The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Pat
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Prostitution should be legalised - Debate #1752

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 6 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,063 times Debate No: 14280
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Sadly, employment opportunities for under-educated young women are thin on the ground and, as a consequence, they are more likely than almost any other group to find themselves economically inactive.

But that doesn't mean there isn't work available for these women – they could go on the game.

However, a lot of young women are deterred from adopting prostitution as their chosen career because they associate it with drugs and violence and it is certainly true that shady characters that ruthlessly exploit often young and vulnerable girls to make money currently dominate the industry.

However, if prostitution were legalised, there would be an opportunity for respectable companies to provide the prostitutes with a safe and healthy environment in which to ply their trade.

If prostitution were legalised, here is what an advertisement placed by a respectable firm of tart-farmers could look like:

http://www.debate.org...

In addition to the savings in welfare payments currently made to unemployed young women, if prostitution were legalised, the government would also benefit from the extra income that employee and corporation taxes would generate.

Overall, I can see no reason why prostitution should not be legalised and I, therefore, urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.
Pat

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate, but would ask him to remain patient and consider my arguments before asking for a vote for Pro.

As con, I shall argue that prostitution should remain illegal. Since this is an extremely short debate, I request that my opponent answer a question of mine on the comments page. Is this a debate on prostitution in the international community or domestically? If domestically, then which country? Until these questions have been answered, I shall attempt to make my argument be sound both internationally and domestically.

My opponent claims that people exploit women in the prostitution career. How would legalising prostitution help this? Shouldn't these women be prosecuted anyway for acting illegally?

The basis for legalising something cannot be based on the fact that it is being done illegally. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder because murderers commit murders illegally anyway. I stress, it cannot be based on this.

What is required, in any event, is better enforcement. If these women are prostitutes, then they are acting unlawfully, and shouldn't be doing so anyway. Therefore, exploitation doesn't come into the picture.

The next statement I agree with. For it to stand, however, we would have to accept that the basis for legalisation is because it's happening illegally. In any event, if it were legalised, then all the Health and Safety laws would apply to this industry as well, so it isn't really a problem.

As for the ad, I am confused. What does this have to do with the debate?

I would like to point out that whilst the government would earn money from the legalisation, prostitutes usually have jobs as strippers or "escorts" at bars, casinos, etc. Therefore, they are not entitled to welfare. Government money would not be saved as much as my opponent states it would.

To begin with, we see issues of morality. Most people feel that it isn't moral to sell sexual services, as this is something that should be done out of love and affection. By legalising prostitution, many women would suffer from criticism from their neighbours and friends.

The client, too, is seen as immoral, as he is having sex with a person he has no intention of maintaining a relationship with. According to religion, sex is an act of intimacy that shows affection and bonding. In prostitution, however, there is no affection or bonding.

As asserted by my opponent, this is not a consensual act. Prostitutes are being forced to sell their "services" due to socioeconomic factors.

On occasions, it leads to serious psychological and physical problems.

As asserted partially, but not fully by my opponent, there is correlation between prostitution, drug use and drug selling.

The risks with health is also a problem. By legalising prostitution, there could be an increase in the number of people with STDs and other factors associated with unprotected sex. Additionally, my opponent fails to realise that prostitutes, whether working full time or part time, would be having sex 5-10 times a day. This is unhealthy.

A study carried out by a UN reporter concluded that, even in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, prostitution satisfies the elements of human trafficking.

I shall post my sources at the end of Round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I should like to thank Pat for accepting this debate and for posting such a comprehensive response.

Before I go any further, my opponent wrote: "As for the ad, I am confused. What does this have to do with the debate?"

To which I reply: "Nothing. It is the product of my over-active imagination and warped sense of humour. Please ignore it!"

Just to clarify my position as requested, I intended this argument to be on an international basis since this is an international website and I wasn't, therefore, able to pre-determine my opponent's country of residence.

Then my opponent wrote:

"My opponent claims that people exploit women in the prostitution career. How would legalising prostitution help this? Shouldn't these women be prosecuted anyway for acting illegally?"

If prostitution were legalised and a registered company formally employed the girls they would be protected from abuse by employment legislation.

My opponent continued:

"The basis for legalising something cannot be based on the fact that it is being done illegally. This is like arguing for the legalisation of murder because murderers commit murders illegally anyway. I stress, it cannot be based on this."

We have to ask ourselves why prostitution remains illegal in most countries. Does a man paying for sex harm anyone? You may go to a massage parlour and have a 30-minute massage at an agreed price. That's legal. However, if the masseuse offers to throw in "extras" it's illegal. There's no sense in it. Both parties agree to the transaction and nobody else is involved so what's the problem?

Then he wrote:

"The next statement I agree with. For it to stand, however, we would have to accept that the basis for legalisation is because it's happening illegally. In any event, if it were legalised, then all the Health and Safety laws would apply to this industry as well, so it isn't really a problem."

The point is that if prostitutes worked for registered company, health and safety legislation could be properly enforced.

Regarding morality, except in certain theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, the government does not legislate on sexual relationships between consenting adults – many people may consider adultery, homosexuality and even sex before marriage as immoral, but that doesn't mean these activities should be illegal. So why is paying for sex illegal? It is an anachronism in the modern world.

With reference to economics, currently prostitutes may sell their bodies as an economic necessity but if prostitution became a legal, semi-respectable profession, young women might see it as an attractive career option. Believe it or not, the average woman enjoys casual sex just as much as the average man does so why not allow them to get paid for doing something they enjoy?

Regarding health, of course, there are health risks with casual sex, and prostitutes would certainly be in a high-risk group, but just like porn stars, it would be in their professional interest to protect themselves against STDs.

I think I've successfully addressed all the points my opponent raised and I, therefore, urge you to vote Pro.

Thank you.
Pat

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Indeed, they would be protected from abuse, but that would make the basis for legalisation the fact that the law is being violated.

On consenting adults, we must ask ourselves if they really are consenting adults. The position my opponent established was that prostitutes are being forced to be prostitutes because of their socioeconomic condition. That would imply that they are not consenting to the action.

Pornstars, however, are working with other pornstars. The actions are regulated, and they are instructed on what to do, with protection or without. Prostitutes, however, must satisfy their clients' wants. Therefore, they have a much higher risk than pornstars.

It is not the government's place and I doubt it ever will be, to decide what is a respectable profession and what isn't.

I apologise for not posting my sources, as I only have 1 minute before the deadline.

Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Pat 6 years ago
Pat
You can't really urge for a vote Pro until somebody accepts and presents an opposite view. I am personally for prostitution, but shall accept this challenge as I can see where the other side comes from.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by nhq 6 years ago
nhq
brian_egglestonPatTied
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 
Vote Placed by cherokee15 6 years ago
cherokee15
brian_egglestonPatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
brian_egglestonPatTied
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 
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
brian_egglestonPatTied
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 
Vote Placed by nguyenjohn99 6 years ago
nguyenjohn99
brian_egglestonPatTied
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 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
brian_egglestonPatTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40