The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Prostitution should be illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 11/1/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,015 times Debate No: 64342
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




This debate is about prostitution. I believe prostitution should be legal, but I've chosen to argue a side I don't believe in, to keep things interesting. This should be fun!

There are three rounds. The first is for acceptance. The second is for arguments. The third is for rebuttals.

I have made the voting open to members with a minimum Elo of 2500. I also ask voters explain their decision. That should keep randoms from voting and ensure a fair assessment.


Haven't seen a debate like this for a while, so thanks for starting it, and good luck, it's always fun arguing against your own beliefs.

I'll assume prostitution is implying the act of performing sexual favours in exchange for money or material wealth, objects, etc.

I'm also going to let you present your arguments before I do, so good luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Prostitution should be illegal for four reasons: (1) prostitution causes irreparable physical and psychological harms, (2) legalizing prostitution will not eliminate violence in prostitution, (3) prostitution increases human trafficking, and (4) prostitution perpetuates gender inequality.

1. Women who prostitute are irreparably harmed both physically and psychologically.

The average life span for a woman entering prostitution is four years. No other population of women has a higher death rate. [1] Prostitutes are often murdered. But this high death rate is not just the result of homicide; it's also caused by the incredible violence and brutality that prostitutes face every day.

Prostitutes experience an extensive catalog of violence. Their hair is pulled, their faces are ejaculated on, their breasts are squeezed; they are slapped, pinched, verbally abused, threatened, beaten, cut with knives, burned with cigarettes, and gang raped. [1] Victims of torture describe very similar acts. [2] And like victims of torture, prostitutes report injuries such as bruises, mouth and teeth injuries, vaginal bleeding, internal injuries, head injuries, and broken bones. [3] Moreover, these results are not limited to illegal prostitution. These results include prostitutes working in countries where prostitution is legal, in brothels with so-called "safety policies." [4]

Prostitution also has psychological consequences. For example, prostitutes are at a heightened risk of depression, mania, suicidal thoughts, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, dissociative disorders and chemical dependence. [1] Prostitutes report a sense of "splitting," of "leaving my body" or going "someplace else mentally." The result is a higher incidence of dissociative disorders. [5] Without surprise, prostitution also leads to a higher incidence of PTSD.

The psychological damage stems from the act itself. Even women who choose to prostitute cannot avoid the trauma associated with constant sexual degradation, and with having one's body sold as a commodity. The psychological damage is often unconscious and manifests after-the-fact. Thus, no amount of "improvement" to the conditions of prostitution can eliminate its psychological consequences.

2. Legalizing prostitution will not eliminate violence in prostitution.

Rates of assault and rape against prostitutes remains extremely high even in countries that have legalized prostitution. [6] Legalization would draw thousands more women into prostitution without any demonstrable decrease in violence. For example, in European countries where prostitution has been legalized -- or had elements of prostitution legalized -- the number of prostitutes has more than doubled after legalization. [7] Yet violence towards these prostitutes has not decreased. In fact, studies have found that women working in brothels and other indoor facilities have less control because the owners control what sex acts they do and with whom. [1] Often, the result has been more violence towards prostitutes than in places where prostitution is legal.

Legalization has been tried. It has not eliminated violence in prostitution. Sometimes, it has even led to more violence towards prostitutes. Thus, prostitution should not be legalized.

3. Legalizing prostitution would increase human trafficking.

We can all agree that human trafficking is bad. It poses serious health issues for women and girls worldwide, weakens the rule of law, and may even compromise international security.

Studies have found that legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking. For example, a 2012 study published by World Development found that countries with legalized prostitution have higher human trafficking inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. [8] The International Organization of Migration attributed the rise in trafficking to the rise of prostitution in Europe. [9] And the U.S. Department of State recognized that legalized prostitution makes anti-trafficking work more difficult. [9]

Everyone agrees that trafficking is a violation of basic human rights. But trafficking would not exist without prostitution. The two go hand-in-hand. Without dispute, all the empirical data we have suggests that legalization of prostitution leads to increased trafficking.

