The Instigator
karamvirz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
republicofdhar
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Legal Prostitution in India

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
republicofdhar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,668 times Debate No: 63002
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)

 

karamvirz

Pro

Prostitution is perhaps the oldest practice if not profession but , still our civilisation is not evolved enough to accept it.I am concerned not because I want us to respect sex workers or that the whole profession intrigues me.

Our society is in crisis today.Women , young girls , children are being raped , molested , abused and what not.Newspapers and news channels are flooded with incidents which are bound to shake our souls and we the people , the mob , have merely remained a witness.Stricter laws are being framed but I am not convinced they can really have an impact on the rapist mind.

In my opinion government and before that the society should build a public opinion to make prostitution legal in the eyes of law.The reason my thought process keeps revolving around this solution to the problem is because this is something that is prevalent already since ages.It is silently accepted by us all.My question to everyone and myself is why cannot we give it a legal recognition.By doing this we present the maniacs with an option to end their lust , frustration , desire or whatever their motive for raping someone is , with someone who is willing and save a life from being ruined.Everyone knows about the Red Light Areas spread across different cities in the country.If we are bold enough to let them perpetuate and we are even bolder to fight for same sex marriages and relationships why not prostitution?

A corollary of the above proposition is that it will help in great deal to give better lives to sex workers and prevent them from exploitation at hands of their customers and law.This in turn might help reduce the spread of AIDS as it will definitely lead to better and safer practices among them.

Let us have a healthy debate on the topic so we may know what the responsible India thinks about the issue of women safety and measures to achieve the same.Thanks for spending your valuable time on this page.

I have also created a blog page about the same:
http://legalprostitution.in...
republicofdhar

Con

My adversary has requested (by private message) that I begin addressing his points from round 1. I wish to emphasise that he has the full burden of proof in this debate and I thank him for bringing this topic to the debating floor. I note the strangeness of this debate topic, given that prostitution is legal in India. The Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA) of 1986 does not criminalise prostitution per se, but does criminalise brothel keeping (Section 3), living off earnings of sex work (Section 4), procuring, inducing or detaining for prostitution (Section 5 and 6). I shall assume that my adversary wants to legalise activities that promotes carrying prostitution out on an organized or commercial scale.

I will begin by countering my opponent's arguments.

CA: 1st and 2nd paragraphs

The first and second paragraphs are just rhetoric and I will not be addressing them.

"In my opinion government and before that the society should build a public opinion to make prostitution legal in the eyes of law.The reason my thought process keeps revolving around this solution to the problem is because this is something that is prevalent already since ages.It is silently accepted by us all. My question to everyone and myself is why cannot we give it a legal recognition."

My adversary argues that since prostitution is widespread, and enforcement is lax, it should be legalised.

"A corollary of the above proposition is that it will help in great deal to give better lives to sex workers and prevent them from exploitation at hands of their customers and law.This in turn might help reduce the spread of AIDS as it will definitely lead to better and safer practices among them."

While my adversary's intentions are admirable, his claims are untrue. Two studies (with a sample size of almost 200 women in 5 different countries) conducted by The Coalition Against Trafficking of Women International (CATW) have shown that "prostitution establishments did little to protect them, regardless of whether they were in legal or illegal establishments. 'The only time they protect anyone is to protect the customers.'" (Source 2) The source shows us that legalizing prostitution does little to better the working conditions of sex workers.

My adversary also claims that legalizing prostitution will lead to much better and safer practices among sex workers. This is also untrue, because the sources of disease are the prostitute's clients. Up to 47% of these women (same source) stated that men expected sex without a condom, and 45% stated that they were abused if they insisted on a condom. Whether or not prostitution is legalized, these pressures will exist. As such, legalizing prostitution is not a viable solution.


I am not required to provide arguments against decriminalisation of organized prostitution, but I will make a couple of arguments, one specific to India.

