The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
66 Points
The Contender
Robert_Santurri
Con (against)
Winning
117 Points

Prostitution should be legal in each state.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
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: 10/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,524 times Debate No: 5643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (30)

 

libertarian

Pro

1. Prostitutes are not hurting society. They are simply working hard. Naturally, there is no ban on prostitution. It is simply another profession and the capitalist, free government should not hinder this form of work. It is a victimless crime and nobody is hurt. There is no purpose in banning prostitution.

2. One great reason to legalize prostitution: Right now, prostitutes are forced to hire pimps. Pimps are unfortunate. They beat prostitutes and can force them to do whatever they want them to do. But prostitutes are forced to go to pimps for protection. However, prostitutes would be able to go to police if their occupation was legal. This would put abusive, violent pimps out of business. And would get the police to protect their actual citizens. Right now, a prostitute cannot report to the police even if she is raped, because she risks getting arrested. Under legal prostitution, she could be protected by the police instead of abusive pimps.

3. Prostitutes currently make up a sizable amount of the population. If prostitutes were legal, they would provide tax revenue. This is much needed tax revenue, when many governments are low in money and forced to go in debt.

4. Las Vegas legalized prostitution. It works well. There are frequent STD tests. And regulation. Unlike in a state with illegal prostitution. There are illegal prostitutes who have all sorts of STDS, but in Las Vegas, there is regulation. And prostitutes with STDs are forced to go out of business or get cured. This is obviously a better model.

5. The constitution lists a few natural rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These should not be infringed.

6. The constitution restricts government power using the word "not" 24 times. It is obvious that our government is founded upon the princiole of liberty and lack of government infringement in our personal lives and personal tastes.

7. Prohibition has historically been ineffective. Alcohol prohibition did not work. And we should learn from our history. (http://www.cato.org...) The prohibition on drugs is not effective. (http://www.lasvegasmercury.com...) The prohibition on prostitution is not effective anyway. (http://www.echeat.com...) Why would we do something that harms us so much and does not even work?

8. Prohibtion causes underground black markets. Drug dealers and gangs deal their drugs. We saw notorious gangsters and Al Capone with alcohol prohibition. Now, we see gangs and pimps doing prostitution illegally. This is a problem, because allows gangs to fight for territory and other things and unnecessary lives are lost.

9. Prohibtion causes underground black markets. Drug dealers and gangs deal their drugs. We saw notorious gangsters and Al Capone with alcohol prohibition. Now, we see gangs and pimps doing prostitution illegally. Also, prostitution is illegal, so gangs use it as a source of funding. By making prostitution illegal, we are indirectly funding gangs. If prostitution was legalised, no gang would make money from it, because they would be discouraged from it.

10. Prohibition uses much police resources. When we use police to enforce prostitution laws, we use taxpayer dollars to enforce an ineffective, useless, and harmless law. Police could use the resources they use to criminalize prostitutes to protect its citizens from actual harmful things, deeds and people.

11. When the Netherlands ended drug prohibition, drug use was reduced. (http://www.drugwarfacts.org...) The same thing has happened with alcohol prohibtion here in the states. When we legalize prostitution, it is very likely that prostitution will be reduced or even halfed like in the Netherlands with prohibition on drugs.

12. We must fight hard for every single liberty we have. Cambodia, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany all prove this. It is rare when enormous rights are taken away instantly. For example, in Nazi Germany, Jews were forced to wear a gold star and they were cool with that. Then, Jews had to register as such. Hitler, eventually, suspeneded the constitution. And finally, there were concentration camps. When the Jews saw the trucks taking them away, they did not fight, because they were used to the destruction and ignoring of rights and the German citizens accepted it only because it was gradual. This will happen in America if we allow it. It is not unreasonable to believe that if we allow them to take away rights like prostitution rights, they will take away the next right, and the next right, and the next right, until we are finally stripped of all human rights.
Protect our human rights! History tells us to fight against every violation of rights!

Vote PRO!!!
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and hope to have a good one.
I will address my opponent's points in the order they were made, but due to character limit I will quote rarely. I apologize for any convenience.

1.) Prostitution is hurting society in several ways that I will go into below. There is a ban on Prostitution in illegal in at least eighteen countries. There is a purpose in banning Prostitution as once again I will get into below. Prostitution is not a victimless crime as there are child prostitutes, and the human trafficking among other things.

2.) Not all pimps do the things my opponent describes first off. Also, that's the purpose of a pimp because if he/she gets attacked or raped by a customer then that pimp deals with that John. The legalization of the ‘Bunny Ranch' in Nevada did not prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. Legalization does not remove the dangers associated with Prostitution.

