The Instigator
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Prostitution should be legal in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+15
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 15 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,965 times Debate No: 25365
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (15)

 

Danielle

Pro

Many thanks in advance to my opponent for accepting this debate. I wish him the best of luck in what I hope will be a very informative and engaging discussion. Upon acceptance, I will begin the debate in Round 2.
imabench

Con

I honorably accept this debate challenge and look forward to what I hope will not be a severe a** whipping by Danielle :D
Debate Round No. 1
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con. I tried to keep this round short and to the point...

1. Through the principle of self-ownership, people have the right to determine what they do with their own bodies, including sexually.

2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. Neither of the consenting parties are forced into the trade agreement (money in exchange for sex).

3. Promiscuity is rampant. People are already having casual sex. Being paid for it wouldn't affect the morality of what is already happening. This would be true even if it encouraged people to be more promiscuous. Moreover, it is not the role of government to ensure that people behave morally. However it IS the role of government to enforce contractual agreements.

4. If somehow legalized prostitution led to the transmission of more STDs, that would be up to the individuals to manage. People must be responsible for their own health. Just as you would be responsible for your obesity if you chose to eat 60 cupcakes a day, you would be responsible for your herpes if you chose to have unprotected sex. No activity or job is risk-free.

5. On that note, regulating the prostitution industry actually protects sex workers. In Nevada, women who work in brothels are frequently tested for STDs. "We see very little STD among the working girls in these brothels," says Dr. Randall Todd [1]. These environments not only encourage but often require safe sex.

6. Further, legalizing prostitution would prevent underground prostitution that occurs today. Right now sex workers are being manipulated and controlled by pimps and organized criminals like the mafia. They are often stripped of their profit, and forced to pay the money they earned in exchange for their safety. By decriminalizing their profession, prostitutes would be free from this oppression. They could seek protection from law enforcement rather than criminals.

7. If prostitution were considered a legitimate profession, you could collect taxes from the work that many are already being paid to do tax-free. This would contribute to the economy significantly as it already has in Nevada. It not only helps the government through revenue, but the individuals who now have more job options [2].

8. An exorbitant amount of money is spent on law enforcement to catch prostitutes and their customers. Once caught, justice departments have to process these people through very expensive systems. Our courts are crowded, police are over-burdened, and in the end the hookers simply pay the fines and go back to work on the streets.

9. Again, neither the customer nor the sales-person is a victim. Society cannot be considered a victim. Victims are people who have PERSONAL grievances against them. Throughout society, there are innumerable perceptions of polygamy and sex, just as there have been throughout human history.

10. In fact, prostitution is probably the oldest profession. A chef cooks, and a hooker hooks. I see no difference. Both employees exchange their labor/services for the enjoyment of another. Sex is only taboo in certain cultures (like ours) because of traditional, often religious backed sentiments that are perfectly fine - but have no business in government. Otherwise it is simply an activity (that hurts no one) like any other activity.

11. Saying prostitutes might be "damaged" or any other appeal to emotion is both presumptuous and fallacious. Further, it is irrelevant (especially if they are over 18). Plenty of people take jobs they despise in order to make ends meet. An individual should be free to weigh their options. On that note, many sex workers enjoy their jobs. They like sex, and would prefer to make money that way as opposed to flipping burgers or sitting in a cubicle all day. That's their prerogative.

12. Most importantly to consider, pornography is legal. Pornography is nothing more than money in exchange for sex… in front of a camera. It is literally documented prostitution that is viewed and shared all over the world. Prohibition doesn't stifle demand. Pornography in itself generated 97 BILLION dollars in 2006 alone [3]. Over 70% of men in the U.S. view porn regularly [4]. As such, we see that there is a high demand for sex work.

[1] http://www.overdriveonline.com...
[2] http://voices.yahoo.com...
[3] http://theweek.com...
[4] http://articles.nydailynews.com...
imabench

Con

I shall start off this debate by once again thanking Danielle for the challenge......

Thank you Danielle <3

My second action will be to proceed on conceding to half the arguments Danielle has presented....

Look every action has its ups and downs, and legalizing prostitution has A LOT of ups and downs (get it? cause its about sex and they go up and down and up and down and up, you get what I mean). My point is many of the more minor arguments Danielle has brought up are good points that I agree with, so I will not be a douche about it and argue against them for the sake of debating against her. The people on DDO wish to have a good show so I shall give them a good show by focusing on the main arguments instead of bickering about every little thing Danielle brings up when I agree with half of them.

Why would I do such a thing? Well the last guy who debated Danielle on ALL of her points had to hack the system to illegally increase his character space just enough to STILL get his a** whipped when the debate ended. I would much rather opt for getting my a** kicked by being beaten fairly on a few large arguments rather then lose badly for resorting to illegal tactics for a chance to win because I spread my arguments too thin over moot points.