Argument 1: Legalization does not improve India's social attitude towards women, it worsens it

My adversary claimed, at the beginning of round 1, that India is facing a social crisis. He feels that the social climate towards women would improve if prostitution is legalized. This is not, in fact, likely. By legalizing prostitution, the country would in fact be feeding the male chauvinism that perceives women to be an object to satisfy male desire. By making it available, India would in fact be giving in to the unhealthy pressures of the country. It would not shrink the sex industry, it would expand it.

"Legalization of prostitution in the State of Victoria, Australia, has led to massive expansion of the sex industry. Whereas there were 40 legal brothels in Victoria in 1989, in 1999 there were 94, along with 84 escort services. Other forms of sexual exploitation, such as tabletop dancing, bondage and discipline centers, peep shows, phone sex, and pornography have all developed in much more profitable ways than before."
- (Source 3)

Argument 2: Legalization increases clandestine and underground prostitution, women trafficking, and child prostitution

My adversary assumes that it is in the best interests of prostitutes to work under a commercial establishment, such as a brothel. He ignores the pressures, including physical, and the fears that come with working under a controlling pimp's grip. For this reason, many prostitutes remain as streetwalkers. (sources below) Child prostitution also increases. "The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number [of child prostitutes in Netherlands] has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001." For the same reasons, women trafficking also increases. This can be seen in studies of legal prostitution in Germany.



I have rebutted all my adversary's arguments and provided some of my own, thereby negating the resolution. I remind my adversary that he has the full burden of proof in this debate, and it will not suffice to rebut my arguments; he must defend his own as well. I look forward to receiving his arguments.


References:
1. http://www.lawyerscollective.org...(ITPA).pdf
2. http://www.isha.org.il...;
3. http://www.catwinternational.org...;
Debate Round No. 1
karamvirz

Pro

Thank you for your arguments. Below are counter arguments and statements supporting my opinion as well.
----------
Contender: "I shall assume that my adversary wants to legalize activities that promotes carrying prostitution out on an organized or commercial scale."

I appreciate your research on the issue. Although prostitution is legal in India as per the act you have mentioned , can you mention few incidents where we have seen sex workers raising their voice against the exploitation or fighting for their fundamental or human rights in court? I am sure even if there are such cases they are negligible in number.The reason being that the SITA act is in no way powerful enough to allow the sex workers exercise the right to equality , prohibition of discrimination , right against exploitation etc.

An couple excerpts from the SITA act:

"In practice SITA is not commonly used. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) which predates the SITA is often used to charge sex workers with vague crimes such as "public indecency" or being a "public nuisance" without explicitly defining what these consist of. Recently the old law has been amended as The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act or PITA. Attempts to amend this to criminalise clients [21]have been opposed by the Health Ministry,[22] and has encountered considerable opposition.[23] "

"The act, then called the All India Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA), was amended to the current law. The laws were intended as a means of limiting and eventually abolishing prostitution in India by gradually criminalising various aspects of sex work. "

I am not in favor of activities that "PROMOTE" prostitution in any form but , to amend our laws so that the ones involved in this (both sex workers and their clients )can freely exercise the rights and the practices without being criminalised which ultimately will ease out the sexual frustration in the society leading to reduction in rapes and other incidents that I have talked about.

""""

Contender:"My adversary argues that since prostitution is widespread, and enforcement is lax, it should be legalised."

Your understanding and conclusion of my argument is incorrect.Drug trafficking , Child labor , Regionalism , Casteism and other such practices - all these are wide spread and existing laws have failed in preventing them, still I none of us is an advocate of legalising them.

My argument is not that since prostitution is widespread and enforcement is lax , it be legalised.
The reason I talk about widespread nature of prostitution and lax enforcement of existing laws is to enlighten everyone of the fact that this is something that has been ongoing since ages and never stopped , considering which makes me think that the only reason that it has survived so long is that it is somehow silently accepted by all societies and is a necessity , then why not make it acceptable by law as well.This will help reduce the fear both participants" mind.
Contender:"While my adversary's intentions are admirable, his claims are untrue."