3.) This would encourage the Gov't to become involved in more unlawful trades. There is no evidence that prostitutes would declare their true earnings from what is a confidential relationship between the worker and his or her client. Therefore, it is likely that the amount of revenue would not be very significant. Germany lawmakers thought the same thing my opponent did when they legalized prostitution and brothels in 2002. By 2004, Germany suffered a budget deficit, and the Federal Audit Office estimated that the government has lost over two billion euros a year in unpaid tax revenue from the sex industry. Proof that my opponent's claim in #3 is false.

4.) Once again, my opponent is wrong here. Regulation does not solve the problem. Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she/he will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 after being infected if not longer. This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose many of their clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. My opponent also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely if this is their only means of work and or a family to support. So by legalizing Prostitution, the spread of HIV/AIDS will grow, not decrease.

5.) My pursuit of happiness could be very different from yours. For example, my pursuit of happiness could be murdering people, so it doesn't make it right because I have the right to pursuit happiness. Also, this means the pursuit of, doesn't mean you have the right to get it.

6.) See Point 5

7.) Alcohol and Drugs do not have the same problems that Prostitution contains. Alcohol does not give you HIV and drugs don't unless you're sharing dirty needles among other things. My opponent thinks because the prohibition on Prostitution hasn't exactly worked that we should get rid of the laws regarding Prostitution illegal. By that standard, since the laws saying you can't murder or rape people have failed, that means we should get rid of those laws.

8.) Prostitution is by far not even one of the biggest things gangs fight about. Even back in the 1940's Prostitution was at least third to the mafia after Gambling and Loan sharking. I also point to my remarks in point #7 to go against what my opponent says here.

9.) My opponent point in #9 for the most part is the same in #8 except funding. If Prostitution was legalized then money could still go to gangs. The Mafia built Las Vegas and so many mafia families made money off the casinos that was LEGAL. The same could be said here once we legalize Prostitution. In fact, by legalizing Prostitution my opponent will have made money to be made for the mafia easier as they will no longer have to avoid the law in order to have Prostitution rings. They will just have to be pay taxes to be legal and even they could still avoid the laws.

10.) Reducing Prostitution is a worthy cause to use taxpayer's money with. How do you think the mafia was able to bring down Lucky Luciano? Arresting Prostitutes who then snitched on Lucky.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
That is only a small example of the use of Police Resources on Prostitution that have helped make society better.

11.) My opponent is once again comparing drugs and alcohol to Prostitution. I have already pointed out the differences. Prostitution will not be reduced or even halved if it becomes legal, if anything it will increase! Think about it for a moment dear reader, the government has now legalized the right for you to go buy a Prostitute. Before, you would get arrested, get a fine and go to jail, plus face embarrassment but no longer you won't. Now you don't have to worry about that because the police aren't coming after you for that. My opponent point here is a myth to believe that Prostitution would decrease with legalization because in reality it will not only open the doors to a easy business to get started in but a business that makes billions of dollars a year.

12.) Finally, my opponent has decided to use a final point he likes to use in many of his debates. He has compared Legalizing Prostitution to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. I find it appalling that my opponent has compared such a thing like Prostitution to these atrocities. Having heard the stories of my grandparents from Poland who had fled to avoid Nazi rule, I find my opponent actions here even worse. It is hard also to take away a right you did not have in the first place to address this point. In America, this country as a whole does not have a right to Prostitution as it is not legalized. I also hope it is a sick joke on my opponent's part to tell you that if we don't legalize Prostitution then things like the Holocaust and mass murders will happen but sadly I think he is serious.

Some things to point out:

1.) My opponent has failed to define his terms but I assume he means every single state in the United States of America.

2.) I have disproven most if not all of my opponent points.
I look forward to my opponent second round argument and I urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

1.The fact that at least 18 countries (out of 150 ) does not mean anything for your case. Several countries do uniformly stupid things all the time. I'll use the example of the Netherlands to prove that society can be benefited from legal prostitution instead of harmed. In the Netherlands, a very Libertarian nation, prostitution is legal. Here, prostitutes work in sex houses or brothels instead of displaying their lewdness on the streets (which proves legal prostitution leads to regulation instead of wild frenzy of paid sex), pimps are unnecessary and put out of work, and prostitutes pay their income taxes. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Canada is another example with legal prostitution. They look down on us, because they believe (and so many Americans) that prostitution is criminalized based on a non-existent Biblical precedent. Their prostitution is safe and contributes to society in a positive way instead of a negative way. Canada, most all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Asia, Latin America are all other examples with legal, safe prostitution that contributes to society and the tax treasury. (http://www.sexwork.com...)