4. Legalizing prostitution would perpetuate gender inequality.

Prostitution is about men's control over women's sexuality. The prostitution industry exploits the economic, physical, and social weakness of women and children, in order to service men. To put it bluntly, legalized prostitution exists for the benefit of men. Which in turn ends up perpetuating gender inequality.

Think about it this way: Prostitution is like female genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is often represented as something that women choose, either for themselves or for their female children. Indeed, the practice is usually carried out by women alone. But does that make female genital mutilation okay? No. But why shouldn't female genital mutilation be legal if its carried out by women alone? Because like prostitution, female genital mutilation exists solely for the benefit of men. Male ideas of female sexuality are what underlie the practice, and it is those ideas that female genital mutilation attempts to satisfy.

Prostitution perpetuates gender inequality in the same way that female genital mutilation perpetuates gender inequality. Degrading, patriarchal ideas of female sexuality underlie both practices. And both practices are thus an expression of men's control over women's sexuality.

For the above reasons, prostitution should be illegal.


[1] Melissa Farley, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder," published in Feminism and Psychology.
[2] "Nigerian women tortured by prostitution ring in Greece," Associated Press, August 15, 2005.
[3] A Comparative Study of Women Trafficked in the Migration Process: Patterns, Profiles and Health Consequences of Sexual Exploitation in Five Countries,
[4] Patricia Hynes and Janice Raymond, "Put in Harms Way: The Neglected Health Consequences of Sex
Trafficking in the United States."
[5] C.A. Ross, M. Farley, and H.L. Schwartz, "Dissociation Among Women in Prostitution."
[6] I. Vanwesenbeeck et al, "Professional HIV risk taking, levels of victimization, and well-being in female
prostitutes in the Netherlands."
[7] Joan Smith, "Why British men are rapists."
[9] J. Raymond, "Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal Response to the Demand for



Prostitution should not be illegal for four reasons, and should be legal for a few other reasons: (1) If a person chooses to act a certain way, knowing it can be harmful, that's their choice. Just like a BMXer or Skateboarder or Skydiver - it's dangerous, but it's their choice. (2) Nobody said this is the reason anybody would legalize prostitution. Not eliminating violence? That's like saying "let's not fund Lung Cancer research because it won't eliminate Breast Cancer." (3) If a woman chooses to sell her body for sex, then yes, it increases human trafficking, but that would be legal, and the woman's choice, so I don't see how this is a bad thing. (4) ....If someone has the option to make easy money, do it. Who cares if someone else can't, maybe they could find another way to make money.

Now, for the reasons it should be legal: [1] Primarily men, who are incapable of finding a partner or really any form of sexual release, can easily fulfill their sexual desires by paying for it. No talking, no flirting, no "game," just money, and sex. [2] Legalized prostitution can decrease the rape numbers by upward of 25%. [3] Legalized prostitution can lower the number of sexually transmitted diseases, much like in porn. [4] Legalizing prostitution is disallowing the government to control our own bodies.

(1) - You have forgotten to take into account that your stats are coming from illegal prostitution. I agree to an extent that currently, illegal prostitution is very hard to live with and can easily lead to a much shorter life span, as well as many different types of addictions. However with legal prostitution, many of these interactions can be in places such as brothels, where there can be security, as well as safe sex, and a lack of illegal drugs.

Even if what you're saying is true, that there are cases where some women are beaten even in places with safety precautions, I can guarantee there are less women beaten in areas with legalized prostitution than illegal prostitution, so even though bad stuff happens everywhere (even look at the police force, really nothing can be 100% perfect), it's still a major improvement.

If a woman chooses to start prostituting, she has the ability to make this choice knowing the consequences, and she still makes the choice. Much like a stuntman or construction worker or fisherman, there is higher pay for higher risk, in any job, and that applies to prostitution. If she chooses this, it's her choice.

