The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
69 Points
The Contender
studs-r-us
Con (against)
Losing
59 Points

Prostitution Should Be Legalized

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,474 times Debate No: 7868
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (22)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table:

[Word - Prostitution]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money

[Word - Should]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency

[Word - Legalized]
[Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to

====================
Prostitution is not "wrong" or "immoral"
====================

I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party.

====================
Conclusion
====================

I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time.

Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us!
studs-r-us

Con

Thank you for this topic, and I look forward to this debate. As this is my first debate, I'm still trying to get into the style and organization needed for debating better, so bear with me, please :].

There are several reasons why prostitution cannot or should not be legalized in all of the U.S, which I will list (not on this post) in no particular order.

I'd like to note that I am not arguing for making prostitution illegal where it is legal now, but rather that the U.S. on a widespread scale should not legalize prostitution.

The first is economic harm for places where prostitution is legal (the state of Rhode Island allows sex for money, but not organized prostitution rings, while Nevada has legal prostitution organizations in 8 of 16 counties).
This argument would be quite straightforward. The legalization of prostitution in such places would indicate that prostitution might help save a failing economy or give jobs to many unemployed. Indeed, Nevada brothels pay licensing fees, like quite a few other businesses. Legalizing prostitution on a large scale would probably make it harder for these states to sustain their economy. I mean, where would all the tourist revenue go? People don't go to Nevada to enjoy the cool 100 degree summer weather, or the incredibly arid and desert-like air. They go for the gambling and the prostitution. If you make prostitution widely available elsewhere, then both gambling and prostitution would no longer be the exclusive trademark of Nevada, as gambling has already begun to creep away from Vegas.

A direct rebuttal to this might be that prostitution on a larger scale might give the U.S. and states more tax revenue, and that Nevada and Rhode Island will be able to compensate for the loss of revenue and jobs. Common sense would seem to dictate that prostitution was PROBABLY not the first thing Nevada's legislators and citizens thought of when they moved to the state in an attempt to build a new life. Desperation, along with the failure of other options, probably
led to it. In fact, legislation has been pushed for years now to ban prostitution altogether, but is never passed.

Another thing that might surprise voters in this debate is that prostitution is not a legitimate business in the U.S. The state of Nevada does not recognize brothels as businesses, and do not tax their revenue, but only charge for the permitting of such a brothel.

(all above from [http://en.wikipedia.org...])

That's all for now. In the manner of many of the debates I've read, I'm pretty sure that my opponent has the burden of proof - he's the one trying to change things.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate challenge and I hope we can get some good discussions/debating going on! I also want to note that my opponent hasn't said anything to contend with the definitions and rule of this debate, so it must be taken for granted that my opponent has accepted these terms - whether known on his behalf or not.

Seeing as how my opponent has completely ignored my argument relating to the morality of prostitution, it must again be assumed that he concedes this aspect of the issue, and instead intends to focus on the pragmatic effects prostitution will have economically. Since these are his only arguments, I will go on and refute them in the same breath.

====================
CON Claims: Legalizing prostitution will cause economic harm
====================

{quote}Legalizing prostitution on a large scale would probably make it harder for these states to sustain their economy. I mean, where would all the tourist revenue go?{endquote}

----> Simple, the organized prostitution rings (OPR) can be taxed. So when a customer comes to buy sex, he will obviously pay up and it will subsequently get taxed - just like any other store. Imagine a grocery store. And instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts. How will the tourist revenue do anything but soar?

{quote}They go for the gambling and the prostitution. If you make prostitution widely available elsewhere, then both gambling and prostitution would no longer be the exclusive trademark of Nevada, as gambling has already begun to creep away from Vegas.{endquote}

----> Ah, so I see where my opponent's argument is going to - clever. This argument obviously ties in with the previous quote, so you can treat this rebuttal as a big summary. Simply put, while Nevada is known for it's prostitution and gambling "treats", it won't crash simply because prostitution will be legalized everywhere as well. I will list several reasons why:

1. Legalizing something and making it industry does NOT necessarily mean Vegas will suddenly lose their prostitution industry. In fact, I suspect it will do the opposite and RISE. Why you ask? It's simple, the concept of competition. Now that prostitution is a legal business, there will be, no doubt, competing places or even businesses to go to. To have an edge, different businesses will have different ways of appealing to their customers such as glamorous interior scenery, good prices, and/or temporary places to stay for the night. Another key aspect in this profession would be getting good girls, and the places with the best names will attract the best girls. Does the word Vegas not do anything but strike images of glamor in ones thoughts? In fact, Vegas' economy will BOOM with the legalization of prostitution since they will undoubtedly have a very good start in such a new industry if it were to be legalized.