Is this smart to do? Beats the hell out of me im just a bench.

Now on to the arguments.

1) People may deserve the right to do what they want with their bodies, but in the US people most certainly do not have the right to do whatever they want with their body. People cant go in public naked, people cant legally buy weed for recreational use, people cant marry people of the same sex (in most states), etc. Free will is a nice thing to have but it is heavily restricted in the US so the idea that legalizing prostitution should be legal because we have a right to do what we want with our bodies isnt necessarily true since free will in the US is restricted

2) Conceded

3) Conceded

4) People should be responsible for their own health but if they arent its society that pays the price for it. Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are spent on health care services and treatments for people who suffer from stuff they were born with, and if prostitution is legalized, if there is an increase in STD rates, then society will have to foot the bill for the medical expenses. Just because its a persons responsibility to look after their own health, the government still has an economical interest to not legalize prostitution because irresponsible prostitutes and clients could cost the government thousands of dollars in healthcare costs.

5) In areas where prostitution is legalized, the women are regularly tested for STD's, but disease spreading is still an issue for two reasons,

- 1 - More then STD's get spread between people during sex. Regular diseases like E coli, E bola, common flu, and any kind of bacteria, viruses, and parasites all can be exchanged between people during sex and can easily be hazardous to ones health. If the government somehow could regulate every last prostitute in America, they would have to test for a LOT more than just STD's to prevent people from contracting potentially deadly diseases, therefore ensuring quality and safety is a monumental task to achieve and fund in this industry since there is so much to protect against in prostitution.

- 2 - The girls are tested, but what about the clients? If you think prostitutes are filthy, you should see the guys having sex with them. If prostitution were legalized these filthy men would arguably do a majority of the disease spreading, not the prostitutes, and it would be the prostitutes coming down with the STD's even though tons of taxpayer dollars are spent to prevent exactly that. Regulating prostitution to combat STD rates will only stop a fraction of STD cases from occurring since women are being tested but the filthy men arent.

Not to say that women are completely clean though,

http://stdtesting.md...

6) Conceded

7) Conceded

8) This argument talks about how legalizing prostitution would ease the costs on the bureaucracy that is the criminal justice system, but when it comes to legalizing prostitution, one bureaucracy's gain is another's woe. If prostitution were legalized, then there would be a need to create an entire new agency solely for keeping track of every would be prostitute in America which could be MASSIVE in size and scope. There are millions of prostitutes in the US (legal and illegal, young and ancient) and regulating all of them and conducting weekly testing to see if they are clean while paying all the salaries of all the people who have to conduct this regulation and testing would be a huge burden on taxpayers. Depending on how heavily regulated the industry would be would determine its cost (prostitute licenses, license to advertise prostitution in an establishment or brothel, restricting where they are allowed to operate, the list could go on and on)

Let me put it this way. The costs of regulating the industry due to the size of the regulating agency and the sheer number of prostitutes out there could potentially have a massive burden on American tax dollars compared to keeping it criminalized.

9) Society could be seen as a victim of legalized prostitution. There are children who could be brainwashed or simply convinced into thinking they can simply make a living through sex rather than pursue a career that is actually honorable and useful. Those same children could then have no real career to fall back on should they suddenly be unable to continue being legal prostitutes. Hell most new cases of STD's happen at a young age when women are really sexually active (out of 19 million new cases every year)

http://www.everydayhealth.com...

The parents and relatives of these prostitutes could also be given flak or be victims of hatred since their daughters would be in an industry that is still seen as taboo in America. Back in early America families of prostitutes were shamed upon and publicly humiliated by their own neighbors, and that could still happen today since sex is a taboo industry. Hell if you think about it the prostitutes themselves could be hurt physically if the person they are selling sex too is the size of a boulder or more likely if their client is violent and abusive. Its also worth noting that female prostitutes face a much higher rate of violence against them then any other profession. A lot of people can be the victims of prostitution one way or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Prostitution isnt victimless, it affects many people in more ways then just diseases and it comes both mentally and physically.

10) Conceded but this one does relate back to number 4 about how it is in the governments best interest to not legalize Prostitution.

11) Conceded

12) Conceded

As for my own arguments Id like to discuss. I know its a little hypocritical to concede half the con's arguments and then introduce my own but I feel they still are relevant to the discussion about the legality of prostitution.

- 1 - It can be argued that testing a prostitute for STD's can be seen as a violation of patient doctor confidentiality for the prostitute.
- 2 - Not all prostitutes will go through the process of being certified or regulated and there will always be prostitutes out there not getting tested who still sell sex to strangers for money.
- 3 - Legalizing prostitution would increase the promiscuity in women at all ages, and I think you actually said that somewhere too. That could influence girls in high school to start soliciting sex as prostitutes without knowing any better or knowing the dangers involved and wreck their lives before it even started.
Debate Round No. 2
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for all of his compliments, and for posting his round in a timely manner. I apologize for being busy (not really... because I've been having a lot of fun!) this holiday weekend and posting my round so late. If it's any consolation to my opponent, I have just a little bit of time to respond to his rebuttal.