(2) - You brought this up already halfway through your first point, legalizing something will not erase all crime involved. There is still an illegal alcohol market, even though alcohol is now legal. If prostitution was legal in North America, it may very well be different than other places. Sure, there could be some instances where violence is involved, but it is a lot different than prostitution on the street, where there is no organization, security, etc. And please keep in mind, it's the woman's choice to get into this. If she is choosing to get into this lifestyle, then, well it's her choice. Just because legalizing it probably won't eliminate all crime doesn't mean it won't eliminate a lot of crime.

(3) - Legalized prostitution gives women the choice to get into what they want. Human trafficking is the distribution of sexual acts by humans. If prostitution was legal, more willing people would get into this, instead of people taken against their will. It would most likely no longer be forced on innocent people.

(4) - Prostitution is absolutely not that, and can be argued to be women's control over men. Men want sex? Well, women can give it, but they want something in return. This is how free trade works. Men want something, women want something, they both get what they want in the end. This has nothing to do with gender inequality, but simple trading of a service for money. I'm physically fit, and Linda wants me to build a brick wall for her. Is this exploiting males as nothing but slaves because of our strength? No, it's asking someone to do something because they have the ability to, and in exchange for their service, you give them something they want, which in a lot of cases is money.

In no way do men control women in general, and more specifically, in this sense. If they did, they wouldn't have to pay for sex.

Now for my arguments

[1] Prostitution allows men to have sex who are really unable to find a sexual partner. Sex is a big part of life. Not only is it important to keep our species alive, but it's an amazing stress reliever, it keeps your immune system up, increases oxygen intake and healthy blood flow, as well as relieving pain {2}. Sex is an important part of life, and has dozens of benefits. Not being able to have sex for whatever reason, can easily be thrown out the window if you can pay for it. After all, if I pay for an aspirin, why can't I pay for sex? It feels a lot better than aspirin.

[2] Studies have shown that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes {1}. It's kind of hard to elaborate on this point, but wouldn't you want to live in a world where a quarter more of the female population was safer? If someone has access to legal sex, even paying $20 for cheap... prostitutes... it would deter them from doing something illegal.

[3] Porn is prostitution. People are paid to have sex, but they record it, and therefore it's legal. Rumours have gone around saying there are STDs riddled in porn, but in reality porn is probably safer than having sex with a girl you met and got to know for a month. There are extensive screenings and tests to ensure the safety of the actors' health. Of course STDs are in some areas of porn, HIV/AIDS is not {3}, and that's the main thing that needs to be taken seriously. STDs can be considered harmless, and can really be taken care of quickly. If prostitution is legalized, it will most likely be a lot like porn - the women are tested, the men having sex with the women may be tested, and in the end, nobody gets any type of infection, and on the off chance someone does, it can be taken care of easily.

[4] Sex is natural. Paying for services is how society runs. Paying for massages is completely normal. So why is it that paying for sex is not? Entering into a sexual relationship with someone obviously has risks. Why is sex legal, but paying someone for it illegal? This is a direct violation of our human rights. The government has passed a law that doesn't allow us to have sex if we give someone money for it. Sure, it's a health concern, but like I've said several times, it's a known health concern - there is a possibility something bad could happen, and both people know this, just like when someone has sex with their girlfriend or boyfriend.

If two people wish to have consenting sex, while knowing the health risks, they are taking a chance, sure, just like having sex in general, but it's suddenly illegal if someone pays the other?

To sum up:

Prostitution is a woman's choice. They choose to accept money in return for sex.

It's nearly impossibly to eliminate 100% of violence, however the violence can decrease.

Human trafficking would not be forced on innocent people, and more willing people would participate, as it's now legal.

Prostitution is a simple trade system, and does not have anything to do with one gender being superior to the other

Prostitution enables men who are incapable of finding a sexual partner to actually have sex.

Upwards of 25% less rapes

Health precautions will be taken into effect, and less serious diseases will spread

The government can't control our bodies

Prostitution should be legalized for many reasons.

