The Instigator
black_squirrel
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
gordonjames
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points

Prostitution should be legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,292 times Debate No: 43259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

black_squirrel

Pro

prostitution is an agreement between consenting adults

Prostitution is sex in exchange for money. One party is willing to pay money to have sex. The other party is willing to receive money for sex. If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange. Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.

legalization makes prostitution safer

If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested. Sex workers should be registered. This way, it will be easier to for law enforcement and potential clients when sex workers are minors, when they are forced or when they are illegal immigrants.

(Another debate of mine on this topic never really took place, so I copied and pasted the opening arguments.)

I am surprised that you are against legalization of prostitution, because on your profile you claim to be libertarian. My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.

I am looking forward to an interesting debate.


gordonjames

Con

First let me outline my position.

Prostitution should NOT be legal

Legislation Helps Protect Society
Health Issues of Promiscuity
Links to Organized Crime and Use of Illegal Drugs
Links to Sex Slavery

Legislation Helps Protect the Vulnerable
Men Using Their Wive or Daughters as Prostitutes
Pimps Using Drugs and Physical Violence to Control Girls
Child Trafficking Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution
Forced Prostitution Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution

The High Economic Cost of Sex Trade
Medical Expenses for Participants
Medical Expenses for “Second Hand” Victims


I want to cover all the points above (unless there are some you wish to concede in the interest of saving space and time in the debate). First I want to look at the example of Germany’s recent change to legalize prostitution.


The German Experiment.
Historically prostitution was never outlawed in Germany. The took the position of Saint Augustine that prostitution should be tolerated. [1][2] by Governments. In the 1500s there was a change in attitude because of the Protestant reformation and the rise of syphilis. In the 1800s sex trade workers had to register with local police and health authorities. In the early 1900s the focus was on regulation (not abolition) and then government run brothels were common under Nazi rule. Later, in East Germany prostitution was illegal, but in West Germany it was regulated. In unified Germany prostitution was never fully illegal, but the rules varied by municipality.
In 2002, Germany changed the law in an effort to improve the legal situation of prostitutes. [3]

Let’s look at the results of the 2002 change in law.
It is estimated that 400,000 work as prostitutes in Germany (Pop 89 million).[4]
“It is a magnet for migrant sex workers, who are lured from their wretched villages in Bulgaria and Romania and turned into virtual sex slaves in Germany’s 3,000 brothels. Police are nearly powerless to help them.” - [5]
Germany is finding that the current laws are not working, and have added more laws to refine what is legal and what is not. [6] [7] The German government (2007 report) concluding that few prostitutes had taken advantage of regular work contracts and that work conditions had improved only slightly, if at all The law has failed. Prostitutes themselves don't want to change their working conditions and contracts to the new (2002) legal status. [8]

Prostitution should NOT be legal.
It increases rape (non consensual sex). It increases human trafficking(sex slavery). It increases statutory rape (consensual sex with underage partners) The usual age of entry to the “profession” is between 14 and 16. It is linked with organized crime and drug trafficking even in places where prostitution is legalized and regulated. None of these are activities that governments should encourage.

Lets look at some further reasons why governments should work to minimize prostitution.

Legislation Helps Protect Society
There are many health issues relating to promiscuity. Prostitution maximizes these issues. First lets look at Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Most STDs have an incubation time before they can be diagnosed. This means that a prostitute (lets say 2 partners daily) who will test positive for HIV after 3 weeks, may infect 42 customers before it is possible to detect that she is infected. There is no way to 100% prevent the spread of STDs. Here are some other medical risks of promiscuity: Prostate cancer, Cervical cancer, Oral cancer, Heart disease, Domestic violence, Unwanted pregnancy, Birth defects[9]

There are consistent links to organized crime and use of illegal drugs. I assume we are agreed that organized crime and illegal drug use should be reduced if possible. The link between organized crime, human trafficking, illegal drug use and prostitution is made clear in a position paper from the London School of Economics. [10] Here are some points to ponder from that paper.
* “legalized sex industries actually result in increased trafficking to meet the demand for women to be used in the legal sex industries”
* “wherever prostitution is legalized, trafficking to sex industry marketplaces in that region increases”
* “prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing and fuels trafficking in persons”
* democratic political regime experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking.