2. However, let's even ASSUME that legalizing prostitution will be an economic kick-in-the-balls for Vegas. Gambling is the foremost reason for why people go to Vegas - just look at the Las Vegas Strip[1][2]. That, along with conventions such as the for gamers, brings in the majority of Las Vegas tourists. So even if we were to assume that legalizing prostitution would cause a dramatic blow to that part of Vegas' economy - it wouldn't matter that much.

3. However, coinciding in with the previous point is the question why it should even matter if Vegas were to be hit economically. Should an entire industry, and an entire potential for jobs, be discarded simply because Vegas won't be the king of prostitution rings in America? Rubbish! Unless argued otherwise, prostitution will bring in a plethora of jobs and money, something that would be GLADLY accepted in an economic situation such as this.

====================
Something to do with Nevada and Rhode Island
====================

I'm pretty sure that this snippet of my opponent's round in no way relates to my argument. Whatever the intentions of the original founders of Nevada were in legalizing prostitution are of no importance in this debate - it's just these arguments found right here. Secondly, it doesn't matter if the people of Nevada/Rhode Island are pushing for legalization against prostitution. To say otherwise would be the textbook definition of ad populum[3].

====================
Prostitution is not a legitimate business in the U.S.
====================

So what? Whether or not something is legalized does not matter when concerning whether it should be. Hell, just look at this debate. On a large scale, prostitution isn't legalized but I'm still arguing against it. Gay marriage isn't legalized, but there's legitimate arguments for legalizing it. The legality of something has nothing to do with whether or not it's justified.

====================
Conclusion
====================

My opponent's main economic argument has been refuted, and I await his response.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.visitlasvegas.com...
3. http://www.nizkor.org...
studs-r-us

Con

I have NOT conceded on moral grounds. It seems that my opponent is grasping at straws, not only proclaiming victory in a delayed argument, but consistently having to leave in snide remarks and comments at every opportunity. I believe one of the political parties did that last November...I forget which one, and I forgot how the outcome came out, but I DO remember that their mascot was an elephant...
Anyways, back to debating.

{quote}Simple, the organized prostitution rings (OPR) can be taxed. So when a customer comes to buy sex, he will obviously pay up and it will subsequently get taxed - just like any other store. Imagine a grocery store. And instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts. How will the tourist revenue do anything but soar?{endquote}

Haha. Funny. Wrong, but funny. If this were a humor contest I might concede right now. But its not.

If my opponent had had the thought or respect to fully read my argument, or to check out the source I listed, he would had read that prostitution as a business is NOT taxed. The only income Nevada receives from organized prostitution rings is from the licensing fees. Prostitution on a larger scale would NOT mean more revenue. And because they are not taxed, Nevada can only profit from more and more brothels opening up - except these brothels would be opening in other states, taking away from Nevada's revenue.

Not to mention, "instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts." I disagree but nevertheless understand the concept of prostitution, but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far. And I wonder if some of the other voters feel the same way. Maybe we have lived with this idea of prostitution and let it be. But could you let prostitution spread, and along with it, the moral depravity necessary to degrade a woman enough to have no qualms with equating them to GROCERIES? Picture this. Your daughter, sister, mother, or best friend, degraded to a grocery. Devastating if she is a prostitute, but this might be from the fact that prostitution exists. In other words, although she might not be a prostitute, she might be treated as one, with men being reinforced for their behaviors.

Back to the economic arguments, however. Competition, competition.
"Legalizing something and making it industry does NOT necessarily mean Vegas will suddenly lose their prostitution industry."
True, perhaps. But my opponent does not stop at a rebuttal, but goes as far as to make a preposterous counterclaim that Nevada and the prostitution industry might benefit from such competition.
Thinking about this just requires us to take a step back from it and analyze the situation objectively. As possible CONSUMERS, we would be excited for, as my opponent puts it, "glamorous interior scenery, good prices, and/or temporary places to stay for the night". But from the perspective of the BUSINESS, all competition does is force you to sacrifice profit, directly to the opposition, or also from advertising and other techniques to bring customers through your doors.