Thanks again!



Debate Round No. 2


First, I'll discuss Con's misrepresentations. Then I'll rebut his arguments.

1. Con misrepresented the studies I cited.

Con claimed: "Your stats are coming from illegal prostitution." This is incorrect. The studies I cited discuss prostitution in countries where it is legal. [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Many of these studies compared countries before and after legalization. By evaluating conditions under both legal and illegal prostitution, the stats I cited were fair and accurate.

2. Con misrepresented my "human trafficking" argument.

Con claimed: "Human trafficking is the distribution of sexual acts by humans.” This definition is wrong. The studies I cited earlier defined human trafficking as illegal forced labor and commercial sex exploitation. These studies showed that such forced labor and commercial sex exploitation has increased in countries where prostitution was legalized. [8] These studies also showed that human trafficking increased as a result of legalizing prostitution. [9] Con dropped these points and completely ignored the studies I cited.

Human trafficking -- illegal forced labor and commercial sex exploitation -- is bad. It poses serious health issues for women and girls worldwide, weakens the rule of law, and may even compromise international security. I explained this last round. Con dropped these points too.

To reiterate: human trafficking has increased in countries where prostitution was legalized. Because legalizing prostitution will likely increase human trafficking, prostitution should be illegal.


1. Consent is not a defense.

Con claimed: "If a person chooses to act a certain way, knowing it can be harmful, that's their choice." Though factually correct, this claim has no persuasive value. The whole point of criminal laws is to determine which "choices" are acceptable to society. Murder and rape are a "choice." Victims can even consent. But that doesn't make these acts less criminal. Likewise, prostitution. Just because women "choose" to prostitute does not mean prostitution should be legal.

There is no amount of "consent" that makes a crime acceptable. If someone consents to murder, that doesn't make the murder acceptable. The murder is still a crime. So too with prostitution. There are many "choices" that are illegal. Just because something is a "choice" does not mean it should be legal. Prostitution may be a "choice" sometimes but that doesn't make it acceptable. Nor should that make prostitution legal.

There are other problems with Con's "choice" argument. For there to be a "choice," there must be "informed consent" and "alternative options." Neither of those exists for prostitutes. Nor would they exist if prostitution were legalized. Most prostitutes were sexually abused as children. [10] Homelessness is cited as a primary reason women become prostitutes. Additionally, immigrants -- especially Central American women -- are often forced into prostitution when smugglers steal their money and threaten deportation. Finally, many women are violently beaten until they "consent" to prostitution. [9]

Legalizing prostitution won't change these conditions. So most of the time, prostitutes only have a "choice" between two evils: deportation or prostitution, violent beatings or prostitution, homelessness or prostitution. Prostitution under these circumstances isn't a "choice." Would we say that a concentration camp survivor who collaborated with the guards to get food and stay alive had consented to his abuse? Would we say an enslaved African in the Americas who became a house servant had done so voluntarily? Of course not. To say there was choice there is absurd. And prostitution is no different.

There are two points here: (1) consent is not a defense to a crime, and (2) prostitutes don't have a "choice" because they don't have realistic alternatives.

2. Legalizing prostitution doesn't decrease violence against women.

Con claimed: “I can guarantee there are less women beaten in areas with legalized prostitution than illegal prostitution.” How does Con guarantee that claim? With nothing. Con literally provided no evidence or source for this claim. In fact, I provided evidence showing the exact opposite. Take a look at references [1] [4] [6] [7].

Con claimed: “Studies have shown that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes.” To support this statement, Con cited a single study from 2004. But Con misrepresented its findings. The study didn't say that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes. The study made gave a potential result based on a regression analysis. The regression model analyzed the correlation between the availability of prostitution generally and rape rates. The model had a significant likelihood of error. First, it relied on the wrong definitions of homicide and rape for the countries analyzed (this fact was admitted in the study). Second, it did not consider unreported rapes, which tend to be more common among prostitutes (this fact completely skews the data). Finally, given all these factors, the error rate is probably around 50%. [11] That means the study's prediction is a potential result, not a guaranteed result. Thus, the prediction has little if any persuasive value.