It is inaccurate to think of prostitution as a single experience. In countries where it is legal there are freelance workers, brothel workers, workers with a “manager”. Many of the low end / low price workers are getting money for drugs. In Germany there is a huge problem with “narco prostitution” as the workers are in poor health, and many are victims of rape, murder and violence.
In round 2 I plan to cover the issues listed below.
Although I am against unnecessary government intervention, I believe the best way to reduce the harm done by prostitution is to criminalize the purchase of prostitution (Target the Johns as opposed to the sellers). Trades training could be offered to the sellers of sex services as a way to get them out of the sex business.

FOR ROUND 2
Legislation Helps Protect the Vulnerable
Men Using Their Wive or Daughters as Prostitutes
Pimps Using Drugs and Physical Violence to Control Girls
Child Trafficking Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution
Forced Prostitution Increases as a Result of Legalized Prostitution

The High Economic Cost of Sex Trade
Medical Expenses for Participants
Medical Expenses for “Second Hand” Victims








[1] http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com...
[2] Summa Theologica: Part II of book II, question 10, article 11
http://www.newadvent.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.dw.de...
[5] http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

[6] http://www.examiner.com...
[7] http://www.theguardian.com...

[8] http://www.taz.de...
Translated by Google
[9] http://voxxi.com...
[10] http://dx.doi.org...


Debate Round No. 1
black_squirrel

Pro

View on prostitutes


Opponents of legalization often depict prostitutes as helpless victims forced into prostitution at a young age. This view is exemplified by the column [5] that my opponent cites. I cite from that same article:



“Prostitution turns women into lumps of meat that are bought and sold for the sexual gratification of men.”



The author is disgusted by prostitution, and sees prostitutes as helpless, pathetic “lumps of meat”. Needless to say, that this is not how prostitutes would like to be seen. Most prostitutes chose their profession. The job usually earns them more money than any other job they can do. They often need money to pay for household expenses, or to pay for education etc. Making prostitution takes away their livelihood. To get an idea who these prostitutes are it is insightful to read the following survey of prostitutes in New Zealand.



http://www.otago.ac.nz...



772 sex workers were interviewed. Some highlights:


73% of the prostitutes entered the profession for financial reasons. 82% of them were at least 18 when they entered the profession (contradicting the claim of my opponent that most of them entered the profession between 14 and 16), 3% has been raped by a client. 77.8% reported always using a condom. Prostitution is legal in New Zealand after the Prostitution Reform Act. Prostitutes have legal rights in NZ and they are well aware of it.



The German experiment



My opponent used his citation [8] for his argument that legalization in Germany did not work. This citation starts with:



“Das Prostitutionsgesetz läuft weitgehend ins Leere, besagt die erste offizielle Studie über seine Wirkung. Schuld sei vor allem die Halbherzigkeit des Gesetzes.”



My translation (the link for the Google translation did not work for me):



“The prostitution law does not work, says the first official study about its effect. The primary reason is that the law is half-hearted.”



So although the article says (in 2007, 5 years after the introduction of the law) that the law had not yet worked, it says that the main reason is that the law does not go far enough! The goal of the law was to recognize prostitution. 85.5% of the prostitutes welcomed the law as a first step towards recognition. Although prostitutes would like to work legally, they often decide not to do so, because local law officials stop them from doing so using local zoning laws.



“Die Autorinnen empfehlen deshalb, die Entkriminalisierung der Prostitution weiter voranzutreiben. Sie raten vor allem, das Gewerbe mit einer Art Lizenz auszustatten. Diese sollten Betriebe und Huren erhalten, die gute Arbeitsbedingungen bieten und legal arbeiten.”



My translation:


The authors [of the study] recommend a continuation of the decriminalization of prostitution. In particular, they recommend the creation of some kind of license for the profession. These licenses will be given to brothels and hookers who work legally and have good working conditions.