I will bullet point Con's main contentions numerically, and respond underneath.

1. We don't have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies (i.e., roam the streets naked, smoke pot, etc.).

While it's true that we don't have the right (or rather, legal authority) to smoke pot, it is up for debate whether or not we should have that right. Likewise whether or not women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy is up for debate. And similarly, whether or not we have the right to do whatever we want with our own body in general (including prostitution) is a principle that many believe we do have the natural right to do, even if we are legally prohibited from doing so.

In this debate, I contend that we do in fact have (and should have the legal recognition) the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, so long as it does not physically inhibit or impose upon the rights of another - usually their physical person. Therefore Con cannot simply point out the obvious fact that we don't have the legal right to do whatever we want with our own bodies. Instead, he must explain why we should maintain the status quo; why we shouldn't have the legal right to do whatever we please with our own bodies, so long as it does not infringe upon another non-consenting individual.

In other words, he must explain why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to make the agreement to have sex with one another in exchange for money or material goods. Of course, this will be extremely hard for him considering adults choose to have sex with one another every single day all over the world, and have since the dawn of man. In fact, sex in exchange for material goods or resources is frequently how society describes or utilizes their relationships.

2. Society will have to foot the bill (medical expenses) if STD rates rise, which is inevitable.

First, in the last round I pointed out that legal prostitutes are regularly tested for STDs, and as such are overwhelmingly clean in comparison to their illegal counterparts. As such, legalizing prostitution would actually help rather than hurt the goal of decreasing the spread of STDs. Second, brothels could easily require clients to also be STD-free, just as patrons who want to buy certain products must meet particular criteria (eg. you must be 21 to purchase alcohol). Third, the government could legislate against not covering the cost of STDs, the same way politicians have petitioned the government not to have to cover the cost of abortions in many states.

3. Legalizing prostitution would create bureaucratic measures in itself.

This contention is at best irrelevant and at worst self-defeating. First of all, by acknowledging how many prostitutes there are, Con has conceded to how much the criminalization of prostitution has failed both as a deterrent and how much of a problem it has been in terms of financing - including lost tax revenue, and the cost of maintaining the criminal justice system. Second of all, swapping bureaucratic jobs is not equivalent here. By keeping prostitution illegal, you are forcing all of these employees into having criminal records which basically secures prostitution as the only job they can ever have thereafter. You are also putting these people in jail (more about that later) for performing a consensual act, which is arguably immoral. Third, the government doesn't have to fund the regulation. Oversight can be provided by private business, similar to how insurance companies provide a service in response to a government mandate. This will create jobs - jobs the government doesn't have to fund.

4. Children might be brainwashed into becoming prostitutes, rather than something honorable or useful.

Considering the high demand for sex workers, prostitution it is certainly a "useful" job insofar as it provides supply for people's demands. Further, what authority does Con have to declare this profession as dishonorable? He dropped every contention of mine noting that some people really enjoy sex, and that every culture's view of sex and promiscuity/polygamy is different. Further, keep in mind that people can practice sex safely. Just because he might want to limit himself to one people or five people doesn't mean his approach to sexuality is any more "honorable" than someone who chooses to sleep with a lot of people. Con cannot self-righteously impose his subjective morals onto society.

5. Not all prostitutes will go through the process of being certified, or rather subjecting themselves to regulation.

This contention can be applied to every single profession in the world. Not everyone is honest. For example: tax evasion. Some employers don't pay their employees "on the books." Some doctors aren't properly certified. Some contractors don't acknowledge building codes. Some people lose or don't renew their licenses, and continue to practice anyway. Some stores falsely report theft or commit insurance fraud. In short, of course some sex workers might not abide by all of the rules. That's completely irrelevant, as it applies to every profession. All you can do is attempt to put the best safeguards possible in place, just like with every other job.

6. Legalizing prostitution will increase promiscuity.

I've already pointed out in the last round why this is irrelevant. People are already having casual sex, and being paid for it wouldn't affect the morality of the act itself. Additionally, people should choose for themselves whether or not having promiscuous sex is right for them. It is not the role of government to legislate personal morality. Moreover, criminalizing sex workers hurts them and their families. In addition to making them feel guilty about their profession (when there is nothing inherently wrong with sex), it makes them criminals. This takes sex workers away from their families, friends and children. Having parents in jail increases the likelihood that inmates' kids will go to jail. It is also dishonorable to punish consenting adults and by extension their children for choosing to have sex. It is also an incredibly expensive burden on those arrested to pay for attorneys fees, fines and other costs.

[ Conclusion ]

I've more than adequately negated all of my opponent's contentions.