Next, my opponent speaks of an entire potential for jobs. But I speak of another spread. The spread of a plethora of STDs. HIV, AIDS, anyone? How about herpes? Gonorrhea? Chlamydia? The clap? Crabs? Which would you prefer?

It should be noted that currently, Nevada has stringent guidelines on STD testing and prevention, requiring the use of condoms. And as Nevada is the only state to legalize OPRs, this has not been a problem. But in a state that is maybe too liberal and does not require such guidelines, STDs may spread like wildfire - to children of the infected, to the prostitutes, and to the patrons of such services.
My opponent will probably rebut with two things:
1) People should be able to choose if they want to have an STD.
Is this really a question? If a baby cries to hold the knife, a parent has an obligation to keep it from them. Just like this, the government can protect people from themselves.
2) The guidelines can project onto the other states.
Maybe for some. And temporarily, the job industry might spike, with inspectors and prostitutes getting jobs. But these guidelines will not last. Nevada is a strictly controlled and regulated bubble. When this bubble is popped, then extortion and lies will come out with the industry. Inspectors would be paid off by ambitious OPR leaders, perhaps to retain the eligibility of a popular prostitute. And this is only one example. Allowing prostitution would open a floodgate for more crimes and headaches across the U.S.

I would like to note that my opponent has made no arguments of his own. Even if he prances off in his semi-delusional state in a "successful" rebuttal of my points, he would not have won this debate. He is trying to change the status quo. He is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prostitution business should spread out of Nevada and Rhode Island. If he merely responds to my arguments in Round 3, he will not have fulfilled this burden of proof, and would therefore lose this debate.

Thank you. I await my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

My opponent states that he hasn't conceded the ethical aspects of prostitution, but he unwittingly did. If you read my first round, I clearly gave an argument stating that prostitution is not immoral. By not refuting it in his first round, it can only be assumed that he has conceded it. In a debate, not refuting arguments is NOT a good way to go about.

However, do realize that I never stated I would win this debate because he failed to refute it - I have not "proclaimed victory". I merely observed that my opponent shifted his attack from not moral grounds, but economic grounds - and I complied. For him to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when I am not is a stain on himself.

Seeing as how he has given some arguments pertaining to moral grounds, I will refute that first then go on to the economic grounds.

====================
Taxation Ethical aspects of prostitution
====================

{quote}If my opponent had had the thought or respect to fully read my argument, or to check out the source I listed, he would had read that prostitution as a business is NOT taxed. The only income Nevada receives from organized prostitution rings is from the licensing fees.{endquote}

----> A complete red herring. Of course Nevada brothel's aren't taxed, I never disputed that. HOWEVER, I am arguing that when prostitution becomes a legal industry, customers SHOULD get taxed per "bang for a buck", if you get my drift (everything they pay for sexual offers). Because if prostitution does become a recognized business, then why not institute taxes throughout? My opponent's argument is an obvious misunderstanding between the words "is" and "should" - a sad mistake indeed.

{quote}... but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far... But could you let prostitution spread, and along with it, the moral depravity necessary to degrade a woman enough to have no qualms with equating them to GROCERIES?{endquote}

----> There is nothing immoral with it. Whatever "image" will be projected on the prostitutes by customers, it is the women/men THEMSELVES who chose to live with their profession. They aren't forced to become prostitutes - they chose to. Therefore, it is their burden to carry whatever consequences come along.

{quote}Devastating if she is a prostitute, but this might be from the fact that prostitution exists. In other words, although she might not be a prostitute, she might be treated as one, with men being reinforced for their behaviors.{endquote}

----> This is an empty claim with no evidence to back it up. How does my opponent go from the fact that some men will be reinforced with "bad behaviors" when treating prostitutes, to saying that all women will be degraded? This is similar to arguments used by feminists against pornography, and it's unequivocally unconvincing. While psychology can be scientifically rigorous, many psychologists aren't.

====================
Economic aspects
====================

{quote}But from the perspective of the BUSINESS, all competition does is force you to sacrifice profit, directly to the opposition, or also from advertising and other techniques to bring customers through your doors.{endquote}

----> True, but there is a crucial difference in this scenario: the fact that prostitution will BECOME a legal business. True, Nevada will lost at least some of their potential customers to other competitors (though I suspect not many), but OVERALL, their net income will increase. This is because Vegas can now actually invest in large projects related to prostitution (a prostitution mansion?), and with smart business moves profit much from their services. Making prostitution a legit industry will introduce a whole new aspect to the economy, and Vegas will surely be the first to benefit, and probably monopolize, from it.