First of all 200 women across 5 countries averages to 40 women per country.Number is quiet low to come to a conclusion.Second , presenting the argument that most of these women were never favoured by law even if it existed , is not convincing enough to not give better legal recognition to the practice.India is a country of population over 100 crores.
We often see poor and helpless being exploited and crushed under feet by the powerful, but does that mean we should not have laws to protect them.We have seen cases where determined people have shown their guts and fought against exploitation and come out victorious.So merely giving the stats from a XYZ survey and saying that sex workers should be deprived of their rights since anyway they are going to be suppressed and exploited even after laws are framed , is not justified.
I believe that the contender is too much obsessed with surveys and figures.The need is to focus on the current situation where our women are not safe enough rather and making strict laws against the crimes itself is not helping much.

""""""

Contender:"My adversary also claims that legalizing prostitution will lead to much better and safer practices among sex workers."

In this paragraph you say:
"Up to 47% of these women (same source) stated that men expected sex without a condom, and 45% stated that they were abused if they insisted on a condom"

So in absence on any laws what does a prostitute do when she is thrashed and abused by her client for asking them to use protection?

I believe that the legalisation will give rights to a prostitute to legal help in such cases and situations and prevent herself from harassment.As a result they can force their clients to use protection else no SEX. An example improvement could be - Sex workers and clients can be made to present mandatory health cards before getting involved in any practice which have the date and status of their last health check and either party can have the right to demand for a health card before the act.So I definitely believe this will improve things and prevent many sexually transmitted deceases.
"""""

CA : Argument 1: Legalization does not improve India's social attitude towards women, it worsens it

I think you have misunderstood me here.I have clearly mentioned about the social crisis of crimes like rape , molestation etc. and nowhere do I speak of the legalisation resulting into better or worse respect for women or their empowerment , although I am a supporter of the same.It might or might not change peoples attitude towards women , but it will definitely do is ease out the sexual frustration.The article only aims at reducing number of such crimes against women.
It is the thinking of our indian society that we need to change.When laws will be made to recognise prostitution definitely people will start thinking positively towards it.
Comparing Australian or American social environments with Indian would not be justified.You can take example of porn movies , sex is not such a taboo in western world.That is why these days there are porn movies showing some very unnatural practices and hence the such things have risen.Indian male is yet to fulfil his basic sexual desire leave aside all those stuff that your source talks about.So I think we should not arrive on a conclusion based on what effects other countries or societies have witnessed after legalisation of prostitution.
Regarding your comment about male chauvinism that perceives women to be an object to satisfy male desire , I would like to say that if that really is the case then why do we let Red Light Areas prevail - GB Road , Sona Gachi and more across the country.Why haven"t they been shut down and are operating uninterrupted.They are illegal as per the SITA act as I understand.

"""""
Argument 2: Legalization increases clandestine and underground prostitution, women trafficking, and child prostitution

I am not a speaker or supporter of brothels , Pimps and other such organisations neither Do I say these should be made legal.But do you think that any person would feel safe and fearless in a room when even with a prostitute who is not part of a group or network?I would disagree and most of us would.The whole point is to remove the fear from the participants" minds of being caught and charged for God knows what all things.From the wiki article:

"Clauses in the ITPA relating to living of the earnings are being challenged in court, together with criminalisation of brothels, prostitution around a notified public place, soliciting and the power given to a magistrate to evict sex-workers from their home and forbidding their re-entry."

It is such things as "evict sex-workers from their home" that we need to amend and also make people aware that if they are visiting a prostitute there is nothing to be afraid of.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
republicofdhar

Con

I thank my adversary for a spirited response. I'll jump right into it.

"I am not in favor of activities that "PROMOTE" prostitution in any form but , to amend our laws...which ultimately will ease out the sexual frustration in the society leading to reduction in rapes and other incidents that I have talked about."

This seems to be pure conjecture, Pro does not have any sources to show that legalizing prostitution will reduce rape, molestation, etc. This being the case, his argument is disproved by the study conducted by the CATW, that I cited in the previous round.