While I understand (and appreciate) Con's concession of many of my points for the sake of brevity, he cannot undermine the significance of my arguments. The audience must keep in mind how much legalization can benefit both individuals and society as a whole, as well as how much criminalization has many harmful effects on both as well.

And without further adieu, just as I have to submit my round...
imabench

Con

1) We have (?) the right to do what we want with our bodies.

Pro has admitted that we dont have all the rights to do what we want with our body and has requested that I argue why we shouldnt have that right, which is something that I am not disputing. There are certainly times when we should have the right to do what we want with our bodies (get tattoos, piercings, spray tans, etc) and there are certainly times when we should not have the right to do what we want with our bodies (go in public naked, public urination, etc)

" Con cannot simply point out the obvious fact that we don't have the legal right to do whatever we want with our own bodies. Instead, he must explain why we should maintain the status quo"

I see what Pro has pointed out and I now realize I cannot use the argument "because its illegal" to argue why Prostitution shouldnt be legalized, so I will explain why we should consider not legalizing Prostitution. We should maintain the status quo of not legalizing prostitution because it can 1) lead to the spreading of many diseases between individuals (STD's and non-STD's alike), 2) it can also lead to physical harm of either the prostitute or the client, 3) it would not be a financial benefit to the government, 4) it could encourage much younger generations to start selling sex for money and put themselves in great danger, and 5) because it subjects the prostitute and even their family to ridicule and harm since a majority of Americans see prostitution as a taboo profession, and thats just off the top of my head

2) Medical bills would rise as a result of STD rising.

The Pro once again argues that legal prostitutes are regularly tested for STD's but my point in this argument would be that the prostitutes themselves would be in danger of catching STD's from their clients who are not tested. Requiring clients to submit to STD tests could be seen as a violation of their privacy and doctor-patient confidentiality because other requirements needed to buy alcohol or a car are associated with age and registration, things that are not private and thus dont violate the privacy of the consumers. Lastly if the government flat out refused to cover the cost of STD's then this hurts both the prostitutes and clients who may contract STD's and have to pay out of their own pockets for treatment, but it would also punish against other people who were born with STD's or contracted STD's from their partner who is not a prostitute. If the government legislates against covering STD's then way more people then prostitutes will suffer for it.

3) Legalizing prostitution = saving money (?)

" Con has conceded to how much the criminalization of prostitution has failed both as a deterrent and how much of a problem it has been in terms of financing - including lost tax revenue, and the cost of maintaining the criminal justice system"

Yes I know I conceded that, thats what the word "conceded" in the arguments in the second round I gave means.... I understand that tax revenue is lost by not making prostitution legal, I am simply disputing that the other costs and factors of legalizing, regulating, and accounting for legalized prostitution would eat away from how profitable legalizing prostitution could be for the US, if it would be profitable at all.

"By keeping prostitution illegal, you are forcing all of these employees into having criminal records which basically secures prostitution as the only job they can ever have thereafter"

Being in the criminal record does not chain someone to the career they had prior to that record. Police agencies and jails routinely try to get prostitutes to switch professions after they have been put on record.

http://www.azcentral.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.bing.com...
http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org...

Police forces regularly try to help prostitutes with and without criminal records alike to change profession, so the idea that the system chains prostitutes to their career is unfounded.

"Third, the government doesn't have to fund the regulation. Oversight can be provided by private business, similar to how insurance companies provide a service in response to a government mandate"

But if its the private sector regulating prostitution then these agencies would prioritize making money more than keeping people safe, hell regular insurance companies use to deny people coverage all the time through excuses like pre-existing conditions and were more focused on making money then protecting people, so this could only make legalization more problematic since the systems regulating it would have other interests in mind over keeping people safe

4) Young Prostitutes (still in high school)

"Further, what authority does Con have to declare this profession as dishonorable"

Look, prostitution is kind of like being a fry cook for a fast food restaurant.... Anybody can do it, and in prostitution the only thing you need is a Vagina, there is a high demand for it yes but the labor market is already overwhelmed with people who could qualify. Also I did not mean to imply that Prostitution is dishonorable I meant to imply that it is more taboo than other professions.

"Con cannot self-righteously impose his subjective morals onto society."

Im sorry if what I said came off that way, but I was trying to argue that legalizing Prostitution could make younger girls as young as 15 or 14 start selling their own bodies for sex and putting themselves in harms way because they do not know about the danger they are flirting with. The other point I was making is that it could sway young girls into becoming prostitutes instead of pursing other careers like doctors, nurses, teachers, and other careers that arent taboo in American culture.

5) Free lance prostitutes

Just because people dont follow the rules in every profession doesnt mean we can just ignore it. The fact is when Prostitution is legal there are people who will choose to not go through the lengthy process of getting certified and tested and will go straight to prostitution just to make money or satisfy some desire they have.

