Debate Rounds (5)
Thank you for accepting and I'll jump right into my points.
1)Legalized prostitution can be monitored for safe sex. Condoms would be mandatory and prostitutes would be regularly tested for Sexually transmitted diseases. If they are shown to be positive, they would be treated and not be in service.
2)It creates jobs which stimulates the economy. The government can implement a tax on this which also provides more money to pay off United States debts.
3)Illegal prostitution use would decrease, lowering the amount of STD's contracted, crimes committed and unplanned pregnancies occuring. One of the requirements to be a prostitute could be for women to get tubectomies and men to get vasectomies.
4)Legal prostitution refers to the act being sponsored by the government, any prostitution occuring while governmental standards are not met would be illegal prostitution. This can create a rating system similar to that of restaurant ratings (indicating which prostitutes are safe and which aren't).
5)The prostitutes can be protected by body guards, creating more openings for security as well as ensuring the possible harm to the prostitute is minimized.
I await my opponents reply :)
My opponent mentions the "government" yet he never specifies the house. Therefore, to promote a fair and interesting debate, I hope my opponent will agree with me to specify the house as the United States of America.
1) One would be hard pressed to prove that prostitution does not fall within the realm of immoral activity, after all, we would be justifying the objectification of women and other heinous activity, and the legalization of this act would be a path of moral decay that normally follows such actions.
Really? Rating women? Like "restaurants?" That introduces a whole new level of disregard for them and objectification of human beings. One cannot just rate a person on how well they sell their body. Clearly, my opponent's fourth point should be given more thought.
If you study history, you see that the moral bankruptcy of a civilization most often leads to its complete downfall (the Roman Empire, the Jewish Kingdoms--on several occasions, etc.)
2)Legalization of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
Legalization was supposed to get prostituted women off the street. Many women don't want to register and undergo health checks, as required by law in certain countries legalizing prostitution, and as my opponent said, tubectomies or vasectomies, we see my opponent's first and third point's flaw here, so legalization often drives them into street prostitution. And many women choose street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by the new sex businessmen.
3) As we can see in the Netherlands, a country that legalized prostitution, the legalization actually causes a boom in child prostitution.The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001 [after legalizing prostitution]. The group estimates that at least 5,000 of the children in prostitution are from other countries, with a large segment being Nigerian girls (Tiggeloven: 2001).
4) Legalization would not protect the women.
The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW) has conducted 2 major studies on sex trafficking and prostitution, interviewing almost 200 victims of commercial sexual exploitation. In these studies, women in prostitution indicated 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. Therefore, we can see why my opponent's fifth point is wrong.
Now, directly referring to my opponent's cases:
His third point. (I believe it is worded incorrectly and should be "Legal prostitution...." However, I will not take advantage of this.)
A legalized system of prostitution that mandates health checks and certification only for women and not for clients is blatantly discriminatory to women. Women only health checks make no public health sense because monitoring prostituted women does not protect them from HIV/AIDS or STDs, since male clients can and do originally transmit disease to the women. Again, this goes back to my first point and third point. What's more, if women are being exploited like this, what will keep them in the "business?" They will soon realize that they are as well of by themselves. And if they are by themselves, they will not have to pay any taxes and will be making a 100% profit, of course this will appeal to them. Further, many people would have joined because of the legalization and through this realization, many people will end up prostituting illegally.
His second point.
Obviously, legalizing something doesn't mean that there will be illegal forms of that activity somewhere out there. So, why would someone want to pay tax and do something when he can get it tax free? If we do stimulate the economy, not that it will, would we want to be the country who saved themselves by selling their women to prostitution? America is a very proud country, and they have all the reason to be. We are probably one of the most liberal and the most influential. How would other countries support or work with one that allows something as immoral as prostitution. Going on that point, we would be breaking ties with many countries openly against prostitution, some even punishing it with the death penalty. Those countries include:
Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Burma, Brunei, China, Iraq, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Maldives, Mongolia, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Croatia, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Sweden, Ukraine, Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Fiji, Samoa, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, The Federated States of Micronesia, Guyana, and Suriname.
In an attempt to restore our economy through prostitution, we would be breaking valuable ties, South Korea, Russia, China, Japan, Taiwan to name a few, that would ultimately crush any chance of recovery. Also angering some dangerous countries such as North Korea and Iraq. Countries on the verge of war with Israel and the only thing preventing them is US involvement. If Israel declines US aid because of this, there will be war. If they do not decline, we will have to mobilize our troops to further protect them, as they are now considered a country that receives help from an immoral one and become even more endangered. Of course, mobilization will be detrimental to our already weak economy. Prostitution to increase our economy is counterproductive.
Therefore, I stand that we should not legalize prostitution.
Let's begin shall we? :)
First off, I agree that the hous is the United States. Onto his points.
His first point continuously talks of objectifying women and moral decay, yet never gave evidence (either logical or statistical) as to how this is so. Several reasons why this is false are:
1)The woman would be agreeing to work, not forced against her will.
2)The rating point was not to rate how well they sell their body, it is to rate how free of STDs they are. It would be based on their history of STDs. This would provide a safer service in which a person has some clue of what he is buying into.
3)He gave no logical evidence as to why prostitution is moral bankruptcy.
The lack of moral backing and logical description makes this claim highly opinionative, allowing me to drop this point.
His second point can also be dropped since:
1) The woman(legal prostitute) can take birth control as an alternative.
2) The use of unreliable, ilegal prostitution would decrease as the use of a reliable, governmental service increases.
3) A weak point about not being controlled since their other alternative is to be controlled by a pimp.
His third point can be dropped as well three reasons:
1)The registration of prostitutes would eliminate this.
2)Governmental insections can be carried out to ensure this is not hapening.
3)The prostitute is required to have a license.
His fourth point talks of how CATW conducted 2 studies statin that the prostitutes were not well protected. Yet I clearly outline protection by a gaurd. Another thing is that because the studies say this happened, this does not mean it will automatically happen. Thats the point of change, to achieve something better (as I intend to do). Finally, 200 people is a very limited amount, nor did my opponent state this was random selection allowing the evidence he provides to be planned and inaccurate.
His attack on my third point is dropped because:
1)I focus on male prostitute, unless women can somehow get vasectamies.
2)The use of a condom would be mandatory.
3)Free health checks would persuade the women to stay.
His attack on my second point can be dropped since:
1)An individual would be geared towards a safe, reliable bussiness rather than an illegal one.
2)I never said it would eliminate illegal prostitution, I stated it would minimize it and possibly elimiate it.
3)My opponent continues to focus on women. Is my opponent hinting that agrees with me on male prostitution?
4)Other countires worked with Holland, i don't see why this would be a problem with the United States.
5)He lists countries, yet gives no evidence as to where he recieved this information from.
6)Militarypoint is again, unwaranted.
Clearly I am winning this debate. First the logic. My logic provides that regulated prostitution, job creation, a stimulated economy, and minimization of unsafe, illegal acts provide that prostitution is moral. My opponents arguments for why it is immoral: .
He provides no logically based argument, giving the PRo a clear vote. Furthermore, my first, fourth, and fifth contentions were not attacked within this refutation so I extend them all. My second and third contentions stand since i provide argumentation as to why his refutations are false. Thus you uphold the unrefuted Pro and give the win.
oheesak forfeited this round.
I'm not sure if my opponent gave u or ran out of time, but if my opponent fails to respond in this round to my arguments made in the last, I urge a Pro vote.
oheesak forfeited this round.
:( Again I don't know if my opponent gave up or is overloaded with work, but the only thing I can do is urge the Pro vote.
oheesak forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
|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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Research this debate: Amsterdam