"Drug trafficking , Child labor , Regionalism , Casteism and other such practices - all these are wide spread and existing laws have failed in preventing them, still I none of us is an advocate of legalising them...this is something that has been ongoing since ages and never stopped , considering which makes me think that the only reason that it has survived so long is that it is somehow silently accepted by all societies and is a necessity"

This is a very strange argument. As my adversary points out, drug trafficking, child labour etc. also have a long history. What makes prostitution different? It is as "unaccepted" as the others are. To bolster my point, his claim that the existence of prostitution through the ages implies its acceptance is disproved by the social stigma associated with it. For ease, my source can be found here: http://www.ruhama.ie....

"First of all 200 women across 5 countries averages to 40 women per country.Number is quiet low to come to a conclusion."

My adversary has no statistics or sources to disprove the findings of the previous source, and this statement should be ignored. Pro cannot tell statisticians how to come to conclusions. If he can find another source, I would be open to discussion on it.

"Second , presenting the argument that most of these women were never favoured by law even if it existed , is not convincing enough to not give better legal recognition to the practice...We often see poor and helpless being exploited and crushed under feet by the powerful, but does that mean we should not have laws to protect them."

My argument literally is that legalizing prostitution will not protect them from exploitation. I don't see why that isn't convincing, given that it appears to be one of the primary aims of decriminalising prostitution.

"We have seen cases where determined people have shown their guts and fought against exploitation and come out victorious."

This is either rhetoric or a personal example, neither of which are productive in a debate.

"So merely giving the stats from a XYZ survey and saying that sex workers should be deprived of their rights since anyway they are going to be suppressed and exploited even after laws are framed , is not justified.
I believe that the contender is too much obsessed with surveys and figures."

I am affronted that my adversary would coolly refer to my source (a study conducted by an international non-governmental organization) as an "XYZ survey." He makes the ignoble remark that I am "too much obsessed with surveys and figures". My sources are methodical studies that support my contentions. Pro seems to labour under the delusion that conjecture and rhetoric is a fitting rebuttal to these.

"I believe that the legalisation will give rights to a prostitute to legal help in such cases and situations and prevent herself from harassment"

Prostitution is not illegal; organized prostitution is. A prostitute has the right to legal help even under current circumstances.

Counter Argument 1: Legalization does not improve India's social attitude towards women, it worsens it

My adversary has side-stepped my argument without really addressing it. I maintain that legalization would worsen India's social attitude towards women in general.

Pro provides a very poor justification to discredit my source, which uses case studies of prostitution in Australia and the Netherlands. It compares various situations of the sex industry before and after prostitution was legalized. Pro claims that the sex culture in these countries is advanced, and the "Indian male is yet to fulfil his basic sexual desire leave aside all those stuff that your source talks about". Given that Pro has pooh-poohed my sources for using a sample size of 200, and thereby not giving an accurate picture of India's 1.25 billion population, it is rather funny that he now claims to represent all of over 500 million Indian men.

"I would like to say that if that really is the case then why do we let Red Light Areas prevail"

I really cannot understand this. If crime exists, it is simply because of a lack of effective enforcement. Unless Pro can show otherwise, he cannot imply that it is a conscious decision that stems from acceptance of the crime.

Counter Argument 2:

"I am not a speaker or supporter of brothels , Pimps and other such organisations neither Do I say these should be made legal.But do you think that any person would feel safe and fearless in a room when even with a prostitute who is not part of a group or network?I would disagree and most of us would.The whole point is to remove the fear from the participants" minds of being caught and charged for God knows what all things.From the wiki article:"

My adversary has moved on from caring for women's rights to caring for the rights of their clients. My takeaway from his argument is that he wants the law abolished so that men may solicit women freely without fear "of being caught and charged for God knows what all things". This is a very weak argument that can be simplified to this: "I want to steal a car, but I am so afraid of being caught. Let's make it legal to steal cars so that the fear is removed."


My opponent has not provided justifications for his original points beyond conjecture and rhetoric and his rebuttals to my arguments are weak as well. I maintain that prostitution should not be legalized in India.

Sources:
1. http://www.lse.ac.uk...

A note to my opponent: Wikipedia is not a very credible source to cite in a debate.