Risks of prostitution



Prostitution, like some other professions such as law enforcement, fire fighter, is not without risks. But these risks easily can be exaggerated. My opponent goes on at length on the “risks of promiscuity”. The risk of STD’s can be reduced to a minimum by using condoms. Most prostitutes (77.8%) always use condoms, and the remaining prostitutes probably use them most of the time. Prostitutes (like fire fighters) should wear their protective gear to be safe at their jobs. The idea of legalization is to give licenses only to prostitutes who do their work safely.



Prostitution and sex trafficking



There is no convincing evidence that legalization of prostitution leads to an increase of sex trafficking. Illegal immigrants cannot practice prostitution legally, even after legalization of prostitution. The study [10] that my opponent cites is not very convincing. It is based on many assumptions and poor empirical data. They write:



As pointed out already, this means we cannot control for unobserved country heterogeneity. Also, while we have established that the legalized status of prostitution is associated with a higher incidence of trafficking inflows, a cross-sectional analysis cannot provide a conclusion as to whether legalizing prostitution would result in increased trafficking after legalization.



A lot of studies on the effect of legalization on sex trafficking has been done in countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark. These countries have legalized prostitution (although in these countries, prostitution was already decriminalized to an extend before complete legalization). These studies are in the early 2000s. However, it seems to me that these studies ignore major changes with regards to borders. Since the fall of the USSR, human trafficking has increased. Many countries in the European Union joined the Schengen agreement in the 2000s. This means, that many borders between European countries have been eliminated. It is not hard to imagine, that this is having a huge impact on trafficking. It is therefore not surprising to see, that there has been an influx of sex workers from Eastern European countries into the Netherlands and Germany. I think that the war in former Yugoslavia may also be a factor.



There is no convincing evidence that the legalization of prostitution leads to more rapes, human trafficking, or child prostitution.



Prostitution and crime



If prostitution is illegal, then prostitution is crime. To decouple prostitution form criminal elements, we must legalize it. Also, both in countries with legalized and not legalized prostitution, prostitutes are often forced to do their work in bad neighborhoods with high crime rates. Prostitutes should be allowed to do their profession everywhere they want (indoors).



Prostitution and drugs



Although there may be a correlation between drug use and prostitution, there is no convincing evidence that prostitution causes drug use. Sometimes, people enter prostitution because of drug or alcohol use. According to the NZ survey, this was 21.4%. This is not a problem of prostitution, but of drug use.



With regard to drug users going into prostitution there are two options:


1)Either, we believe they are unable to make good choices for themselves. In that case they should be locked up in a rehab institution until they are no longer a danger to themselves.


2)Or, we believe that they are able to make choices for themselves. In that case, we should not take away their livelihood.


gordonjames

Con

The US federal government does not have jurisdiction over prostitution.[1] In most states it is a misdemeanor in the category of public order crime.[1] [2]

I assume he is simply stating that the exchange of sex for money should not be prohibited, making US law like Canadian law.[3] Countries like Canada with this policy have added laws to reduce prostitution because of the problems it brings.

In Round 1 Pro made the following 4 points: (Grammar mistakes not corrected)

1. “If both parties adults, government should not take away their freedom to engage in the exchange.”

2. “Of course, child prostitution and forced prostitution should remain illegal.”

3. "legalization makes prostitution safer"

4. “My main argument for legalization is that government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.”

Government uses legislation to reduce harm. Legislation on guns, explosives, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and also prostitution fit here. To say “I should be allowed to purchase a nuclear warhead as a free exchange between two consenting adults” is ridiculous. Prostitution causes harm. Legislation is in place to reduce its frequency and the harm done.

Pros point 2 shows that he agrees that some aspects of prostitution need to be illegal.

Pro claims that legalization makes prostitution safer. He gives no evidence for this claim. The German experience is that legalization of prostitution INCREASED the death toll and violent crime, in part because of the increased numbers of prostitute.

Pro says “government should not interfere and should not unnecessarily restrict civil liberties.” Government should carefully consider which issues are so critical that they require legislation. There are such dangers involved in prostitution that it needs to be prohibited by law. Like impaired driving and public intoxication there is both public nuisance and potential for harm that seem to always accompany prostitution. Public nuisance and widespread harm are just two of the reasons that prostitution should NOT be legal.