6) Increase Promiscuity

" This takes sex workers away from their families, friends and children"

The penalty for being convicted of prostitution in just about any state is a fine never more than $1000 in most states or prison for up to 1.5 years, and prison time only kicks in after several offenses. The criminalization of prostitution rarely robs people and families of those convicted of prostitution, but criminalizing prostitution does severely punish pimps who could face multiple years in prison and several thousands of dollars in fines.
http://prostitution.procon.org...

This point was meant to argue that prostitutes face much higher acts of violence against them than in any other profession and that society can be considered a victim if prostitution is legalized are reasons to be against the legalization of prostitution. Pro responded by focusing on the burdens of keeping prostitution criminalized rather than address these points I brought up. I understand that there are reasons to decriminalize it but it cannot be denied that there are just as many reasons to not criminalize it.
Debate Round No. 3
Danielle

Pro

1. The Right To Do What We Want With Our Own Bodies

We have the right (if not legal right) to do whatever we want with our own bodies, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of another. Con says we don't have that right in regard to prostitution, based on these factors:

A) Disease

- I've already argued against this, including the fact that STD rates tend to DROP when you legalize prostitution.

B) Physical Violence

- I've already argued against this and explained why legalized prostitution PROTECTS prostitutes from physical violence (from pimps, clients, etc.). To repeat, it makes law enforcement protective allies rather than people who will arrest you for doing your job.

C) It wouldn't financially benefit the govt.

- This is completely untrue which I will explain later. More importantly, you don't lose rights just because something isn't profitable. It wasn't profitable to free the slaves, but they still had a right to freedom.

D) It would encourage selling sex for money.

- Once again, I've already argued against this. See point 6 from the last round as just one example.

E) It subjects people to ridicule.

- This is completely irrelevant. I might wear a terrible outfit and be ridiculed. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to wear it.

2. Covering the Medical Cost of STDs

Con says that we cannot expect clients to be tested for STDs, as that might infringe upon their privacy. With any mutual transaction, the customer and consumer agree to specific terms. This is true of any contract or exchange. Some requirements are more detailed or personal than others. In this case, a brothel might require STD testing just as leasing a vehicle or renting a home requires a background and credit check. If the customer doesn't want to abide by the terms and conditions of the exchange, then they won't be a customer there.

Further, I've argued that people must be responsible for their own health and decisions. If I eat 20 cupcakes a day, I might suffer from obesity. That's my problem. Con never responded to the contention of personal responsibility. Additionally, prostitutes would require safe sex. Considering condoms are 98% effective [5], the likelihood of contracting an STD is minimal. Also, Con disregards the obvious fact that if prostitutes are being tested for STDs, then even if the clients aren't tested, the prostitutes will NOT be spreading STDs (because if they had one they couldn't practice) meaning any rise in rates could not be attributed to prostitution.

3. Bureaucracy

Con says he disputes the economic gains that legalizing prostitution would bring.

This is a pretty absurd contention. Let's acknowledge how big the sex industry is (it generates billions in revenue per year). Now for a small case study, consider the fact that in Nevada alone, legal brothels generate about $50 million in total revenue per year and have an economic impact of about $400 million on the state [6]. Now multiply 400 million by 50 states. That's 20 billion dollars in positive economic impact. That is money that goes into the circulating economy - not the underground economy, benefiting only crooks.

So now we have to see if the cost of regulation is so enormous that it somehow trumps the exorbitant amount of money the industry creates. The answer is quite clear that it most certainly would not. By "regulating" the only thing the government would have to do is audit brothels, which would require maybe hiring a few more IRS employees. Of course creating those jobs would be a good thing. The same applies to creating jobs to check for safety and code compliance. Assuming the government had to hire 1,000 employees to oversee this regulation of this industry (which is probably a generous over-estimation) at let's say $50 K a year, that would cost 50 million dollars at the federal level... but considering we estimated the tax revenue at 50 million at the state level, then clearly revenue exceeds bureaucratic oversight by hundreds of millions of dollars.

If you don't want to accept my figures, a comprehensive analysis on the cost of regulating prostitution can be found in a study done by economists [7]. The authors support regulation as being financially beneficial on a cost/benefit analysis. Moreover, they point out the obvious fact that the cost of criminalizing prostitution is incredibly and unnecessarily expensive. They note, "...Legal intervention in these sub-markets [prostitution] is likely to be specially costly and futile at the same time." My opponent mistakenly ignores the enormous cost of criminalizing this industry, which costs about 8 million dollars per state per year [8]. That's about $400 million annually. Regulation would be astronomically cheaper than criminalization.