Debate Round No. 2
karamvirz

Pro

karamvirz forfeited this round.
republicofdhar

Con

After reading through the debate again, I’ve realised that it is a bit difficult to follow. Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I shall take this round to summarize the debate thus far, and/or add anything that I think I missed out in previous rounds. My opponent has repeated or clarified all his arguments in Round 2, and I will be quoting from there.

@karamvirz A1:

“The reason being that the SITA act is in no way powerful enough to allow the sex workers exercise the right to equality, prohibition of discrimination, right against exploitation etc.”

Counter:
Just because the act does not guarantee sex workers certain rights, does not necessarily mean that legalizing prostitution will guarantee them rights. In fact, a study by CATW (an international NGO) has shown that it does not happen. I should remind my adversary that discrimination and exploitation against or of prostitutes is illegal, and legalizing prostitution would have no effect on it. Perhaps my adversary wishes for greater enforcement of the law in favour of prostitutes.

@karamvirz A2:

“I am not in favor of activities that "PROMOTE" prostitution in any form but , to amend our laws so that the ones involved in this (both sex workers and their clients )can freely exercise the rights and the practices without being criminalised which ultimately will ease out the sexual frustration in the society leading to reduction in rapes and other incidents that I have talked about.”

Counter:
As mentioned before, legalizing prostitution doesn’t guarantee rights for anyone. My adversary has given no reason to believe that legalizing prostitution will ease out the “sexual frustration” that he perceives exists in society.

@karamvirz A3:

“The reason I talk about widespread nature of prostitution and lax enforcement of existing laws is to enlighten everyone of the fact that this is something that has been ongoing since ages and never stopped, considering which makes me think that the only reason that it has survived so long is that it is somehow silently accepted by all societies and is a necessity , then why not make it acceptable by law as well.This will help reduce the fear both participants" mind.”

Counter:

My adversary is aware of how weak this argument is. His use of the word “somehow” implies that even he doesn’t know how or whether prostitution can be accepted by society. I have to contradict him here. A 2011 study on India by the International Center for Research on Women has shown that “upwards of 84 percent of respondents said they thought sex work was morally wrong”. Clearly, Indian society is not as accepting of prostitution as my adversary thinks it is. The study is part of an international, three-year long survey, with a sample size of up to 8000 men spread across various countries. (ICRW isn't very clear on its methodology, but they're an international NGO so I think they are trustworthy).

Source: http://www.icrw.org...

@karamvirz A4:

“I believe that the legalisation will give rights to a prostitute to legal help in such cases and situations and prevent herself from harassment.As a result they can force their clients to use protection else no SEX. An example improvement could be - Sex workers and clients can be made to present mandatory health cards before getting involved in any practice which have the date and status of their last health check and either party can have the right to demand for a health card before the act. So I definitely believe this will improve things and prevent many sexually transmitted deceases.”

Counter: Prostitutes already have the right to legal help. If they don’t want to have sex without a condom, all they have to do is say so. In fact, either party is allowed to pose any restrictions they like. If these restrictions are not agreeable and either party forces themself on the other, then the sex becomes non-consensual = rape. (which is a criminal offence) My adversary’s point makes no sense.

@karamvirz A5:

“It is the thinking of our indian society that we need to change.When laws will be made to recognise prostitution definitely people will start thinking positively towards it.”

Counter: Pure conjecture; this point should be ignored. I cannot understand why my adversary is so confident as to say that it will “definitely” happen.


@karamvirz A6:

I am not a speaker or supporter of brothels , Pimps and other such organisations neither Do I say these should be made legal.But do you think that any person would feel safe and fearless in a room when even with a prostitute who is not part of a group or network?I would disagree and most of us would.The whole point is to remove the fear from the participants" minds of being caught and charged for God knows what all things.”

