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

Prostitution should be legalized in Nevada

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,314 times Debate No: 5910
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)




Even though I disagree with Prostitution, and find it very immoral. It should be legalized. Our state government shouldn't have a say on how people treat their bodies. Furthermore, legalizing prostitution would be a benefit to our state. If anyone disagrees feel free to debate, I have debated this issue over and over again (Law Class)
and won each time. I need more challenges.


I'd like to thank my opponent for setting up the challenge and look forward to a good debate.

The traditional arguments for legalizing things that are illegal are to allow it to come within government regulation. Recreational drugs, for example, have frequently come up as an example of something that could stand to be legalized in order to regulate it. In addition, there is the argument that legalizing prostitution will allow it to generate tax money.

I will argue that the legalization of prostitution differs in that proposed regulations for prostitution are impractical.

My opponent states that our state government should not "have a say on how people treat their bodies". I disagree with this notion. The government is made up of representatives to ensure the well-being of the population. It is responsible for balancing the good of the whole with individual liberty. Legalizing prostitution, superficially, seems to be proper in terms of lifting restrictions in individual liberty. However, there are many societal consequences to doing so.

As I am a Pharmacy student, I shall give an analogy involving antibacterial medications. With the advent of Penicillin, many diseases that once threatened the lives of Americans were saved with just one course of the medication. However, as time went on, the diseases that were beaten by this miracle drug developed resistance and became far deadlier than before. This is due to irresponsibility and overuse of Penicillin. Today, oral antibiotics can only be purchased with a prescription from a doctor.

Similarly, the legalization of prostitution will raise the customer pool. The appeal of prostitution is not like that of drugs. Some may argue that the appeal of recreational drugs may stem from the very fact that they are illegal. This is not the case with prostitution. Prostitution supplies an outlet for a very natural, biological urge. Legalizing it as a business would raise it much higher in usage, rapidly increasing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among the population.

My opponent may argue that the legalization would undoubtedly come with regulations that will inhibit the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, but I will argue that any regulation I list following will be impractical: STD testing, provision of free condoms or other contraceptive/hygenic measures, monitoring of condom use, price control

There are many others that escape me as of this moment, so I shall end my round one here. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1


This is my first debate and I look forward to it.

First of I would like to say that prostitution is somewhat legal in the U.S. (since only two states allow it, Nevada and Rhode Island). Furthermore I would like to point out that prostitution and recreational drugs are totally different. Prostitution is selling oneself for money and recreational drugs are highly addictive. The difference with prostitution is that you are not really harming anyone (unless you have an STD, but I will touch that matter later on) and recreational drugs can have a negative effect on people. I am not trying to stop prostitution or regulate it, but I would opine that it should be made into an occupation that is legal. I don't agree with prostitution, it goes against with everything I believe in, but I would rather have it legalized.

Some individuals believe that the government can make good choices for us, but was that the purpose of the creation of the Constitution? To give Government full consent? Does the government really know what is good for every individual in the U.S? I highly disagree with my opponent because if people want, they should sell their bodies without any consequences. We don not know why every prostitute prostitutes themselves but we need to be understanding to as why they have chosen to degrade themselves.

I am surprised that my opponent being a pharmacy student, has not been aware of the report (more like documentary) that the Health Department, has given to the media. Which brings me to my next point. Brothels.
Here is a following link to YouTube (), The name of the video is "20/20 Prostitution in America #4", I advise my opponent or anyone to see this informative documentary.
Brothels (using the one in Nevada as an example) are highly organized and function so: disease won't spread, and prostitutes won't be maltreated. Legalizing prostitution would also legalize brothels; brothels benefit because they of taxation and organization.

Brothels make it so that prostitutes use condoms; condoms are the best way to stop disease (In rebuttal to my opponents fourth paragraph), of course if a prostitute does not use a condom, the chances of disease would highly increase. However the prostitute has a choice of her life and well being or easy filthy money. No one can decide what people will do; if prostitutes are negligent to not use a condom then in my opinion they need to pay the consequences. Also the people who seek the sexual service should pay for not protecting themselves.

Prostitution already is costing enough money, even if prostitutes are caught, they will end up prostituting again. Face it prostitution is not new. Prostitution would benefit us because of the taxes that brothels and prostitutes (if it became an occupation) would give. I would rather have our government use the taxpayer's money on schools, and community programs than to waste so much money on catching prostitutes who will keep on prostituting.

Seriously can prostitutes really feel safe in suing a customer who has abused her? I mean if she is a prostitute she would also be committing a crime right? So where is the justice in being physically abused by a customer and then being punished under the law? Either way the prostitute ends up losing. If we legalized prostitution, prostitutes will have no fear in suing their abusers, thus incarcerating the abusers in society. I would rather have the courts fill up with cases of abuse than having courts fill up for being a prostitute who won't change their behavior.