Ultimately, the study concluded: “[T]he analysis seems to support the hypothesis that the rape rate could be lowered if prostitution was more readily available.” Under that analysis, the study noted “[i]t is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by 25%.” The keywords in that conclusion are "seems," "hypothesis," "estimated," and "could." The study's conclusion rests on conditional language. This fact highlights the study's high error rate. Furthermore, the study did not consider the extensive catalog of violence that prostitutes face which I discussed earlier.

Con's source was from 2004. We now have concrete evidence showing its prediction was wrong. Compare Con's single source with the multiple studies I cited. These studies showed that violence against women has not decreased in countries where prostitution has been legalized. [1] [4] [6] [7] In fact, in many brothels with so-called “safety policies,” violence has actually increased. The studies I cite give hard facts. Instead of making sketchy predictions based on sketchy regression models, they provide empirical evidence of what has actually happened in countries where prostitution was legalized.

Because Con's source is outdated and faulty, and multiple recent studies prove Con wrong, Con cannot win on this point.

3. Con's other arguments are sexist and unsupported by any evidence.

Con said prostitution helps men find a sexual partner. This statement is profoundly sexist. It suggests "men are entitled to sex" and "women are just sexual objects." Both these premises justify violence against women and thus cannot be used to justify legalization.

Con said legalization will decrease the spread of diseases. This argument was unsupported by any evidence or study. Thus, it should be dismissed outright.


Con has provided no evidence for the vast majority of his claims. Those claims should be dismissed outright. The single relevant source Con offered was outdated and faulty. Recent studies also proved this source wrong. An overwhelming amount of empircal evidence proves concrete harms result from legalizing prostitution. Legalization caused a dramatic increase in human trafficking, a point Con conceded. Evidence suggests legalization would not decrease violence against women. Studies have found that legalization can increase violence against prostitutes. And prostitution causes unavoidable psychological harms, another point Con dropped. On balance, all these harms far outweigh any speculative benfits from legalization. For these reasons, prostitution should be illegal.

[10] Diane Post, "The Legalization of Prostitution: A Violation of International Law," 2010.


Human Trafficking

To be honest, I don't want to read several books to continue a debate on this site, so I'll take your word for it that in some of the countries where prostitution is legal (including several third-world countries) human trafficking rates go up. Now you have to ask yourself why this happens. It's still illegal to forcibly take someone and use them for sex and labour, so how does prostitution enable this more often? I skimmed through your sources and couldn't find the countries in subject, but I can say it wouldn't make sense to say what could happen in a developed country (like America or Canada) due to what happens in an undeveloped country, run by an extremely corrupt government and rebels and huge gangs (like Mexico or Ethiopia).


Consent turns the crime legal in some cases. Having sex with someone against their will is rape, and a horrible crime. Having sex with someone who consents is just mutual sex. Although this isn't the best example, it shows that consent does alter "crime" in some cases. However - you say "there is no amount of consent that makes a crime acceptable." That's incorrect. If you were to replace acceptable with legal, I'd agree with you. Acceptable falls on the people involved, even indirectly, as long as they are involved. Is bondage acceptable? Well, it's legal, and recorded, and shared all over the Internet. Tying someone up and having sex with them (sometimes while they cry) is legal. But if a guy pays a woman to have sex (not even bondage) it's suddenly unacceptable and illegal? Of course consent makes a crime acceptable. It doesn't make it legal, but it makes it acceptable.

Using your murder example - You're right, it is illegal to kill someone or yourself, but something being illegal doesn't make it unacceptable. If Joe is suffering and he hates his life and has nobody and nothing to live for, and some guy offered to end it all for him, it would still be murder, still be illegal, but between those two people, it would be acceptable, as Joe accepted his fate and accepted his death.