2. CON says that "not all pimps do the things" that I've described. It is evident that pimps are abusive and violent. (http://www.libertarian.to...) I challenge my opponent to find a source that says that pimps are friendly... It is common knowledge that pimps are violent. It is in their job description. If a pimp was not violent, the prostitute would not pay him. Let's remember that there are no police involved in this. So a pimp cannot go to the police and tell that the prostitute has stolen her money. Instead, the pimp has to evil and abusive to scare the girl into giving him her money. It is a fact that in the Netherlands, Canada, almost all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Asia, and Latin America all have legal prostitution and it is safe from violent pimps. (http://www.sexwork.com...)

3. CON has given a false example. He says that Germany legalised prostitution and had a budget deficit later as a result. This is not a result of prostitution. Firstly, the government did not pay prostitute anything. So they could not have lossed any money (not even one penny). Secondly, prostitutes usually have their brothels pay the tax. Thirdly, in Germany many cities and states force their prostitutes to pay their taxes in advance. How could they be evaded in this instance? Fourthly, EVERYBODY EVADES TAXES!!! The IRS has a huge problem of forcing people to pay their right amount of taxes. The fact is that no government can be hurt (financially) by taxing, because they are not paying money, so they are no losing money. And German (and prostitutes of other nations) pay their taxes. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

4. A great example is in Kenya and Senegal. In these countries, prostitution is regulated and condom use has gone up tremendously. Now, STDs have reduced drastically. (http://www.liberator.net...) This website has a chart showing that countries where prostitution is legalized have lower rates of HIV/AIDS. Canada has half our rate, Denmark, Greece, and the Netherlands have a third. (http://www.liberator.net...) A third example is Nevada. Under legalised prostitution, NO CASE OF HIV HAS EVER BEEN FOUND. This fact is backed up by Nevada Department of Public Health and Harvard University. (http://www.aegis.com...) The fact is that regulation works.

5. My opponent says that his pursuit of happiness may be different from mine. I agree! That's the beauty of American liberty! Everybody is into something different and if you want to do something that does not harm anybody else you should be able to. Thomas Jefferson says in his Declaration of Independence that we hold these truths to be self-evident that the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and endowed by our Creator. He also says that if the government takes away these rights we are to change that government! (http://www.archives.gov...) If a person is into hockey, debating, or prostitution, it is that persons personal liberty to engage in these activities, because he is hurting noone else.

6. My partner did not even bother to refute the actual fact that our Libertarian founding fathers would have frowned up illegal prostitution. Because they supported liberty and they opposed big, despotic government.

7. In this point, CON admits to the fact and conceeds that "the prohibition on Prostitution hasn't exactly worked." Of course, my sources tell us all this as well. And he also says that Alcohol and Drug prohibtion did not have the same problems (like HIV). However, alcohol and drugs are abusable. But even though this is true, we ended the prohibition on alcohol because we saw the negative effects of it. We saw notorious gangsters like Al Capone (paralled to pimps and gangs today). We saw bad health issues because of lack of regulation (paralled to higher STD levels). We saw a lot of tax revenue lost (compared to revenue lost today). We saw an ineffective enforcement (which we see in prostitution today). We even saw government corruption (which we see in this today). We saw a costly (but still ineffective) enforcement. Please, let's learn from our history!

8. My opponent says that prostitution is not the first thing that gangs fight about, which I agree. But it is still something they fight about and it could be stopped. Also, violent pimps are a seious problem, which could be bearly eliminated if prostitution was legalised like Netherlands, Canada, and other examples illustrate.

9. My opponent here admits that prostitutes would pay taxes. Also, many people own casinos in Las Vegas. There is nothing stopping the mafia from owning a Subway. Legalizing prostitution does not help the mafia in any way. It hurts pimps though by displacing them. CON says legalisation will make it so that gangs "will no longer have to avoid the law." Yes! This is the essenes of legalization! This way, now, the law is involved and prostitutes are safe and taxation is had.

10. My opponent points to one instance where prostitutes were arrested and told on a mobster named Lucky. But this is unnecessary. The girls did not even have to be arrested in the first place. And police money could be used elsewhere. It's the only logical thing to do. CON's example is irrelevant! Resources could go elsewhere!

11. CON calls the sentiment that legalisation lowers use a "myth." However, "Contrary to the prohibitionist's philosophy, this data may give reason to implement and regulate prostitution to reduce crime because crime in countries where prostitution is legal is lower than the U.S.'s rates." (http://www.liberator.net...) This is a scientific researcher.