That being said, my opponent has yet again failed to refute TWO OTHER of my arguments - both on economic grounds. He has failed to show why Vegas' economy will take such an economic harm when gambling is it's primary motivation. He has also failed to show -- and this is most important -- why we should even care about Vegas! Why should an entire potential industry be based on the success of ONE area?! If prostitution would be legalized nationwide, America OVERALL would benefit in so many ways. More jobs. More money. All these benefits shouldn't be forsaken just for Vegas' benefit when it already can sustain itself (more than that, it flourishes).

====================
Risk of spreading STD's
====================

{quote}Next, my opponent speaks of an entire potential for jobs. But I speak of another spread. The spread of a plethora of STDs. HIV, AIDS, anyone? How about herpes? Gonorrhea? Chlamydia? The clap? Crabs? Which would you prefer?{endquote}

----> This perceived "problem" is easily circumvented. Like the porn industry, the prostitution industry will have hard guidelines and regulations concerning STD's until medicine can catch up. This means that customers will have to be given a mandatory STD checkup every time they come for services, while prostitutes will have to take a mandatory STD checkup every few months or so. In fact, I can imagine great expansion on these guidelines. Customers have their own "profile" when they go to a certain business to avoid redundant checkups, sex with condoms will be cheaper, etc.

Also, it should be noted that legalizing prostitution will in fact DECREASE the amount of STD's. Obviously, prostitution happens a LOT right now - and it's very dangerous(STD-wise) and illegal. If we legalize it, then we can curb the "bad" sides to it - just like how legalizing drugs will curb the crime that goes along with it.

My opponent's other two rebuttals don't apply, since I don't use any of the hypothetical arguments he argued against.

====================
CON Claims: PRO has failed to make arguments of his own
====================

Why does my opponent constantly accuse of me of false claims? I certainly have made arguments of my own, and just a semi-concentrated read of my rounds will reveal as such. Here are my counterarguments, which my opponent falsely believes makes up the entirety of my rounds:

1. Vegas shouldn't be the focus of attention
2. No evidence/reason to show how legalizing prostitution will lead to men "degrading" women who aren't prostitutes
3. Vegas will profit from legalizing prostitution, because it's the birth of a NEW industry

NOW, let me give you a list of arguments I have made for my side. Even though some arguments are related to my counterarguments(above), it doesn't matter! I can formulate a new argument by the process of refuting another, it's perfectly okay!:

1. Legalizing prostitution is not immoral
2. Legalizing prostitution will help the economy - both Vegas' and USA in general
3. Legalizing prostitution will curb the spread of STD's

Is it not obvious that I have fulfilled my burden? I have given rebuttals to each of his arguments, and given several for my own. If my opponent is keen on accusing me of things that aren't rightfully so, then shame on him.

====================
Conclusion
====================

All of my opponent's claims and arguments have been refuted, and mine still stand. He has failed to refute TWO of my arguments concerning economics, and his new arguments relating to STD's and morals have been adequately refuted as well. While he may taunt at my "semi-delusional state", it should be clear to the voters who won.

Thanks for the debate - VOTE PRO!
studs-r-us

Con

"A complete red herring. Of course Nevada brothel's aren't taxed, I never disputed that. HOWEVER, I am arguing that when prostitution becomes a legal industry, customers SHOULD get taxed per "bang for a buck", if you get my drift (everything they pay for sexual offers). Because if prostitution does become a recognized business, then why not institute taxes throughout?"

The fact is, people are extremely resistant to changes, such as taxation. The logistics of setting up taxation in Nevada on the prostitution industry is quite difficult. The logistics of legalizing and setting up tax systems to tax prostitutes throughout the U.S. would not only be difficult, but damn near impossible.

The taxes, I'll address later.

"There is nothing immoral with it. Whatever "image" will be projected on the prostitutes by customers, it is the women/men THEMSELVES who chose to live with their profession. They aren't forced to become prostitutes - they chose to. Therefore, it is their burden to carry whatever consequences come along."

Yes, people are the ones making such choices. The image however, is not only allowed but actively supported by a government supporting prostitution, creating and recognizing a group of people who have no choice or desire but to be at the sexual whims of whoever happens to pay them.

Next, is the claim that people aren't forced to become prostitutes. It must be noted, however, that many prostitutes are forced to be prostitutes, as seen with examples of other countries, where prostitution is legal.
For example, in Germany, forced prostitution, underage prostitution, and human trafficking is more easily lost under the cover of legal prostitution.