PRO contends that “Most prostitutes chose their profession.” Let me point out major faults with Pros interpretation of a study.[4]

1. There was a move from managed (brothel and escort) to private sector following decriminalization. Danger to sex workers from both violence and disease increase when the go from a “managed environment” to “private sector.” – “Street-based workers were more likely . . . to report refusal of a client to pay, having had money stolen by a client, having been physically assaulted by a client, having been threatened by a client with physical violence, having been held against their will and having been raped in the last 12 months.”

2. The sample was not a random. The majority of participants were white, “between the ages of 22 to 45 years, had entered the industry after age 18, and had education levels of at least three to five years at the secondary school level with many having tertiary levels of education” – the New Zealand study is irrelevant to our situation where our demographic is much different.

3. Even with these survey participants, the picture is horrifying. For example

- “87% of all survey participants have a regular doctor but only half of these participants disclose their occupation to their doctor.” This means 13% have no doctor at all, and 51% have not told a doctor that they are in the sex trade. THIS IS AFTER LEGALIZATION!

- “participants discussed not telling their doctor of their occupation because they thought that there was a stigma attached to sex work and also there was a fear that the knowledge of their occupation would affect their treatment for other health issues.” – Legalization will not change this, but will increase the number of sex trade workers.

- “There was little difference in disclosure of occupation to health professionals in Christchurch participants pre- and post-decriminalisation.”

- “over one tenth of participants reported not using protection at some time in the last 12 months”

- “Clients frequently request sex without a condom.” . . . some “report doing the job without a condom but charging more.

- “Few participants reported adverse incidents that had happened in the last 12 months to the police.” – This dispels the myth (PROs claim) “If sex workers are not treated as criminals, they can seek the protection of law enforcement without fear of being arrested.”

This study make me question the wisdom of those who say legalized prostitution will make it less of an issue for worker safety, client health, social health and the ability of workers to seek legal protection.

Pro quoted the study about Germany’s failure: “Although prostitutes would like to work legally, they often decide not to do so, because local law officials stop them from doing so using local zoning laws.” This is a “red herring” argument. All legal businesses are required to obey local zoning laws. Street prostitutes don’t like being told by club owners that they can’t sell their products there. Brothel owners who want to put their businesses on Main Street. This is little different than someone setting up a hotdog stand (pun not intended) by city hall.

Pro failed to counter the health risks of promiscuity. He claims “77.8% always use condoms.” This claim is likely high (error in self reporting is common). It assumes too high an effectiveness of condoms. It ignores the incubation period where diseased people show no symptoms. Look at the following statement by the Center for disease control (CDC).[5]

- “condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.” [6]

Pro failed to counter the link between prostitution and human trafficking. His claim that “Illegal immigrants cannot practice prostitution legally” is absurd. The US has 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants,[7] many working. The political situation around Germany effected the problem of sex trafficking. Sex trafficking happens now. If prostitution is legalized it will increase.

Pro claims no “evidence that the legalization of prostitution leads to more rapes, human trafficking, or child prostitution.” This is false. Prostitution is a most dangerous business. More workers in the sex trade places more people at risk. An American study[8] found that prostitutes are 200 times more likely to die (when adjusted for age and race). In Germany the numbers of prostitutes grew ten times since legalization, much of that growth linked to human trafficking and coercion.

[1] In USA – http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] In Canada - http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://www.otago.ac.nz...

http://www.justice.govt.nz...

[5] http://www.cdc.gov...

[6] http://www.cdc.gov...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...


Debate Round No. 2
black_squirrel

Pro

Danger of Prostitution

Prostitution is not without risk.

The death rate of fisherman is 200.

The homicide rate for prostitutes was 229.

Murders of African American: 18-24: 102.

(rates are per 100,000, per year)

Sources:

http://jobs.aol.com...

http://www.feministcritics.org...

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...