12. I am not comparing legalisation to the Holocaust. I'm comparing the rights taken away. Slowly but surely, rights were taken away and because it was gradual and commonplace it was allowed by citizens. We must use history to learn from our mistakes! I'll use another historical truth. In Cambodia's genocide, Pol Pot tried to make the ultimate utopia. But when people tried to stray from it, they were eventually fined, then jailed, then killed. Rights are taken away gradually, not all at once. We must ensure that we fight for every right we have, because we all know that we are losing them slowly. Pot was trying to do a good thing and protect his people, and look what happened.

My opponent failed to bring up one beneficial point of criminalization of prostitution.
Vote economics! Vote more tax revenue! Vote STDs and health! Vote good police resource allocation! Vote history! Vote PRO!
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like again to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I shall jump right into his points and once again refute them.

1.) I only stated that 18 countries at least have Prostitution banned. My opponent loves to bring up the Netherlands as an example. My opponent seems to ignore his own Wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Approximately 20% works in window prostitution, 15% in escort services, and 5% on the streets"
AT LEAST ONE FOURTH of Prostitutes are still on the street. That point has been debunked.

I point to this link to further end the myth that Prostitution is a great success in Netherlands. My opponent also seems to ignore the rampant Human trafficking that is shown throughout the Wikipedia link.
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca...

I also point to this link to show that a ban on Prostitution can work as Sweden is a great example.
http://www.lifesitenews.com...

2.) Are pimps in general friendly people? Many times yes, a pimp could be your father, your brother, your best friend, your cousin, that nice man you know down the street. They could have violent tendencies at times (not all of them) but as overall people they can be friendly. I once again point to my links above on the Netherlands to disprove my opponent point.

3.) My opponent is ignoring a point and feeding you lies dear reader. Germany lost two billion Euros AT LEAST a year in unpaid tax revenue from the sex industry. This is not some opinion, this is fact. They lost money they were supposed to gain by taxing because taxing it failed. Even your link points out those taxes aren't always paid despite the increased enforcement so there are loopholes. So if "everybody evades taxes" (which I would love a link for evidence on by the way) then why legalize something that is highly difficult to tax in the first place? I'd also like to point out this link, and ask if it worth all this and more to supposedly get money off these Prostitutes?

http://www.uri.edu...
http://www.dw-world.de...

4.) I refer to the second link in my 1st point to refute this. My opponent has given me plenty of ammunition with this link: http://www.aegis.com...

I ask you the reader to read everything below Study Asserts Abuse and read how bad these brothels are. Also, read the point about "Women are controlled", my opponent has said no case of HIV has been found AS OF 2002. My opponent ignores the fact his data is outdated. I also point to this point made in the argument along with the fact my opponent is ignoring my points about the HIV disease in general which he has failed to refute. In fact, he has ignored my points about the HIV disease. I point to this made in one of his own articles under "Women are controlled" towards the middle. I would post it myself but character limits apply here.

5.) I have proven above that the Prostitution harms many people. My opponent brings up a quote by Thomas Jefferson that did not apply during a time of Slavery (which he owned Slaves, so much for liberty and rights of life), a time where STDs were not as well known, and a time where Prostitution was not the rampant problem it is today. Thomas Jefferson was one of our country biggest hypocrites and should be treated as such with this quote.

6.) Our same founding fathers who supported Slavery, a woman right NOT to vote, wiped out the Indians, and many other atrocities. Those guys my opponent seems so very proud of, and only opposed a King because they were being taxed heavily under the King. They didn't seem to mind before that.

7.) The laws on not murdering people have not worked as people continue to be murdered; I guess that means we should get rid of those laws too? I leave my opponent to answer this. I never denied alcohol and drugs can be abused, to say otherwise would be ignorant. I once again point to the question posed in my first point in #7 here. Regulation will not get rid of the dangers associated with Prostitution, it will not get rid of pimps, it will not get rid of mobsters running Prostitution rings, etc. We will still see tax revenue lost, gangsters, government corruption, and even ineffective enforcement if we legalize Prostitution. Legalizing Prostitution will not solve all of society's problems as my opponent seems to think will happen and tells you.

8.) My opponent has conceded an original point he made, and agrees with me. My opponent has just said that violent pimps could be barely eliminated if Prostitution is legalized. So my opponent has seemed to agree with me by just saying that violent pimps will barely be eliminated if Prostitution is legalized. Perhaps my opponent has begun to see the truth in my words?

9.) Prostitutes would have to pay taxes, doesn't mean most if not all of them are going to. The ones that do would be legally making money and many of them giving money to pimps/gangsters. Legalizing Prostitution makes it easier for the mafia to run Prostitution rings, make money in order to finance other illegal activities, and grow because many mobsters will no longer be going to jail for running Prostitution rings.