My "choice" argument is basically that if a woman chooses to do something that doesn't hurt a single person (sex), why is it considered illegal? She is choosing to have sex with someone, and she is putting a price on it. There's a reason they are called sex trade workers, because much like a massage therapist, they offer their services for money.

There is always going to be bad stuff in the world. Not every prostitute is homeless, but that's irrelevant. What's the difference between some guy asking for change and some woman saying she'll work for you? Well the woman is using her skills to earn money. She could chose to get a job at the recycling depot getting $8/hr, but she chooses to have sex with men for $100/hr. Makes sense to me. The deportation thing is obviously horrible, but your whole argument is "these people have nothing so they resort to selling their services for money." ...So they resort to a job, yes. A job that some people frown upon.

(1) Consent is a defense to a crime. It does not make the crime any less illegal, but in many cases it makes the crime acceptable/reasonable. (2) By "realistic alternatives," are you referring to getting a minimum wage job at the age of 30? Earning five times that much makes a lot more sense to me.

Violence against women

I don't really know why I said that I can guarantee that - I can't. Taking into account the unreported rates... well we just can't do that, can we? If nobody says they were raped, we can't use that group as part of the statistic, as we would literally be making up a number. Keep in mind the United States is not the same as any other country, and to say "x happens in Istanbul" is a lot different than saying it would happen in America.


No. It's called biology. Women have the ability to attract almost any male to have sex with, while men have to work incredibly hard to find a female. My statement has absolutely nothing to do with "men being entitled to sex," and that is ridiculous. Last time I checked, a man and a woman having sex is normal. So why is it that a man and a woman having sex, then the guy gives her money for it after, turns into sexism? Well, it doesn't turn into sexism. This whole "sex object" thing is ridiculous. It's in our nature to have sex, it's in our nature to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Because women chose to offer sex to men for money does not mean men view women as sex objects, or are entitled to sex. A woman offering her services is the same as a man offering his. If a guy offers to fix a woman's roof, and she pays him, is he a "strength object"? No. Is the woman entitled to his services? No.

Sex is important for most people. If someone cannot have sex, and a woman is offering to have sex with him for money, it is not entitlement, it is not sexism, it is not inferiority/superiority, and it isn't degrading a woman to the level of an object. Last time I checked, people don't have sex with objects, they have sex with humans.


Prostitution pays more because it's a risky business. Like changing the light bulb on a radio tower. Legalizing changing light bulbs on radio towers has caused more deaths, as more people are doing it. We don't need radio towers, we can live in the dark ages. So why is legalizing sex for money a harder thing to do? I chose not to bring up many sources considering prostitution is legal in places outside the US, which, well you guessed it, are not the US. I consider these sources irrelevant, as they are not related to the US. However your topic does not say "Prostitution should be illegal in the US," we do have to take into consideration other countries, especially if it is worldwide. More prostitutes = more violence, that makes sense. Just like more Whites commit crimes than Asians, there's more of them, so that's how it works. However is the percentage more? I dropped the side effects of prostitution because when women chose (that's right, I said chose) to enter this field of work, they are paid for the risk, and they have the ability to leave, but they don't. They know the consequences, they know the risk and danger, but they stay to make great money.

Legalizing prostitution in other countries (most not nearly as developed as the US) may have caused a slight increase (however percentage wise I'm not too sure) in violence against prostitutes, which makes sense. This is the only valid point Pro has brought up. If there's more prostitutes, more are going to be abused. It's unfortunate, yes, but keeping it illegal would continue women to seek it out in extremely shady ways, underground prostitution rings, where no safety precautions are at hand at all, and nobody knows where they are.

When the government legalized alcohol, more people died from alcohol poisoning, however this is still legal. Sex trade workers would not die from sex, they would die from the people committing crimes (if prostitution was legalized) that would still be illegal.