In other words, being a prostitute is about as dangers as being a fisherman, and twice as dangerous as just being and African American male between the ages of 18 to 24. The homicide rate of prostitutes is likely to be exaggerated.The homicide rate of prostitutes was measured during the period 1967-1999 (32 years) during which overall homicide rates were higher. Also the sample sizeis small (117) and uses only samples from one town (Colorado Springs) that cannot represent all of the United States.

The risks of illegal prostitution in Colorado is still relatively high. Prostitution can be safer. The only state in the USA where prostitution is legal is Nevada. A study about prostitution in Nevada brothels says:

Of more than 40 prostitutes we interviewed, from large and small, sub- urban and rural brothels across Nevada, only one reported any personal experience with violence in the brothels.

There is strong indication from the interview, document analysis, and ethnographic data presented here that legal brothels generally offer a safer working environment than their illegal counterparts. Regulated brothels offer particular ways of dealing with pragmatic safety issues and minimizing actual violence, including violence passed from johns to prostitutes and back to johns through diseases, viruses, and infections. Nevada brothels offer specific mechanisms to protect workers via the ways transactions are organized, the ways technology is ordered, the visibility of customers, the bureaucratic relationships among customers, managers, and workers, and the cooperation with police based on the mere fact of their legality. All of these mechanisms work to eliminate systematic violence and to discourage an atmosphere of danger and risk that, as a mirror image of fact, is significant.”

http://esplerp.org...

The publication below shows, that few clients asks for sex without condoms in Nevada Brothels, and no clients had penetrative sex without condoms:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org...;

“Since those rules for Nevada brothels went into effect in 1988, the report said, there have been no cases of HIV infection and a negligible rate of STDs, the Los Angeles Times reports.”

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

The issue with “risks of promiscuity” seems misplaced. If condoms are always used, the probability of the ripping of a condom, one of the partners being infected by an STD, and one of the partners being infected by the others, are relatively small. It is not an unreasonable risk.

So: Prostitution CAN be relatively safe, especially if it is legal.

My opponent claims that the number of prostitutes grew tenfold in Germany after legalization. This number is probably fiction, at least I did not find this number in any of the references he gives (but perhaps he can point it out to me where he got this number from). Clearly, after legalization, prostitutes do not have to hide their profession. So this may cause an increase in the number of known prostitutes.

But in any case, there is nothing wrong with prostitution, as long is it is practiced safely between two consenting adults. So an increase in prostitution should not be necessarily be considered as a bad thing, especially if legalization also makes it possible to make prostitution safer.

New Zealand study

The New Zealand study shows that legalization in New Zealand was a success. Let me rebut the criticisms of my opponent:

CON wrote:1. There was a move from managed (brothel and escort) to private sector following decriminalization. Danger to sex workers from both violence and disease increase when the go from a “managed environment” to “private sector.” – “Street-based workers were more likely . . . to report refusal of a client to pay, having had money stolen by a client, having been physically assaulted by a client, having been threatened by a client with physical violence, having been held against their will and having been raped in the last 12 months.”

Rebuttal: I think CON confuses the 3 categories. There is “managed environment” (like brothels etc.), “private sector” (prostitutes working for themselves indoors) and “street prostitutes”. Street prostitutes is definitely more dangerous than “managed environment” and “private sector”, but there is not a big difference between “managed environment” and “private sector”.

“Private workers reported moving into private work because it provided a safer working environment, where they could earn more and attract better clients. “

In other words, the move to private sector was a GOOD thing! It made them safer!!!

CON wrote: 2. The sample was not a random. The majority of participants were white, “between the ages of 22 to 45 years, had entered the industry after age 18, and had education levels of at least three to five years at the secondary school level with many having tertiary levels of education” – the New Zealand study is irrelevant to our situation where our demographic is much different.

Demographics: Maori (non-white) 31.7%, NZ European (white) 50.7%, Pacific Island (non-white) 5.1%, Other: 12.5%.

So barely a majority is white. This is probably not much different in the USA. What do you mean not random? The age group, demographics, education simply reflects the demographics of the prostitutes of New Zealand.