10.) Lucky Luciano for his time was the most powerful and deadly mobster in the United States mafia. He wasn't just "some mobster named Lucky". The girls were arrested, were facing jail time and embarrassment and instead ratted out Lucky Luciano. So my point is relevant and many other mobsters have been taken down on charges of Prostitution. Remember, it may seem crazy but a gangster like Al Capone was taken down on tax evasion charges including for Prostitution but not for murder.

11.) My opponent ignores the population differences between countries like America compared to Canada, France, etc. Legalizing Prostitution will not decrease the amount of Prostitutes but once again increase it. Think about it dear reader, if you legalize a business that is so very easy to get into and is a billions of dollars a year business do you think the number of people in that industry will decrease? To think that Prostitution will suddenly decrease because it is legal is foolish thinking and will lead to many problems down the road.

12.) Bringing up the holocaust and comparing it to Legalization of Prostitution is comparing it. Once again, you compare Legalizing of Prostitution to yet another atrocity. Our rights aren't going to be taken away if we don't Legalize Prostitution. If that is the case then will society crumble because I don't have the right to shoot you? Obviously not.

Dear reader, my whole refutation of my opponent argument has been a case of why criminalization of Prostitution is beneficial. In fact, I don't even have to prove that criminalization of Prostitution is beneficial but why decriminalization isn't beneficial. My opponent seems to be ignoring this fact.

So in the name of Common Sense, good health for all, and the fact I have once again refuted most if not all of my opponent points I highly urge you to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

1. A) Yes. It is true that window, escort, and street prostitution take place. But the fact is that these take place in a greater number in a nation that bans prostitution. Also, my opponent fails to detail why these are bad. When most of the prostitution takes place in a brothel in the first place. And also the only way we have these statistics is because we are able to legally gather statistics and regulate instead of having a wild, unergulated, underground market.
B) Human trafficking is a huge problem in America too. But the fact is that human trafficking is illegal in the Netherlands and in the United States. So there is no parallel. And the United States has a huge human traficking problem as well. (http://www.humantrafficking.org...)
C) My opponent remarks that Sweden's prostitution policy works and is great. SWEDEN LEGALISES PROSTITUTION! They have a system that makes prostitution legal, but punishes johns and pimps. CON believes that Sweden's prostitution policy of legalisation worsks. HE CONCEEDS AND LOSES THIS WHOLE DEBATE!!! This following sentence is taken directly from his source and article: "The goal is to criminalize the demand side of the equation, the johns, rather than putting emotionally and physically imperiled women behind bars." My opponent believes that legalisation of prostitution works!

2. I challenged CON to find a source that said that pimps were friendly. He could not do it. Instead, he gave a cute spiel about how pimps could be your father or friend. The fact is that a pimp by nature MUST be violent. If a pimp was not violent, the prostitute would not pay him her hard earned money. Legalisation puts pimps out of business, common sense tells us, by allowing girls to go to the police for protection instead of pimps. Also, scientific research shows us that the Netherlands and Canada have put pimps out of business.

3. My opponent, spoken like a true Liberal asks, "why legalize something that is highly difficult to tax in the first place?My opponent has, also, sadly lied to you. His "uri.edu" link does not even talk about taxation. The words "tax", "budget", and "deficit" are not mentioned even once in the entire document! His "dw-world" source is the same. I challenge voters to find the opponent's sentiment in his two sources. You will find that each of us have been lied to: the readers and the debaters. Not only, is he evidently wrong on the point of taxation. But he has been dishonest and if I was not an interested and dedicated debater, I would have been punished by falling for this. Please VOTE HIM DOWN! He has not only evidently lost the points, but he has resorted to tricking and being dishonest to us all. This is a voter! Don't accept this from him!

4. A) Yes. Women are controlled in legal and illegal prostitution. This is the very essence of prostitution! However, legal prostitution is no better. Prostitutes are still controlled. The difference is that women are less subject to pimps in legal situations than in illegal prostitution.
B) Prostitution has been legal in Nevada since 1902! According to a studying done in 2002, there have been no HIV cases in the state as a result of prostitution. They haven't done a similar study since 6 years ago. But I have found no HIV cases in the past 6 years in Nevada as a result of prostitution. the fact that we have a half a decade gap is not substantial. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

5. Despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson lived over 200 years ago, the Declaration of Independence is still relevant to modern society. He said the "natural right" of "liberty" "endowed by the Creator" was "self-evident." The fact that they owned slaves is irrelevant. The founding fathers still opposed slavery. This is why they wrote Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution to ban the importation of slavery by 1808, which at the time they would think would end slavery. Also, Jefferson apparently supported liberty.