Thanks for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nymphomaniac 3 years ago
Thanks for the very detailed RFD, Complicated_Mind. Not every day I get one of those.

Also thanks to Mister_Man for the debate. This was indeed a good debate.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Thanks for the explanation, Complicated_Mind. I also appreciate the kind words. It was extremely hard to find sources that backed up my points, as most prostitution does end up eventually being a negative thing, considering the amount of diseases and crime tied to it. If this was a mere "what's your opinion" type of argument, I would have enjoyed this a lot more, however it was incredibly hard to provide reasonable sources to back up claims of the positivities related to prostitution.

Nymphomaniac did bring up great points and facts related to the negativities of prostitution, which (I agree with you) ended up winning him the debate, considering this is a factual debate about the pros and cons of prostitution, and not an opinionated type of argument. There are little pros, and many cons, but it all comes down to moral values.

Anyway, thanks a lot for the explanation, I really do appreciate it.

And thanks again Nymphomaniac for the debate, it was a good one.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Well nevermind, nice timing. Thanks a lot for the feedback. I'm reading it now so don't think I ignored you.
Posted by Mister_Man 3 years ago
Complicated_Mind, if you want to provide your RFD, I'd like that! It's always good when someone actually has a well thought out reason to vote, other than "I agree with X, therefore I vote X," lol.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
For the second part of my RFD my last sentence was: Pro gets this point with relative ease.

Idk how bladedunner, whiteflame, Wylted, tulle and other exceptional voters write much longer RFDs so frequently. Just this took forever lol.

Anyway, once again, excellent job to both debaters, you both should get a reward. :).
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago

Pro vs. Con: Negative effects on prostitutes.

Pro claims that prostitutes have the shortest lifespan of all women, have unconscious psychological issues, and makes the assertion that no amount of improvement on a job such as prostitution would eliminate the consequences stemmed from sexual degradation.

Con refutes this claim by contending that Pro's claim on life span was not substantial and was based on illegal prostitution data rather than legal data. Con claims that when legalized and regulated, prostitution is much safer and the shortened lifespan and dangers of psychological torture did not apply in safer legalized environments.

Pro retaliates by point out out his sources were fair and reliable and compared before and after effects if legalizing prostitution.

Con responds to this by assuring the audience that prostitution should be legal if things such as bondage is. However, to me, this contention seems unconvincing. It does not reassure to me, as a reader, that they do not have negative psychological effects m shortened lifespans and so on. What if bondage and prostitution both have those effects? I assume that this is his response, though indirect, as it seems to be Con's only rebuttal that has a correlation to rebutting Pro's contention.

I feel Con does not properly refute Pro's opening argument, so I'll give this point to Pro.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago

Pro vs. Con: Violence.

Pro opens his second contention referring to violence the prostitutes will/would have to endure, and ties into his first contention regarding psychological torture. However, for voting convenience, I categorized it a bit differently. Pro claims that they get degraded when their hair is pulled, their faces are ejaculated on, verbally abused etc., and even with legalization this will still happen. Pro further claims that prostitutions are more prone to have PTSD, anxiety, and so forth. Pro also says that the effects stems from the act itself as well. Even women who choose this profession has these issues from the degradation they suffer as mentioned above.

Con rebuts this by pointing out that there is violence everywhere, and the women will always be at risk of being beaten, even with lots of safety precautions. However, legalization will help decrease violence by a LOT, but bit ALL of it, as that would be impossible, as even the police force has violent assaults with all the safety precautions. Con also says that legal prostitutes would enter at their own risk as a stuntman, or a sportsperson. It's her choice, which leads into the next contention I'll cover (consent).

Pro retaliates by saying that Con can't say for sure violence will decrease. He also points out that the only source regarding violence (rape rates before and after legalization) provided by Con was outdated, faulty, and based on estimates, making Con's entire point irrelevant.