Also a quote regarding the prostitution being a legitimate business. A legitimate businessman or businesswoman does not face these things:
"Few activities are as brutal and damaging to people as prostitution. Field research in nine countries concluded that 60-75 percent of women in prostitution were raped, 70-95 percent were physically assaulted, and 68 percent met the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans and victims of state-organized torture. Beyond this shocking abuse, the public health implications of prostitution are devastating and include a myriad of serious and fatal diseases, including HIV/AIDS..."

Yes, will always break the law. But a tendency to not stray too far from legal behaviors is all too common. Prostitution being widely illegal makes it quite easy for police and other law enforcement to see when people break the law, and this fear can keep people from doing it as well - a double win.
This isn't all, however. Child and forced prostitution will become a real problem. When prostitution is illegal, any prostitution is easily stopped or caught (relatively). When prostitution becomes legal, child or forced prostitution can be somewhat masked by this new legal aspect. If investigations are made, a skillful or lucky manager might hardball or flatter an inspector into a temporary trust, where they might not press the investigation but rather investigate other evidence first, leaving time for these criminals to run away. Maybe a bit more theoretical, but perfectly possible, especially as it wouldn't be possible today. A prostitution ringleader would be jailed on sight today.

"True, but there is a crucial difference in this scenario: the fact that prostitution will BECOME a legal business. True, Nevada will lost at least some of their potential customers to other competitors (though I suspect not many), but OVERALL, their net income will increase. ...Making prostitution a legit industry will introduce a whole new aspect to the economy, and Vegas will surely be the first to benefit, and probably monopolize, from it."

It is quite clear that my opponent has been inundated with ideas that hard work and ability will triumph in our country, without fail. As anyone can see, this is not the case. First of all, there is no guarantee that prostitution will become a legitimate business, being taxed. Yes, it might be legal, but won't necessarily be taxed.
Next of all, competition is horrible for business. Not only does it stress the businessmen out, but also the idea of trying to outthink your opponents does not help either.
IBM was the leading and pioneer computer industry. Does anyone CARE about them now? They have been beaten down by copycat and improved innovators, by Apple, Dell, HP, among others.

"This perceived "problem" is easily circumvented. Like the porn industry, the prostitution industry will have hard guidelines and regulations concerning STD's until medicine can catch up. This means that customers will have to be given a mandatory STD checkup every time they come for services, while prostitutes will have to take a mandatory STD checkup every few months or so. In fact, I can imagine great expansion on these guidelines. Customers have their own "profile" when they go to a certain business to avoid redundant checkups, sex with condoms will be cheaper, etc."

What people don't understand or know is that testing is not a concrete process. Even after being infected, a prostitute can go up to 12 weeks without symptoms.
Jeffrey J. Barrows, DO, Health Consultant on Human Trafficking projects that a prostitute can expose above 500 clients to this disease.
Another thing to know is that condoms, the only commonly used defense against prostitution, does not even work in some cases. Ambitious condom makers, (due to competition, it might be noted) have started to created air holes for a smoother and more comfortable wrap. These holes are guaranteed to keep sperm in the condom, but there is no mention of the possibility of STD viruses traveling through, which are much smaller than sperm.

MY OPPONENTS CORE ARGUMENT
1. Vegas shouldn't be the focus of attention
2. No evidence/reason to show how legalizing prostitution will lead to men "degrading" women who aren't prostitutes
3. Vegas will profit from legalizing prostitution, because it's the birth of a NEW industry

1. I have never contended that, just that it would be hurtful to the city and state.
2. This has been refuted with a ridiculously large helping of extra evidence.
Note the quote with percentages and listings of all the abuse that occurs to prostitutes, mental and physical.
3. It takes only a bit of logic to see that the second lemonade stand on your block might steal your profit.

HIS NEXT 3
1. Legalizing prostitution is not immoral
2. Legalizing prostitution will help the economy - both Vegas' and USA in general
3. Legalizing prostitution will curb the spread of STD's

3. refuted by quote and projection from Jeffrey J. Barrows.
2. Maybe, but really a stretch.
1. Morality is a subjective measure. I would argue that it is not immoral for consensual sex, regardless of pay or no pay. However, I WOULD argue that the abuse and STDs spread from prostitution IS immoral, along with the opening of a new crime industry. Finally, people like Charles H. Ramsey, former Police Chief of Washington, DC, stated on Washington Post "I believe that two crimes make a city look totally out of control. That's open prostitution and open air drug trafficking."