6. CON has ignored the fact that the founding fathers supported a small government that respected liberty. Instead, he simply mentions that they had slaves, which, I must admit, is true. But as Point 5 clearly illustrates, the founding fathers opposed slavery by banning it by the year 1808 and they evidently supported liberty by writing so and opposed big government by restricting it with the word "not" 24 times.

7. A) Prostitution will reduce if not eliminate pimps as in Canada and Netherlands...and SWEDEN!
B) Regulation will reduce if not eliminate STDs like in Nevada, Canada, the Netherlands, and SWEDEN.
C) Legalisation will reduce gang violence like history shows us with Al Capone in alcohol prohibition.
D) We cannot lose tax revenue, because we are not spending money. We can only gain money. And your dishonest sources do not prove anything with Germany!
E) We probably still will see corruption, but it will heavily reduced like in alcohol prohibition.
F) We will DEFINITELY see less ineffective enforcement by legalising prostitution, because there won't be any enforcement! Instead, police resources will go to important, violent crimes hurting other people.
G) I do not think we should legalise murder. Murder effects unsuspecting victims.
-- I didn't use any sources, because these points are already established parts of the debate and because my opponent did not bother to use sources either. Difference is, I DID use sources at one point for these.

8. I did not say pimps could be "barely" eliminated. I did say "bearly", which was a mistake. I meant to say "clearly" eliminated. I did not use "barely" or "clearly." But Canada, the Netherlands and SWEDEN (as CON proves) have eliminated pimps with legalisation.

9. Prostitutes will by law have to pay taxes under legalisation. And common sense shows us that we cannot lose money, but only gain it. Your lying sources for Germany don't prove otherwise either.

10. The fact is that this one time in which a mobster was arrested as a result of criminalization is so small compared to the numerous reasons to oppose criminalization.

11. "Think about it dear reader", history and science is on my side. Drugs and alcohol when legalised whether in the States or in the Netherlands and, then use was lowered. As my "liberator.net" SOURCE stated, despite what prohibitionists state, use is lowered by legalisation.

12. I gave you two examples in history when taking away rights, slowly but surely led to tyranny and genocide. We're already very close to tyranny. Now, violating the Constitution is not so big a deal. This is unfortuante. Look at Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act. If these were the first times the Constitution was violated, it would be incredible and inexcusable, but we have grown accustomed to having our liberties taking away, big or small. If we let more rights get taken away, eventually we will have even fewer. Eventually, we could possibly end up in tyranny and genocide. History proves this. With Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and Soviet Russia. Don't let this happen again. Learn from your history! Keep our rights!

+ Firstly, I urge my opponent to create no new sources or arguments in the final round, due to the fact that I could not respond.
--- Look, my opponent conceeds that Sweden legalisation of prostitution has worked! He loses this debate on that alone and more! Next, CON used dishonest sources, which is inexcusable and unfair and deserves a vote againt him. Now for the benefits of legalisation of prostitution: A) We could get rid of violent pimps. B) We could tax prostitution and gain tax dollars in a time of much debt and budget deficit. C) We could eliminate or reduce STDs as a result of prostitution like done in Nevada, Kenya, or Canada. D) Liberty is a natural, self-evident right and an American vote, despite the fact that...Jefferson had slaves. E) Displace many gang wars F) We must avoid tyranny an genocide like had with the Nazis.
Robert_Santurri

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for again such a great debate topic and I will jump right into his points.

1.) A.) My opponent concedes this point. My opponent who was the one who made a point that Prostitutes on the street were bad, I proved him otherwise. He is now trying to turn the point around on me. Look down for more information.

B.) My opponent decides to say because Point B is wrong, Point A is wrong too basically. Human trafficking as I've proven is more of a problem in countries that have legalized Prostitution. Look down for more information.

C.) My opponent has misconstrued the point I was trying to get across here. I have shown that a ban on prostitution is a good thing throughout my argument. However, this debate is not whether johns and such should get more jail time and heat down on them; rather whether Prostitution in general should be legalized. Do not take my opponent's desperate third round attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. My opponent also seems to love this article, which points out this:

"According to a study by the Scottish government in 2003 on the consequences of prostitution policies in several countries, those that had legalized and/or regulated prostitution had a dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry, saw an increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry, and found a dismaying increase in child prostitution, trafficking of women and girls and violence against women."

Since my opponent seems to love this article, he has such agreed that there is a dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry, an increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry, found a dismaying increase in child prostitution, and trafficking of women and girls along with violence against women. My opponent has just agreed with my entire argument! Points #1,2,4,7,8,9, and 11 are now mine by default as my opponent has conceded these points by agreeing with me.