Studies like the one in New Zealand haven’t been done in the USA as far as I know. Because of the illegality it is difficult to get reliable surveys on prostitutes in the USA. I have no reason to assume that the age demographic is very different from that of New Zealand.

CON wrote: Even with these survey participants, the picture is horrifying. For example- “87% of all survey participants have a regular doctor but only half of these participants disclose their occupation to their doctor.” This means 13% have no doctor at all, and 51% have not told a doctor that they are in the sex trade. THIS IS AFTER LEGALIZATION!

87% is not bad (probably higher that the percentage of people in the USA with health care). Half of the prostitutes disclose their work with their primary care physician. But many of them get check-ups from other institutions as well. They get regularly checked for STD’s even if they don’t tell their primary care physician.

Conclusion:

Prostitution can be legalized in a way that makes work safer for prostitutions as the Nevada and New Zealand examples show.

Opponents of legalized prostitution like to depict prostitutes as helpless victims. This is not the reality of prostitution. Most prostitutes choose their profession freely, and we should be allowed to do so.

But in the end, the most important argument, in my opinion, is freedom. Two consenting adults should have the freedom to have sex in exchange for money. Government does not have the right to take away the livelihood of a sex worker.

Vote Pro!

gordonjames

Con


Pro begins round 3 with the illogical statement: (grammar mistakes quoted exactly)


“being a prostitute is about as dangers as being a fisherman.”


This is either an intentional attempt to mislead, or a poor understanding of math and statistics. He states that the homicide rate for prostitutes is 200 and then tries to compare that to the death rate for fisherman. A true comparison would be the homicide rate of prostitutes to the homicide rate for fisherman or the death rate for prostitutes to the death rate for fishermen.


I would have more sympathy for this error if PRO had not misquoted the facts so obviously. Death rate by homicide in active prostitutes was 229[1], but the overall death rate (CMR) was 459.


Compare this to the CMR for USA (9) or Canadian (8) general population.[2] This makes a prostitute 50 times more likely to die than an average citizen.



I was surprised to learn that “Homicide is the second leading cause of death on the job for workers in the United States.”[3] The major factors were listed in the study as “ contact with the public; exchange of money; and working alone, at night, or in high-crime areas are risk factors for workplace homicide Several studies also report high rates of homicide associated with taxicab services, grocery stores, convenience stores, bars, nightclubs, and gasoline stations.” There is also a strong link to ethnicity of both the individual AND their fellow workers. These factors would not change by simply legalizing prostitution.



PRO continues argue for the safety of legalized prostitution based on anecdotal (the worst kind) evidence[4] Prostitutes, clients and managers were interviewed– This is the kind of background work you do before designing a scientific study. Included in this study were quotes like “Panic buttons are a joke . . . usually they’re across the room, but if you can get across the room you can get out the door.” This was from a “study” claiming the safety merits of legalized brothel prostitution.



Let me recap why Prostitution should NOT be legal


Simply allowing the sale of sex for money will not remove the problems of prostitution. Because this is a state (not federal) issue in the US, the laws that grow up around prostitution will be a patchwork of local and state regulations that encourage sex trafficking and other criminal activity.


We use legislation to protect society, and the dangers of prostitution merit tighter laws and more enforcement to keep people from getting into sex trades too easily.


There are many health issues of promiscuity. These are not only issues for sex workers, but for their customers, and for the intimate partners of those customers. The best way to limit harm is to keep prostitution illegal, and to find more effective methods of enforcement.


Prostitution has many links to organized crime and illegal drug use. These ties will not simply disappear if prostitution were legalized. This would give more money laundering opportunities to criminal enterprise.


In The US the average age of entry into street prostitution is 12-14 years.[5] Sex slavery and sex trafficking are a core part of prostitution, even in countries like Germany where it is legal. Legalization only makes the numbers larger.


We have legislation to protect the vulnerable. There are age restrictions for alcohol and tobacco. Many drugs are prohibited completely. Speed limits are enforced. In Prostitution, the dangers to the workers and their clients are so high (and there are no benefits) that it needs to be completely prohibited.


