The Instigator
Beckybooleeson
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
NarcissisticOverthinker
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Prostitution in Ireland should be legalised

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 3 votes the winner is...
NarcissisticOverthinker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 42045
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Beckybooleeson

Pro

In this round, the challenger will formally accept my challenge. I look forward to the brave debater who goes up against me. Don't let the age fool you, I have a lot of fire so beware of getting burned.
NarcissisticOverthinker

Con

Let's go.
Debate Round No. 1
Beckybooleeson

Pro

First of all, thank you for excepting my challenge. Now for the fun to begin.

In this round of the debate, I will be talking about how if prostitution is legalised, than the safety of both the men and women will be improved.

If women in this line of work are given regular health checks, say, twice a month, as well as free contraception supplies to prevent pregnancies and the development of AIDs, lives can be saved and also women can feel safe in this job. And yes I do say prostitution is a job. The reason women or men go into this line of work is because they may have to support their family and may have no other way to do so.

This is just a taste of what I will be discussing in this debate. Lets see what you have to offer.
NarcissisticOverthinker

Con

Let's be realistic here when we discuss legalising prostitution in Ireland. According to censuses taken in 2011, 84.2% of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland and 43.8% of the estimated workforce of Northern Ireland[2] self-identified as Roman Catholic.

Now, do not think I am blind to what the Roman Catholic Church once tolerated[3] (i.e. prostitution) however it was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evil of rape. Nowadays, rape in Ireland is far less severe than it was back in the Roman empire and I challenge my opponent to prove that there is even a remotely equivalent requirement for society to support prostitution now compared to back then.

A society that begins the venture into accepting prostitution must first become liberal and secular in nature throughout its populace. Since the Irish are so severely religious and patriotic they will probably riot and violently break out in rage if the government were to introduce legalised promiscuity, which is exactly what prostitution is in the eyes of Roman Catholics.

The bible has a huge grey area on prostitution since it supports women serving men but does not ever state directly that, as a profession, selling one's body is a line of work that God would approve of. In fact, one need only look at the laws of Vatican City[4], where there is zero tolerance of profession, to understand why a nation, such as Ireland, that seeks to emulate Vatican morality would want to follow Catholicism by outlawing prostitution.

In conclusion, Ireland is a Catholic majority nation and if it seeks to avoid a civil war or nationwide revolution then it should probably stick to keeping prostitution illegal. It's no secret that Ireland has been very prone to such things as revolutions and civil wars in the past.


Sources:
[1] "Table 36: Persons, male and female, classified by religious denomination with actual percentage change, 2006 and 2011". This is Ireland, Highlights from Census 2011, Part 1. Central Statistics Office. p. 104. Retrieved 18 August 2012.
[2] http://www.equalityni.org...
[3] http://relihiyon.fr.yuku.com...
[4] The Magisterium of the Catholic Church (June 2002).Catechism Of The Catholic Church. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 504–505.ISBN978-0-86012-324-8. Retrieved 22 May 2013.
Debate Round No. 2
Beckybooleeson

Pro

First, may I say, I am very impressed by your resources and style of debating.

Now fir some rebuttal, even though Ireland is mainly Roman Catholic, the occupation of prostitution has been around since the time of Shakespeare. Just look at the film of "The Merchant of Venice", in one scene, there are women going around showing off their boobs. This shows that prostitution has been going on for a number of years, so why can't we make it safer. I mean, it's part of our history, we can't deny it.

Now onto my second point, that the police can focus on worse crimes. Prostitution is merely women who have sex for money. Crimes such as rape, theft and other horrific . The police are looking for people in the prostitution who do most of their business "underground", as in, out of public eye. The Garda" are both wasting time and resources on something that, in retrospect, isn't really that bad.

If you think about it, these women are making money by using their body as their resources. Models do the same, and most of the time, most are half naked. So why are these women judged for making a living by using their body in a more physical way.