Con then concedes and acknowledges that he cannot know that violence will be decreased a lot for sure, and claims that evidence from Istanbul, for example, is different than in the US, which is irrelevant as it was never specified in the resolution that this debate was specific to the US,

Conclusion: Con's failure to provide relevant sources and rash assumptions makes him lose this contention hands down to Pro's more (usually) logical arguments and more reliable sources.

Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago

Pro vs. Con: Consent.

Pro retaliates Con's argument above (second paragraph, violence argument) by claiming it is the government's job to decide which consensual decisions are right and wrong. Pro makes an analogy that if someone consented to murder, that would not make it acceptable. Pro also says that for their to be actually consent, there must be informed consent, and alternative options, neither of which in many prostitutes have. Pro also says they don't really "consent," as prostitutes generally have to do prostitution or else they'll have to face homelessness or deportation and it is a lose-lose situation.

Con refutes this by saying consent turns some crimes into legal actions. (Rape vs. consensual sex). Con also claims acceptable and legalities are two different things. Consensual prostitution harms no one, and there are far worse things that are legal.

To decide who earns the point on this front, I'll have to mix the consent, and psychological issues together a bit.

Con, however fails to give good reasons (if any), on how to confront the problems of women being FORCED to consent or else face homelessness and other such consequences. They will face psychological issues, because they have no other choice and would likely choose any other job if they could.

Another point to Pro.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago

Pro vs. Con: Human trafficking.

Pro introduces us to this premise by asserting that in countries where prostitution was legalized, human trafficking rates went up. They go hand-in-hand and legalization would, in a way, encourage such acts. It encourages a violation if human rights.

Con points out and retaliates by saying that if legalized, FORCED human trafficking would logically be decreased. He also says that it will likely save many innocent girls and women who were forced into it, and be exchanged for prostitutes.

Pro comes back with clarifying a misinterpretation on Con's part: human trafficking is defined as FORCED sexual exploitation, and it is no longer considered such if one consents. In other words Pro's source said that FORCED sexual exploitation, INCREASED in countries where prostitutions were legal.

Con retaliates human trafficking would still be illegal if prostitution were allowed legally, so how does prostitution enable this? He also says it depends which country is in question.

Though Con's statement on how legal prostitution would enable human trafficking (illegal regardless) seemed convincing to met at first, he failed to confront Pro's sources. If the sources say something (in this case, human trafficking increases with legalization). He didn't refute with sources of his own, but rather his logic, but he did not fight actual evidence with actual evidence, but rather an opinionated assertion.

So once again Pro earns the point.
Posted by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago

Pro vs. Con: Sex is natural/sexism/helps men who are otherwise unable to have sex:

Pro opens up this assertion that legalizing prostitution would encourage gender inequality: Pro says that such a job would demean women into being submissive to men, and compares prostitution to female genital mutilation. Pro claims though women may choose it, the actions are simply for the benefit of men.

Con refutes this by saying that if the men want sex, and the women is willing to service them in exchange for money, then it's not sexist. Later in the round Con mentions that sex is natural and paying for consensual services is how a society works. Con also claims that men who are otherwise unable to have sex can benefit from using legalized prostitution to their advantage. Sex is also healthy as it can increase your immune system, blood flow, oxygen intake etc.

Though Pro drops the sex is natural part he/she confronts the other two: by claiming that legalizing prostitution would benefit unsexed men is extremely sexist. He says that it suggests men are entitled to sex, and women are merely sexual objects.

Con refutes this by once again pointing out that sex is a natural thing, and is a normal process: people pay people in return for favors all the time. How is this different? It makes no one more entitled than the other as they both benefit and therefore no one is a mere object.

This argument requires no evidence as it is simply who has the more convincing argument for their opinion. It seems that Con swiftly and logically found faults in Pro's seemingly unconvincing arguments.

This point easily goes to Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Complicated_Mind 3 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I have an EXTRMELY long RFD in the comments. Either side can feel free to question me or clarify anything about my vote. It was fun voting. Mind you I spent about two and a half hours on this, so be nice if I have any typos, lol.