Con says, "But if its the private sector regulating prostitution then these agencies would prioritize making money more than keeping people safe." There are a ton of arguments in favor of privately regulating multiple industries, not just prostitution [9]. I could spend a great amount of time detailing why this is a completely flawed assertion. However, I've already showed why this would be economically beneficial even without private regulation, so for the sake of brevity I won't waste my time. Likewise while it's true that prostitutes may get help trying to find jobs, that's not really important to my contention so I won't waste character space responding to it. The point still remains that the economic benefits for legalization are overwhelmingly in my favor.

4 & 6 - Brainwashing and Impact on Society

Con basically says that prostitution is taboo which is irrelevant. Bi-racial and gay relationships are still considered taboo in some places, but that doesn't mean they are immoral. The same concept applies to smoking pot. Rather than a visceral, emotional response based on what society has told is is "acceptable," we have to look at the facts. The facts are that society has a very strong demand for sex, and prostitution is a viable solution. Rather than spend $40 buying a random girl drinks at a bar hoping to take her home, a client could spend the money going to a prostitute and doing exactly what he would have done anyway: have casual sex, which happens in our society all the time. This is safer and probably more moral as the intentions of the exchange are clear and mutually agreed upon.

Con also brings up teenage prostitutes. This is an appeal to emotion (But what about the children?!) but doesn't have much clout. For one thing, if a teenager wants to pursue a career in sex work, they should have that option. The only reason this seems "icky" is because of what society has taught us about the non-existent, inherent sacredness of sex or our bodies. And you know what - if you believe that sex is sacred, awesome - don't be a prostitute. Parents should instill values in their kids/teens. But again, you cannot impose your own morality onto others via government force. It is not the role or responsibility of citizens or government to interfere with your sexual choices, but instead to protect your rights and uphold contractual agreements in the market.

5. Rule Breakers

Con basically ignored my entire argument 5 from the last round, so just extend it.

[ CONCLUSION ]

My entire R2 has been upheld.

[5] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
[6] http://www.thedailybeast.com...
[7] http://www.google.com...
[8] http://www.texaswatchdog.org...
[9] http://www.cato.org...
imabench

Con

1) Rights to do what you want with your body

A) Whether or not STD's drop depends on how often the Prostitutes are tested, and whether it be after every client or every two weeks testing doesnt protect prostitutes from other kinds of NON-STD diseases that could be damaging or even lethal.

B) I have already conceded that legalizing prostitution decreases violence from pimps, but it doesnt decrease violence from the actual clients who vastly outnumber pimps.

C) Im not saying that people should lose rights because something isnt profitable, I am only disputing how profitable you claim that legalizing prostitution would be when I can think of several factors that would make legalized prostitution just as much of a headache as keeping it criminalized. It would take a sh*tload of money to have regular STD tests for hundreds of thousands of prostitutes, while also taking into account who is legally prostituting themselves, while also paying the salaries of the new agencies that would be required to run this operation on the national and state level

D) The Pro has argued that people already have consensual sex and therefore promiscuity increases wouldnt be relevant. However people who currently are NOT sexually active due to their young age could be encouraged to become sexually active thanks to legalizing prostitution and end up ruining their life before it started, and THAT is what I have a problem with. I can live with high school girls whoring themselves out if they are smart and safe about what they are doing, but its when they arent being safe or not knowing what they are risking that concerns me and the rest of society as well.

E) The ridicule argument is not irrelevant because it subjects innocent family members to ridicule for what their daughter's profession is because whether we like it or not, sex is a taboo industry in America. People will always be treating others harshly for irrational reasons, and prostitutes are not any different from the rest of us.

2) Medical costs

"If I eat 20 cupcakes a day, I might suffer from obesity. That's my problem. Con never responded to the contention of personal responsibility."

But its not just your problem when it comes to the final bill, it becomes EVERYBODY'S problem because if enough people are irresponsible with their health then taxpayers will have to help foot the bill. If it is merely 1 person then its of no concern to society, but when hundreds and hundreds of people are gambling with their health and losing, and putting a larger strain on health industries, THEN it becomes societies problem....

"Also, Con disregards the obvious fact that if prostitutes are being tested for STDs, then even if the clients aren't tested, the prostitutes will NOT be spreading STDs (because if they had one they couldn't practice)"

How many clients do you think prostitutes have in one night? The national average is about 347 in a period of 6 months, or about 2 per night, and I am not making that up.

http://www.pnas.org...
(Prostitutes number of partners)

STD's are only prevented if prostitutes are checked fast enough to prevent the spreading. Unless a prostitute is checked after EVERY client, then there could be a period of 4, 5, 6, 7 guys who could contract an STD from one prostitute depending on how many clients she has in a period of 2 to 3 days.

My point is: Prostitutes can only be prevented form spreading STD's if they are regularly checked, and in the time between checkups prostitutes can have anywhere from 4 to 10 clients in 1 to 4 days, which allows for STD's and other non-STD's to spread.