My opponent has failed to point out that I have not supported Legalization anywhere in my argument; rather the reality of the situation is I supported the bans that took place in Sweden.

2.) A pimp by nature does not have to be violent. A pimp by nature must give off a aura of strength, respect, and command. Many prostitutes PICK their pimps. Pimps do not go out of business if Prostitution is legalized. Look at point #1 for more information.

3.) Those two links were not about taxation in the first place. I was wondering if more human trafficking which if you look towards the bottom of point #1 for more information, and embarrassment for the prostitute is worth having Prostitution legalized. I have not tried to lie to you dear reader, I have only asked if it is worth all the things that could go wrong with Legalization of Prostitution in exchange for supposedly a couple million dollars in tax revenue. My opponent has resorted to cheap tactics in trying to paint me as a liar while avoiding my points.

4.) A.) So my opponent concedes the fact women are controlled in legal Prostitution. Like by PIMPS for example? My opponent has hurt his own argument here. My opponent also says Legal Prostitution is no better because Prostitutes are still controlled. My opponent has therefore agreed with me and has conceded this point. Look above for more information.

B.) My opponent fails to point out that they have not even begun to test for HIV did not even begin until the 1980's or beyond. My opponent fails to point out that Prostitutes can still be given the HIV virus by males/females who have HIV in the first place.

5.) The foundation of such a document built upon by hypocrites. The fact he wanted Liberty, right to life yet owned slaves is quite relevant. They banned the importation of slaves in 1808 which is a cheap cop out. By then, slave owners could easily have enough slaves here in the United States and make more by birth.

6.) They did not ban Slavery. Thomas Jefferson for example owned slaves up until his death in 1826, far after 1808.

7) A.) False as I've proven. Legalizing Prostitution in general will not do this.

B.) False once again as I've proven above.

C.) Wrong as I've once again proven above.

D.) We lose tax revenue to people who simply don't pay. The government expects a amount from each person a year, if they don't get it then they lose that amount.

E.) False, as I've proven in point #1.

F.) False, ineffective enforcement will still be ineffective as the Legalization of a thing like Prostitution do not change detective skills, skills as an officer.

G.) My opponent has taken a cheap cop out here and has not addressed my true question.

8.) As opposition, I am not going to assume in a debate. It is your job as the debater to proofread what you say, otherwise I will take it as I read it.

9.) My sources are not liars. Common sense tells us if people don't pay, then we don't get money. Simple as that.

10.) http://www.usatoday.com...
I point to that article from May of 2008. Mobsters are still arrested for Prostitution.

11.) Facts are on my side dear reader, Drugs and Alcohol are different from Prostitution. Common sense tells us more people drink and does drugs today then when Legalization happened. Common sense also tells us that too many people will not let such an enticing offer go by as I've proven in my last three arguments.

12.) My opponent is going off-topic here, making you also think that not legalizing Prostitution means we are heading towards tyranny. My opponent is trying to give this huge speech on freedom that has no point here in order to try and sway you, do not allow him to easily trick you.

My final points:
My opponent has been blinded by a simple argument and lost sight of the debate. My opponent seems to think "Haha, I have found a huge flaw in your debate and you will lose despite the fact you have refuted most of my points."

I pointed out with Sweden that I supported the bans on the demand side with prison sentences. I never stated anywhere that I supported Legalization of Prostitution. I ask you to remember this dear reader: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT THE LEGALIZATION OF PROSTITUTION IN GENERAL. Nowhere in my opponent argument did he bring up about harsher prison sentences for human traffickers, the demand side, etc. This debate is about the Legalization of Prostitution in general. The harsher prison sentence for the demand side of Prostitution is an entirely DIFFERENT debate and what my opponent is proposing I lose on alone should not be taken into account due to my having proven him wrong here. Also note, since my opponent did not bring up harsher prison sentences for human traffickers, etc at any point then this debate should be judged upon my opponent points about why Legalization of Prostitution is good, and why Legalization of Prostitution in general is good along with my refutation of said points. My opponent is making the same mistake like everyone else but Sweden by proposing the Legalization of Prostitution without such harsher sentences on the demand side with harsher prison sentences of such. In nowhere has he proposed anything like Sweden has, so therefore take the arguments as they are. Do not let my opponent attempt at trickery try to fool you.

I have explained my so called "dishonest sources" above and shown my opponent is now trying to sling mud in desperation in order to make his points look better.

I ask you dear reader to take my final points into account because they are the truth of the situation. Do remember my opponent agreed with that article, and therefore conceded most of his points due to the bottom of the article which he ignored.
I have refuted points A-F my opponent makes here.

