharing of ideas on the etiquette surrounding the proper public presentation of the penis. I say that the penis should be concealed to whatever extent is possible, and that it should only be unsheathed upon specific, explicit request.
I further maintain that its unbidden inclusion is seldom anything but unwelcome, no matter what the social situation might be. There is a high likelihood that any occasion will be ruined by the sudden appearance of the unexpected penis.
I therefore, accept the challenge to debate this topic. Many thanks to my partner for thinking to present it.
Let us please not compare bananas to melons here; penises are by no means the equivalent of breasts. The Female body is a lovely thing to behold, the inspiration of artists, poets, war and excellence throughout human history. The penis, on the other hand, is an atrocity.
At no time is it the colleague of the breast. Long hip-slappers, or short, swollen acorns, the penis is a bouncy, rubbery miscreation.
The sheer ugliness of this disagreeable digit forces us to hide it away. Its aggressive overuse renders it frightful.
As I stated in the acceptance round, there are few social functions that welcome unexpected guests. Among the least welcome, is the penis. To see a small sampling of how appalling this experience can be, I invite readers to view this collection of examples.
You can almost hear the screams.
Even the very name of the thing, “Penis,” is grotesque and repulsive. To find ways to discuss this subject – and avoid the actual use of this vile word – I was required to do a bit of research. I uncovered the following list of words that English speakers have devised over the years to avoid having to say, “penis.” I submit this list (it’s a partial list) in order to impress upon the voters how disgusting and tacky the dingle-ling is: it’s mere utterance is avoided.
1. Ankle spanker
3. Beaver basher
4. penis sangbo nam rod
6. Bell on a pole
7. beef whistle
16. C0ck (we will note the zero…)
17. Cranny axe
18. Pistol Whip
19. Custard launcher
21. deep-V diver
24.ding dong mcdork
49.heat-seeking moisture missile
57.John Thomas (dated)
62.krull the warrior king
68.lizard (as in "drain the...")
82.meter long king kong dong
92.one-eyed trouser-snake (Australia, UK)
94.one-eyed wonder weasel
95.one-eyed yogurt slinger
98.peepee (children's term)
102.Pig skin bus
115.purple-helmeted warrior of love
116.purple-headed yogurt flinger
119.rod of pleasure
125.schmuck, shmuck (Yiddish)
129.sea monster (as in "drain the...")
146.todger (Australia, UK)
151.twig (& berries)
164.willy (children's term)
165.wing dang doodle
166.winkie (children's term)
168.yogurt gun 
With growing regret, I must enter the inevitable "Round 3" of this debate. I want to thank my bandy partner, who has been kind and thoughtful enough to present this forum.
Unfortunately, his last argument in favor of legal repeal of indecency laws is based on a fallacy. Observe.
"If a woman can expose her breasts in public, then a man should be permitted to expose his penis."
This is a variant of the wonderful "Tu Quo Que" fallacy, or the "you, too" fallacy. With the switch that my partner is using the guilt of the female to justify the guilt of the male. Essentially, it argues that the presence of hypocrisy associated with an arguer disqualifies their argument. By this logic, a smoker cannot claim that smoking is unhealthy, because "they do it too." The fact is, that a person might be correct in arguing that smoking is unhealthy, even if they are a smoker themselves. Likewise, it is possible that female public nudity could be wrong at the same time that male public nudity is.
Further, I remind my partner that exposure of a woman's breasts is often a criminal act, and so cannot be used as a justification of public fondling of one's self....
Good lord. I am actually debating this.
In conclusion, I argue that the public demand for indecency laws trumps all of the arguments presented by my partner. I speculate as to what might be motivating these demands, but in the end the exact reasons for this public antipathy is irrelevant. Our democracy wants these restrictions, and so they are provided.
I doubt that the public will find my partner's position persuasive. I am so certain of this, that I shall finish out my character limit by reciting the lyrics to the theme song from the hit television series, "Laverne and Shirley." I want to thank all of the voters for following the debate this long, and remind everyone to score for grammar.
"Laverne and Shirley Theme Song"
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.
Sclemeel, schlemazel, hasenfeffer incorporated.
We're gonna do it!
Give us any chance, we'll take it.
Give us any rule, we'll break it.
We're gonna make our dreams come true.
Doin' it our way.
Nothin's gonna turn us back now,
Straight ahead and on the track now.
We're gonna make our dreams come true,
Doin' it our way.
There is nothing we won't try,
Never heard the word impossible.
This time there's no stopping us.
We're gonna do it.
On your mark, get set, and go now,
Got a dream and we just know now,
We're gonna make our dream come true.
And we'll do it our way, yes our way.
Make all our dreams come true,
And do it our way, yes our way,
Make all our dreams come true
For me and you.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|