3) Bureaucratic measures for legalizing STD's

The Pro uses Nevada's form of legalized prostitution as a means for estimating how profitable legalizing prostitution would be in the whole country (even though her source shows that since the recession, revenue has declined immensely). However the Pro is basing this only off of legalized BROTHELS in Nevada, which is safer and much smaller then the most commonly practiced form of prostitution, street prostitution. If we legalize ALL forms of prostitution then ALL the economic forces that these different types of prostitution create must be factored in. Street prostitution STD rates in Newark NJ is at 57%, 35% in NYC, and 50% in D.C.

http://www.virusmyth.com...
http://www.fff.org...

Since street prostitution is a much larger and costlier form of Prostitution then the idealized Nevada version of legalized brothels, the health costs alone from this branch of prostitution could severely eat away at the Pro's model since the US spends a total of $15.9 Billion fighting STD's and Nevada as of 2011 brought in much less then what she claimed, even her own source says that,

"According to George Flint, Director of the Nevada Brothel Owners' Association, revenue for the 25 businesses in his membership organization is down by as much as 45 percent."

Point is, Legalizing prostitution would be a lot like legalizing Gambling. It could bring in some cash during good times, but when the economy turns south, they too report massive losses in revenue while the costs of healthcare regarding the fighting of STD's only grows as STD rates climb (particularly in young girls)

http://www.healthypeople.gov...
http://www.nevadacoalition.org...

"There are a ton of arguments in favor of privately regulating multiple industries, not just prostitution"

There are tons of arguments against privately regulating multiple industries too.

http://klbcommunityconsulting.com...
(Just skip to the end and read the conclusion if you want to)

The economic impacts of legalizing all forms of Prostitution (Not Just Nevada's model of Legalizing Brothels) is very complex and does not point definitively towards an easy and safe form of profit. Brothels alone can face severe losses in income depending on the well being of the economy, and factoring the costs of healthcare that taxpayers already have to pay for, plus how many more prostitutes there would be, safe or unsafe, at the very least shows that legalizing prostitution isnt a cash cow waiting to happen.

4) + 6) Impact on society

"Con basically says that prostitution is taboo which is irrelevant. Bi-racial and gay relationships are still considered taboo in some places, but that doesn't mean they are immoral."

Its not a question about morality though, Gays and Lesbians are routinely subjected to acts of violence and hatred by irrational people simply because of who they are, and their families are subjected to harassment too. The same goes for prostitutes and they too will be subjected to harassment and violence from irrational people simply for being taboo.

"Con also brings up teenage prostitutes. This is an appeal to emotion"

Oh spare me. I dont have to "appeal to the emotions" of DDOers because since most of them are in high school or college, they know just as well as I do that legalizing prostitution will drive many young girls (who are at most risk for getting an STD) to start selling themselves for sex and place themselves at great risk for messing up their life before it even starts. They also know that many girls would take the easy road to making money rather than pursue other professions that arent as taboo as selling themselves for sex.

An ugly truth =/= appealing to emotion....

5) Rule breakers

I most certainly didnt ignore it. You argued that people dont play by the rules in any industry and therefore it doesnt matter, but the fact is young girls will prostitute themselves and not do it safely which will spread STD's at the taxpayers and the clients expense. People will abuse the legalization of prostitution by not doing it safely just like people abuse the legalization of alcohol and drink at any age even though its dangerous to their health and their future.

Thanks for the debate :D
Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IceColdMilk 5 years ago
IceColdMilk
Here is an aspect of this debate that was not discussed. Legalizing prostitution would actually benefit society, because the Psychologists say that sex is essential to mental health. People need a sexual outlet. Think of the uptight, frustrated people you know. Sex is one of Maslow's basic human needs. Also, look at the experiments conducted where animals were deprived of affection; they became like crack addicts; do we really want people to be like that? Though not as good as consensual or loving sex, resorting to obtaining the services of a prostitute is better than nothing at all. Basically, it would help to create a more relaxed, loving, productive society.
Posted by MattDescopa 5 years ago
MattDescopa
"Not exactly the type of response I was expecting but certainly interesting. In most states 15 yr olds are not even considered old enough to work in a grocery store, yet you wouldn't be against them working as prostitutes? That's quite extreme."

Extreme relative to what? The norms of society? How do you those norms are the correct norms, they are not axioms.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Not exactly the type of response I was expecting but certainly interesting. In most states 15 yr olds are not even considered old enough to work in a grocery store, yet you wouldn't be against them working as prostitutes? That's quite extreme.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Double_R, I remember that comment, but I thought he was referring to young girls being influenced to want to pursue that profession-- not that they would actually go out at 15 and start hooking. Regardless, I'm not sure I would argue that they couldn't. You don't have to be 18 to legally have sex. So long as statutory rape laws weren't being violated (and THAT is what Con never mentioned), then I would argue that teens can absolutely choose to work whatever profession they want. However, individual brothels could choose to impose a minimum age requirement if they wanted (or perhaps local governments would pass an 18+ law). But in the grand scheme of things, since it wasn't a focal point of the debate I will say sure 15 y/o's can go out and hook if they want to if that's the impression I gave off with my argument. I already responded to that regarding personal responsibility (and parental responsibility) as well as various views on monogamy and sex. Some people are more liberal than others or don't think it's a sacred ordeal, and that's fine. The government's role is not to be a nanny or dictate morality, but to uphold contracts. Con never denied that. He dropped that contention along with the vast majority of others.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Also, in a perfect world, Pro would have mentioned that more prostitutes means less disease.
http://www.slate.com...
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Actually Danielle, Con did make that argument:

" but I was trying to argue that legalizing Prostitution could make younger girls as young as 15 or 14 start selling their own bodies for sex and putting themselves in harms way because they do not know about the danger they are flirting with."

I certainly agree with you in that I was shocked to find that the voting was that close. My 2 cents; I think you need to dumb it down a little bit. When I read that I knew it was invalid as it had nothing to do with your case, but when I saw that you did not directly respond I also knew that at least someone (like Yep) would really think that is what you were arguing.
Posted by EricPrice 5 years ago
EricPrice
I was convinced, and entrenched in my position before reading this compelling debate. I would have only been swayed by an entirely new an novel argument by Con - one that I cannot imagine being produced.

Despite this, I rank this effort as one of his finest that I am aware of, and a good lesson to anyone who would like to learn this art. Con's use of disarming humor and contriteness was a potent weapon; he presented himself as the valiant underdog, and this tactic caused me to become hypercritical of Pro's argumentation.

Nevertheless, Pro presented a devastating rhetorical case, that instantly rendered the debate unwinable for Con.

I want to underscore how impressed I was at the admirable resistance that Con was able to muster.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
And wiploc, I don't think Con ever said anything about child prostitution which is why I didn't bring it up. Instead he said that teens might be compelled to become prostitutes, but I thought that meant once they turned 18. Regardless I don't think it was a remotely important contention. The idea that teens might be "damaged" or "brainwashed" and turn to prostitution I did address in the debate (round 1, point 11 - and elsewhere).
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
Uh, I'm relaxed. I'm responding to the comments.
Posted by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
And not that I care lol but regarding the comment on my 30 losses, I only legitimately lost 1 debate (maybe). The rest had blatant vote-bombs against me, or I lost because I was busy and forfeited. Many times I re-challenge the person after I had to forfeit, they refuse to accept the debate. I guess they hold on to that one undeserved win over me lol.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JoeOnly 5 years ago
JoeOnly
DanielleimabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, hands down
Vote Placed by Atheism 5 years ago
Atheism
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Entirely one-sided debate. There mere fact that Con dropped most of Pro's arguments is proof enough, but Pro also rebutted all of Con's points very effectively.
Vote Placed by bencbartlett 5 years ago
bencbartlett
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Though Danielle's arguments were superior to imabench's, Con was immensely more entertaining to read.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 5 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB One_Winged_Rook. He clearly didn't fcuking read this debate. "To Pro, you should have conceded some of your failures as well, to more effectively argue points that you continue to support." seriously, wtf??
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 5 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I must say, imabench did a fantastic job. By conceding things that actually prove Pro's point (pornography), he's effectively argued all the points that Pro made that weren't effective. Great job CON. To Pro, you should have conceded some of your failures as well, to more effectively argue points that you continue to support.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In reading Con's arguments it sounds like the debate is about whether prostitution should occur. Since it already does occur, I found most of his arguments irrelevant. STD's for example as Pro showed is already an existing problem that regulation would improve, not make worse. Also, Cons teenage remarks were also irrelevant, Pro never argued for teenage prostitution and common sense tells us that was not the idea. Pros case was made very well, and all important arguments were upheld.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave good reasons in support of her claims. At first Con seemed confused. Later, he gave reasons for his claims, but they had already been refuted.
Vote Placed by alex1094 5 years ago
alex1094
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by KuriouserNKuriouser 5 years ago
KuriouserNKuriouser
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a very good debate on both sides. Since there were so many arguments there are different ways to analyze this debate so I'll focus on what was most convincing to me. Con attempted to demonstrate why we should not allow money to be exchanged for sex. This could have been demonstrated by either showing it to be wrong in principle or harmful to society. Con essentially conceded the former and attempted the latter. (Continued in comments).
Vote Placed by Yep 5 years ago
Yep
DanielleimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Akemi, Danielle is a girl. I vote Con b/c of health arguments and because I buy the taxpayers argumentation as well. Pro basically tried proving a 14-15 y/o soliciting herself for money was both moral and ok because it's her body. Con pointed out, basically the girl doesn't know what she's getting herself into, as she is still a minor and still hasn't been exposed to the world. As such, i voted con. Thanks to both sides!