Counter:
I will remind my adversary that prostitution is legal. Organized prostitution, such as under a pimp, in a brothel or prostitution otherwise affiliated with an organization is illegal in India, under the Indian Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act (SITA). If my adversary is not saying that these should be made legal, then he has just conceded the debate. “I would disagree and most of us would” is pure conjecture and should be ignored. I have difficulty following the second part of my adversary’s argument, and I request him to phrase it clearly, with a definite conclusion, so that I can address it in the next round.


Conclusion:
I have rebutted all of my adversary’s points. I note that he has not rebutted my point that prostitution will worsen attitudes towards women in India and made a ridiculous counter argument against my substantiated claim that legalization increases clandestine and underground prostitution, women trafficking, and child prostitution. The full burden of proof is on Pro, and he has to successfully defend his arguments against my rebuttals to win this debate. I note also that my arguments may not impress him, given that he thinks that I am obsessed with statistics, but I hope it impresses our voters.

I request him to post his argument in time this time. Sources used are the same as in previous rounds, except for the link in the earlier part of this argument.
Debate Round No. 3
karamvirz

Pro

I apologise to my Con for not being able to post arguments on time since I have been very busy recently.
Here are the counter arguments for first 2 points , rest I ll address in the next round:

A1:
Although legalising sex work will not guarantee anything , it does not imply that the need to do so or to better enforce the existing laws should be ignored.While starting this debate the most important thing in my mind was how can we reduce the acts of crime against women which rising at a sharp steep curve in present time.Once again I would reassert on my argument about other such laws , although no law guarantees anything but it does not stop the law makers from making stricter and better laws , does it?
So I totally disagree with the con that since they don"t guarantee anything laws should not be amended.

A2
I think a proof is not needed for this as we all know there is a huge number of sex workers in the country.2.3 million as per this article:
http://www.erces.com...

The mere existence of so many sex workers signifies that there is equally large clientele.
republicofdhar

Con

Thank you @karamvirz for your commitment to this debate, despite your busy schedule.

I wish this to be a fair debate, and so I want to remind Pro that he holds the burden of proof. This means that it is not enough for him to rebut my arguments (though I suspect he will have trouble doing so effectively); he must also have made strong, unrefuted arguments for his side by the end of the debate. With that out of the way, I'll jump right in to addressing his points.

"Although legalising sex work will not guarantee anything , it does not imply that the need to do so or to better enforce the existing laws should be ignored."

Why do we "need" to legalise sex work? As I have proven, and Pro has conceded, it does not guarantee (in fact, case studies have shown that is is unlikely to have an effect at all) that the problems Pro perceived will be remedied. Pro has not offered any other reason, rending this perceived "need" to be just an assertion.

"While starting this debate the most important thing in my mind was how can we reduce the acts of crime against women which rising at a sharp steep curve in present time."

Okay...

"Once again I would reassert on my argument about other such laws , although no law guarantees anything but it does not stop the law makers from making stricter and better laws , does it?"

Lawmakers do not amend laws for fun. If amending a law is not expected to cause the desired effect, then why amend it? Or, if my opponent is so insistent on amending laws for no good reason, then why not amend the Indian Telegraph Act, or Censorship Act, or any other law? Why is my opponent so insistent on amending the SITA, even though we are in agreement on the fact (as my opponent has not refuted) that it does nothing to "reduce the acts of crime against women", which my opponent has said is his objective in arguing for prostitution legalisation?

A2: "The mere existence of so many sex workers signifies that there is equally large clientele."

My opponent has clarified his point. Based on my understanding, he says that a large prostitute population implies a large clientele. I concede (since its a minor, inconsequential point) that the male Indian population has some sort of sexual frustration. What I don't see, is how legalising prostitution can solve anything. In my opponent's argument, he already concedes that these prostitutes are maintained by a large clientele. This implies that the members of Indian society who are "sexually frustrated", and thereby must be part of this clientele, already get their fix from these prostitutes. What difference will legalisation make? I must remind my opponent to remember that prostitution is legal, organized prostitution is not. Potential criminals already have the option of approaching prostitutes legally.