The prohibition against men taking advantage of women by making them prostitutes is ancient,[6] and there is no reason to think society will get better by legalizing prostitution.


As the USA moves towards universal health care and socialized medicine there is an even bigger need to reduce, not increase, prostitution. As the taxpayer ends up paying the cost for medical care of prostitutes and their clients you will pay a huge cost for legalized prostitution. “Prostitutes health care needs exceed those of most other women.”[7]


Not only is there a high price to pay for medical treatment of prostitutes, but most sexually transmitted diseases have an incubation period where the disease is infectious, but not yet diagnosed. This makes the transfer to client and coworkers a danger as well. New strains of multi drug resistant STDs are appearing among prostitutes who use antibiotics “just in case”. [8] [9] “The rapid spread was associated with transmission in high risk individuals (that is, prostitutes and their clients).” This was in the Netherlands where prostitution is legal and carefully controlled.



In Germany the legalization of prostitution did exactly what would be expected. The number of prostitutes went up, and the price of a prostitute’s service went down. Homicide rates went up. Incidents of violence increased. Human Trafficking increased. These are not good for society or individuals.



Pro states that prostitution should be legalized. He wants us to work hard to change our laws so that more harm can come to more people. His position would increase costs to the taxpayer. (for the possible benefit of lowering the cost of a prostitute)



There is no good reason to legalize prostitution. There are many good reasons to increase enforcement.



Vote CON



[1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...


[2] http://data.worldbank.org...


[3] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...


[4] http://esplerp.org...


[5] http://www.womensfundingnetwork.org...


[6] http://www.biblegateway.com...


[7] http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu...


[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


[9] http://sti.bmj.com...


Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
San Francisco is probably the most liberal city in the United States, but voters recently rejected legalization of prostitution. I think, but do not know for sure, that the reason was related to public nuisance. San Francisco had legalized nudity. That resulted in naked men congregating around City Hall with many citizens refusing to go to the city offices. After a time, the City Council figured out that they needed have restrictions on where and when nudity was allowed. Parts of San Francisco seem to have more than the usual numbers of women in fluorescent short pants on the sidewalks, and I'm guessing that the locals made an extrapolation. The public nuisance arises from solicitation. In the debate, Con did not stress the public nuisance argument.

The libertarian argument is that people have a right to engage in dangerous activities at their own risk. Pro did surprising little with the libertarian argument, which is the strongest argument in favor of legalization. Personally, I'm offended by prostitution, but I'm inclined to accept the libertarian argument. I'm also mildly offended by gambling, the laws of statistics being what they are, but the libertarian argument wins there too.

Nevada has a lot of experience regulating both gambling and prostitution, driving organized crime out of gambling. Nevada requires regular health monitoring of prostitutes, for example, and they seem to control the risks. Nonetheless, prostitution is only legal outside of Reno and Las Vegas. I think the reason is the public nuisance aspect. They don't want streetwalkers or pimps scaring away tourists.

I'm giving Pro the edge in the debate. Pro had the better arguments in disputes over the data presented, although Pro could have made better arguments regarding regulation as counters to Con's specific concerns. It's a close debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by debatinghoe123 2 years ago
debatinghoe123
black_squirrelgordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate, but Pro had stronger arguments. Con had drastically more sources, but overall I believe that Pro won this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
black_squirrelgordonjamesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: As Con points out, there are multiple grammatical mistakes in Pro's posts, hence that part. The vote was decided based off of the factors of homicide and trafficking, both of which received inadequate response. Crime being bolstered was also well taken, though limited examination of the harms made it a smaller factor. I felt Pro did a good job arguing back health harms, so that left me with freedom points, and I just didn't hear enough about why these matter. As I get no insight into the poor and how allowing young women and men access to a decent profession in a bad job market (not to mention a choice) can also prevent deaths and reduce criminal issues more broadly. As I also never hear a comparison of how things are now with illegalized prostitution to the world Con paints, I end up with a skewed picture where harms are almost solely present in Pro's world. So I end up with a much simpler vote for Con than I expected coming into this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
black_squirrelgordonjamesTied
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: See comments.