I wait for your response and once again, I commend you on your brilliant debating so far.
NarcissisticOverthinker

Con

I thank you for your compliments and commend you on your civility and perseverance throughout this debate.

My opponent seems to be confusing a Shakespearean play set in Venice (and Shakespeare himself residing in England, without any Irish blood to his name[1]) made primarily to line Shakespeare's pockets with money and to entertain an audience in return as to be an accurate representation of Irish heritage and all the it encompasses. Need I say more on that matter?

Her logic that police can focus on worse crimes could potentially be countered if I showed her severe examples of human trafficking and what really goes on in brothels and the tactics that pimps use to keep prostitutes hooked on the career and dependent on the line of work but if I did this she'd simply use the fairly valid counter of 'such bad things wouldn't happen if it was legalised'. Therefore, I will use her own logic against her instead of presenting my own. According to her, if there is a 'worse' crime in existence then no lesser crime should be a concern of the police. She mentioned both rape and theft as examples of crimes that are worse than prostitution so I will say back to her than by her own logic whichever of those two crimes she considers less severe than the other should also be legalised by this logic. In essence all crimes should be legalised as long as there's another crime potentially worse for the police to focus on, according to my opponent's logic. This would make both rape and theft, which she considers to be horrific crimes, to end up being legalised for a worse crime was ever a concern of the police. I hope you can see the fallacy of such an argument and that no matter how many worse crimes there are for the police to focus on, a crime is a crime and what's worse to one person is perhaps less worse to another.

The final point that Pro makes is that the body of a human being is simply a resource to be exploited for money at will. Their line of work is no morally different to models, says Pro. This is fairly fascinating news to me, it's also entirely untrue. A prostitute is owned by a pimp, this pimp feeds them, clothes them, gives them access to drinking water, decides when they wake up, when they sleep, when they sh*t and even when they breathe (yes I'm referring to exactly what you are thinking of). A model is not essentially owned by anyone and could, potentially, quit their job at any time they so wished (unless, of course, on a contract). They are completely consenting to their job and their job is just a job they do it and go. One does not simply leave a brothel, they are trapped there for good. Additionally, modelling does not carry the risk of sexually transmitted diseases or infections and also doesn't involve risk of pregnancy. A model can sue any single colleague or camera person for sexual harassment if they so wish and severe consequences come on anyone who assumes that to be a model is to submit to degradation or humiliation of any kind outside of professional, constructive criticism of how they present their body (not even the body itself). On the other hand, if a prostitute feels sexually harassed by colleagues and people on the street who will not even hire her (or him) then he/she has literally zero ways to prosecute the individual, even if prostitution was legal, it would just be deemed as a valid humiliation since it's culturally seen as the job one does when they submit to being degraded.

Sources:
[1] Shakespeare's Ancestry. Available: http://www.shakespeare-online.com.... Last accessed 12th Dec 2013.
Debate Round No. 3
Beckybooleeson

Pro

Thank you very much for your argument. You made some very convincing points.

For my last round of the debate, I will be discussing my final point, "women have the right to their body" as well as arguing (as politely as I can" on some of your points in the debate. First some rebuttal, a point that you brought up that a prostitutes are "owned" by a pimp and can't leave whenever they want, where as a model can leave whenever they want. I completely agree with you, but this is actually part of the point that I will be bringing up in this round so really, I have to thank you.

If prostitution was to be legalised, it would be held in a special brothel and all the women , after two weeks of work, can leave at anytime they want. We want to make the women feel safe and independent and in control of their body.

Now onto the point of how women have the right to their body. It is basic human right for someone to be in control of their body and they have the right to decide how to look after it, what to do with it etc. This is why if prostitution is legalised in Ireland, women would feel more in control and decide when to say no and not feel so scared to do so.

That concludes my side of the argument. I have discussed the points, that the safety of the women would be improved, the police would be able to deal with bigger crimes and that women would be able to feel in control of their bodies. Thank you for listening and I beg you to propose.
NarcissisticOverthinker

Con

Note for conduct: Raising new points in last round is commonly seen as bad conduct because if Pro had been second in the last round, the opponent could never have rebutted. I believe I deserve the conduct vote for this reason.