Do we want the whole U.S. to be subject to such depravity? For the good of America, and most importantly our future perception and code of integrity, and perhaps also for our children
VOTE CON.

My opponent may have a degraded sense of morals and a completely blind eye to reputation, safety, and other issues, that shouldn't mean that you, the voter, should have the same depraved morality.

Thank you for enduring this debate, sloppy perhaps, but making my first debate enjoyable and memorable. Thanks again, and don't forget to VOTE CON! :]
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
I have half a mind to constantly fluctuate the score by 1 point against Skeptic just because it'll be funny XD
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
"That you stated your first argument (Obviously without making any rebuttals) and that your opponent was simply stating his first argument doing the same thing. That is pretty common sense for people, and especially people who do not compete in debate."

Keyword: for those who do not compete in debate. If you read my introduction, you would've realized that I explicitly stated that while I did not say his failure to refute my arguments means he concedes the debate, it DOES mean he concedes the argument. I merely observed that it seemed he has shifted his focus on economic grounds. When have I centered any of my arguments on his failure to respond to my argument?

"You could have also realize that this was one of his first online debates."

The onus of whether or not he knows the rules of thumb in debating is not on me.
Posted by Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
That you stated your first argument (Obviously without making any rebuttals) and that your opponent was simply stating his first argument doing the same thing. That is pretty common sense for people, and especially people who do not compete in debate.

You could have also realize that this was one of his first online debates.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
@Bricheze:

Just because it wasn't explicitly stated on the website does NOT mean it's not applicable. Nowhere on the websites' FAQ does it say you you shouldn't commit a fallacy - but any mildly intelligent person knows that their argument must be logically coherent. It's common sense. If my opponent doesn't respond to my arguments, what ELSE am I supposed to infer?
Posted by Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
I absolutely despise it when one of the sides claims that their opponent has conceded by not responding to a certain argument or rule. This is NOT on the official rules of the website. And many people who don't competitively compete in debate don't know it is debate 'etiquette' therefore the side that wants to make this claim, must state in their first argument that any points or rules not rebutalled are considered conceded. Otherwise it is not fair to say that they are, it is simply the debater not having to make an argument, and being able to automatically win with rules they never asked their opponent to follow.

Who did you agree with before the debate? Pro
Who did you agree with after the debate? Con
Who had better conduct? Con
Who had better spelling and grammar? Tie
Who made more convincing arguments? Con
Who used the most reliable sources? Pro
Posted by studs-r-us 7 years ago
studs-r-us
http://prostitution.procon.org...
source i used for some of the quotes
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Ah, I see. Well even in that case, Objectivist ethics still don't give a very good answer in terms of meta-ethics. Just because following a certain pattern of behaviors will further your survival (eating, making money, etc.), it doesn't follow that it should become a code of values you need to abide by. Rather than a binding code, it's more a guideline (a common sense guideline at that, of course you gotta eat!). So even then, I'm not sure how far Objectivism has gotten with the is-ought problem.

I like Aristotle for the most part; he's way more appealing than Plato. But it's his virtue ethics I find unappealing.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Rand phrases it fairly poorly. In truth, it solves it only in the usual sense these philosophical problems are solved, by avoiding it (much like a malevolent deity beats the problem of evil). The preexisting choice to live determines the context of the word "ethics," meaning from that point forward you do have a basis to derive ought from is-- within that context). But she often treats it falsely like a deconstruction of the problem itself. You have to read a lot of her writing to notice her general idea of the nature of ethics that she neglects to emphasize when mentioning the is-ought problem.

As for similarity to Aristotle, that's usually her main attraction to those entering it from the usual strands of philosophy. What's wrong with Aristotle in general? His distinguishing trait was a commitment to reason ^_^.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Hehe Objectivism? Ayn Rand's "solution" to the is-ought problem is probably one of my biggest reasons I 'aint an Objectivist. And her Aristotle-like ethics.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Taxation +Ethical =???ZOMGWTFERROR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mongo8001 6 years ago
mongo8001
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by AwesomePossum 6 years ago
AwesomePossum
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Mixer 6 years ago
Mixer
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by DictatorIsaac 7 years ago
DictatorIsaac
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by TalkingWhale 7 years ago
TalkingWhale
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by HeatherH 7 years ago
HeatherH
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
TheSkepticstuds-r-usTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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