In fact, this just convinces me that legalising prostitution will have an undesirable effect. Laws often serve a deterrent function. The law against organized prostitution is intended to deter respectable members of society from engaging in prostitution. Such people often have established families and work that would be affected by an arrest for engaging in organized prostitution. However, legalising prostitution would give them a window into a world of prostitution, which increases temptation for married men, and has the potential to break up families.

Earlier on in the debate, my opponent dissed my source (a CATW survey) by saying "First of all 200 women across 5 countries averages to 40 women per country.Number is quiet low to come to a conclusion." It is interesting that the authors of the research paper he has provide have backed their conclusions up with the exact source that I earlier quoted. From my opponent's article: "According to a recent publication on trafficking, (The Coalition against Trafficking in Women – Asia Pacific. www.catwinternational.org) there are about 2.3 million prostitutes in India." To attempt to discredit my source and then use it in his own argument is, in my view, rather poor conduct.

My opponent has also made some points about how prostitution is "silently accepted" in India. Strangely, his source refers to it as a "problem". Since he hasn't addressed this yet, though, I shall wait for his counter before bringing this up in detail.

Over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
karamvirz

Pro

karamvirz forfeited this round.
republicofdhar

Con

All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
A rapist doesn't care about whether his/her actions are legal, their sexual frustrations are borne out of things like hatred, jealousy, and control issues. A one time rapist is typically acting out in anger of being rejected or to punish the person they are attacking, a serial rapist has found the first rape to be invigorating and pleasing, thus making them seek out the experience again. It isn't rape unless it is forced against the victims will, so the easier it is to have sex with a person with their permission, the less likely a rapist will seek that person out. Let us not assume that a rapist is also a victim in the crimes they commit, regardless of their mental state.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
At the risk of karamvirz forfeiting again, I would like to remind him that he has 23 hours remaining to post an argument.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
Please respond on time karamvirz. I have summarised the debate thus far for the benefit of voters.
Posted by karamvirz 3 years ago
karamvirz
Oh Man , I thought I still had time to respond.
Posted by Demotico 3 years ago
Demotico
Do they really need more kids?
Posted by karamvirz 3 years ago
karamvirz
Thanks for the comments Ray, I agree with you.
Posted by Raytrek 3 years ago
Raytrek
I'm a fan of a Democratic oriented society and communities, I am a fan of Capitalism as the most effective economic system and I'm a fan of the Republic style government, but I think they all need to be ordered better for them to work. I think each issue has people who stand out as experts in the related fields and they should be temporarily appointed to government and assigned legal teams to advocate their findings and negotiate between the legal teams of other experts in other fields that are relevant to the issue. I don't think these officials should be elected nor should they have power beyond their expertise. What people should elect is watchdogs to investigate this government process to make sure the experts and process itself isn't corrupted by economic or social popularity influences, just because something is popular doesn't mean it is the right thing to do, and just because there is a lot of money behind a desired outcome doesn't mean it should.

But ultimately I think social media is an opportunity for Democracy to focus the People like a giant think-tank for ideas, where potentially anyone could contribute if their ideas stand up to reason, are moral and practical.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
Either way, thanks for your comment.
Posted by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
That is libertarianism...
Posted by Raytrek 3 years ago
Raytrek
I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Cynic, I figure people have a right to make their own lifestyle choices but if those choices start to hurt society then society has a right to intervene. But I have to say there is a difference between being actually hurt as opposed to just objecting to something on moral or philosophical grounds, just having a distaste for prostitution in itself isn't a valid argument against it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
karamvirzrepublicofdharTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Automatic win to Con for Pro's forfeiting. Conduct goes to Con mostly for Pro's use of an ad hominem, which is unacceptable in a debate. S&G to Con as well. The debate was about the legalization of prostitution in India, Con stated that it was already legal, but in a certain form, so this debate was already moot. Sources to Con since they used more. I'm not against Pro's assertions that making prostitution more wide-spread would have benefits, but when those benefits fail to outweigh the negatives, it becomes irrational to continue fighting for it. Besides, the fact that illegal acts continue to happen despite them being illegal, shows that having a law in place doesn't prevent the acts. So it doesn't really matter if it's more or less legal.