Pro: If prostitution was to be legalised, it would be held in a special brothel.
Rebuttal: Not only is this a completely new point that Pro never raised in the first four rounds of debate but they also never once remotely laid out what entails a legalised or 'special' brother , even in the last round. For this reason I shall completely negate the point as, for all we know a 'special' could refer to a brothel where bestiality and incest occur, that is a very valid interpretation of 'special' and clearly such acts would deter one from ever wanting to legalise prostitution.

Pro: All the women , after two weeks of work, can leave at anytime they want.
Rebuttal:
Says who? How will this be enforced? Why two weeks? Why allow someone to quit a job any time they want? This is actually unfair on anyone in a contract job who is probably contributing far more to society than the prostitute but sure can't quit any time they so wish.

Pro: We want to make the women feel safe and independent and in control of their body.
Rebuttal: If you really want this then you should want prostitution to remain illegal, it is the single most degrading job in the world and the degradation isn't because it's illegal it's because it's the one job that any tramp on the street could do because it relates to the most basic function of any animal on Earth, meaning even a pig could be a prostitute if you had it on a chain to prevent it escaping the brothel. the only two reasons pig prostitution doesn't occur are that bestiality is illegal and hogs can't earn the money to hire a the pigs.

Pro: It is basic human right for someone to be in control of their body and they have the right to decide how to look after it, what to do with it etc.
Rebuttal: This is incorrect. force rehabilitation for drug addicts, forced asylum for mentally insane (such as psychopaths), forced treatment for the mentally unstable (such as schizophrenics as well as people suffering from bulimia or anorexia) and forced hospice for those who wish to be euthanized are all legal parts of Irish law. Until these are eradicated, Ireland cannot ever call itself a truly free land and people are forced to a set of behaviour standards in order to be 'free' in society.

Pro: This is why if prostitution is legalised in Ireland, women would feel more in control and decide when to say no and not feel so scared to do so.
Rebuttal: The prostitute could surely say 'no' and then get fired for lack of enthusiasm. It's like the boss goes to his secretary Alice and says 'Hey, Alice please do this work for me.' Alice looks at it, feels disgusted to do it and says 'No. I am not afraid of you, my job is legal.' then the Boss simply states 'Thank you Alice, I will now head over to Human Resources to find a replacement for you.' Alice is now unemployed, just like any prostitute who said 'no' would be.

I conclude that the legalisation of prostitution is very inadvisable in Ireland.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
BeckybooleesonNarcissisticOverthinkerTied
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:25 
Reasons for voting decision: I find pro's argument to be irrational and unfounded. I don't think pro knows the true negative affects and lifestyle of prostitution. Pro was very kind throughout the debate and did not use any curse words even when she was losing (conduct and grammar point awarded). Knowledge and relativity to debate influenced me to give convincing arguments and reliable sources points to Con. I believe Pro completely mischaracterized "The merchant of Venice" and Con did an excellent job of showing it as poor justification for changing policy in a Christ following society.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
BeckybooleesonNarcissisticOverthinkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a stronger argument back by facts and sources. Pro didn't provide any sources or facts. I didn't give anyone the conduct point. Con used profanity and Pro had poor debate etiquette by bringing up new points in the end. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
BeckybooleesonNarcissisticOverthinkerTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I like Con's style of debate and formatting very much. He was both witty (this went a bit far though) and insightful, and he ripped his opponent's arguments to pieces. My two major complaints: 1) I think that profanity (even when starred out) detracts from a debate and 2) I would have appreciated some sources on his description of the quality of life of prostitutes. Also, I do not find it to be bad conduct when a person who goes second-to-last raises new points. If Con had done so I would have disliked it. Pro also did a good job debating and took on a hard subject, so props to her for that. But Con still wins by a wide margin.