I've shown better grammar, sources, conduct, and arguments.

So therefore, I ask you to vote for the truth, common sense, justice and the facts. So therefore, I ask you to vote
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
When you vote to have the government to intrude on your neighbor in ways you feel you have no right to intrude personally, you are voting as a hypocrite and a coward. We know it's none of our business what people are doing in the privacy their own homes, as long as they aren't directly hurting others (drugs, homosexuality, prostitution, gambling). That's why we will never knock on their doors and ask them to stop. We don't have the nerve, and rightly so. We know it's none of our business. But when we can slither into voting booth and anonymously vote to restrict and control the lives of others, somehow we feel powerful.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
I am a Libertarian so enough said.
Posted by videoqualia 8 years ago
videoqualia
I've notice how the defender of the proposition do mention several times that prostitution is legal in Canada. Being from Canada, I can assure that prostitution is very illegal here - it is a criminal offence. I will discard his whole argumentation on the basis that he obviously gather his evidence from very unreliable sources. Even if I am strongly incline toward the legalization of prostitution, I would invite everybody to vote against the proposition in this debate as I will. I do think that being rational start with a serious care to the gathering of evidences.
Posted by SchinkBR 8 years ago
SchinkBR
I gave the source point to pro purely because con made you loom them up yourslef. Plus if he actually quoted them there wouldn't have been the source issue in R3
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Conduct: Con.
-Pro engaged in a number of personal attacks, and (oddly enough) on Liberals.

Grammar: Con
-Con displayed a more commanding knowledge of the english language. Pro was not as clear, sometimes diverged from the topic, and made some basic spelling/grammatical mistakes.

Convincing argument: Con
-Pro wasted a vitally important R3 on trying to claim that Con supported prostitution in Sweden. This space would have been better utilized by expanding the conclusion. Con easily refuted this claim. Pro did not have a clear flow, making his premise-conclusion difficult to link. Since the burden was on Pro, Con only had to successfully refut the unconnected premises - which he did with skill.

Sources: Tie
-They both used ample sources. Con's were a little bit better, but he left the reader to do his research for him. I would suggest to include the relevent data in the actual debate in the future.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Yeah, what Ragnar said.

By the way Ragnar, just wanted to say very interesting debate you and LM have going on in the forums on John's topic. Haha
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
And I am curious as to why Ragnat_Rahl has the nerve to call me un-Libertarian.
"

You favor taxes. You favor the regulation of the prostitution. You favor, it would appear, "Environmental protection," which with no further context typically means more economic regulation. You favor PETA, which is an organization explicitly founded by someone who believes human beings have no rights. You favor the United Nations, which declares explicitly that people have the "Right" to enslave others to fulfill basic other needs. Some of these can be out of simple errors about the organizations in question, others however are explicit disagreements with the key premise of libertarianism.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
And sorry everybody for so much posting but a mixup due to all my typing in my first response post.

"He calls you a un-libertarian because of things you are proposing are very un-libertarian. Least that's what I assume."

There we go.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Oh and there were several other things that cost you the round. Including my refutation of most if not all of your points with your weak responses.

Your conduct wasn't great because of your attempted trickery that failed.

Your not so great grammar and spelling compared to mine. It was very obvious in several areas that your spelling and grammar was quite a problem to your case in general.

I had the more convincing arguments because I refuted most of your arguments while you either conceded or agreed with most of my points.

And I already talked about the whole sources thing.
Posted by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
Libertarian, how are my sources "lies"?

I proved their validity. You used not only outdated information but bias information.

Also, you can use all the sources you like but it's not like I can't refute them or show how they're are wrong. I proved that throughout my whole case. Your own wikipedia link on the Netherlands talked extensively about human trafficking for example. Yet you ignored that and just said "Oh well the US has it as a problem too" but this is not a debate about the current US human trafficking.

I've made plenty of good points which you ignored. You flinged mud trying to destroy my case but it didn't stick because you miscontruded what I said with that article. However, you agreed with the same article that basically destroyed your whole case.

So your whole attempt at trickery in my opinion cost you the round.

And he calls you a Libertarian because of the things your proposing are very un-libertarian. Least that's what I assume.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shanmthomas 6 years ago
shanmthomas
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nobama 7 years ago
Nobama
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 Mdr2009 7 years ago
Mdr2009
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 Dymaxionpz 8 years ago
Dymaxionpz
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 Alex 8 years ago
Alex
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 Evakian 8 years ago
Evakian
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by baseketballer 8 years ago
baseketballer
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 ItalianStalian7 8 years ago
ItalianStalian7
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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 Mylynes 8 years ago
Mylynes
libertarianRobert_SanturriTied
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