This is all the time I have for right now, Something has come up and I might take a while to respond to your argument. I won't have computer access, but when I enter school on the 12th of November, I will make sure I comment back (hopefully it is not to late to respond).


I am very glad I prepared for my opponent's responses beforehand because these are some very good points indeed.

As I had foreseen, my opponent has made points about how the legalization of prostitution allows the state to generate tax revenue, and how it also allows for regulation. And as I have stated before, I shall now expand on my previous points as to why such optimistic views on legalization of prostitution would actually be impractical fantasies.

I have actually seen the 20/20 documentary in class, not for any of my Healthcare classes, but for Medical Ethics. WHile it is easy to watch the video and marvel at the great statistics, there is something that must be taken into account.

The brothels that were opened were quite a while away from Las Vegas. The legal brothels mentioned in the documentary were only allowed as per Nevada law, stating that brothels could only be opened in counties with less than 400,000 people. Superficially, this may seem like a strategy to keep people from revolting over the "immoral" nature of prostitution. In actuality, this was done in order to make the situation possible to begin with.

When my opponent talks about regulations and nice statistics, he is talking about a fairly negligible sample set of about 30 brothels in the state of Nevada with about 20 prostitutes housed in each in the most populated ones. For the benefit of the doubt, let us say 600 prostitutes. That makes 600 prostitutes servicing all 2.5 million people of Nevada? Absolutely not. You can bet that there are PLENTY of illegal prostitutes making a living, far more than 600.

When you're talking about implementing a widespread change such as the legalization of prostitution, it's completely different from allowing a handful of them to exist in desolate areas. Each and every single one of the "benefits" my opponent lists become impossible or impractical when we look at a larger scale.

First, there are several things wrong with the brothel system in and of itself that would fail eventually.

1. Overhead for the brothel, medical fees for the weekly testing, condoms, etc. would increase in cost while income for prostitutes decreases.

Supply and demand. More brothels in more places means more competition and lower prices. Prostitutes working in brothels would eventually be paid less and less until there is more money to be made illegally (no taxes, no overhead, no rules, regulations, etc.) and since prostitutes are only prostitutes for money (If my opponent chooses to argue, he must argue that the percentage of women who want to be prostitutes purely for the enjoyment is NOT a negligible number), we can assume they would have a harder and harder time "keeping clean" as the price gap enlarges.

2. Medical testing is flawed

While the condom use is admirable, STD testing is poorly contrived. There are testing windows of several days where a person could get false negatives, and yet another day or two for the results to be given. Meanwhile, we can assume the the prostitute would still be working. The only alternative is to take her out of work for 3 days a week, which is not an option for desperate women.

3. Brothels can't hold everyone.

There are far more women willing to turn to prostitution than brothels can provide working environments and care for. These desperate women will undoubtedly continue illegal and unregulated prostitution. The number of women who will be regulated under legislation will be negligible compared to those continuing illegal prostitution.

4. Prostitutes don't want regulation

Prostitutes are not professionals. They are desperate women looking to earn money. As such, they probably want to retain their anonymity, something they can't do under the brothel system. Sure, they can make up fake names for their clients, but they are still using social security numbers for their employment and tax forms. Legalizing prostitution does not eliminate moral stigma, it puts them in the spotlight. My opponent brought up the point about legal prostitutes not being afraid to point out abusers. I severely doubt that these women will have the mindset of women who are selling goods and had them stolen/damaged.

I'm sure there are many more points to go over, but this is a 5 round debate, and I actually have a slight fever and a throbbing headache right now, so I apologize if I'm a little disjointed in my argument. I needed to rush this post because I fear I may be out of commission for the next few days and I don't want to keep my opponent waiting.
Debate Round No. 2


I don't know why my opponent finds the statistics negligible, if brothels were in fact dangerous then they would show signs of failure no matter if there were only a few of them. Brothels are run in an orderly way which decreases disease.

1.Medical Fees would not really affect brothels.
First of all there are a lot of possibilities in which the medical fees can be taken care of. The prostitutes can pay for their own weekly testing (they would be mandated, since it is for their occupation). This is good idea because if the prostitute does her job and gets paid for it, the brothel can take some of it and use that money for her very own weekly check up. If the prostitute doesn't get any clients that week then she doesn't have to pay for the weekly check up, since she won't really be getting one (makes sense because if she didn't really have sex then there is the conclusion that she doesn't have disease). This system is quite simple, and it benefits the brothel in the sense that it doesn't have to pay for the medical fees (the prostitutes do).

Of course there would be more competition, if prostitution was legalized; it would turn into a business! My opponent believes that all brothels would be situated in one particular area, this is wrong because the government can limit the amount of brothels built in one area, thus forcing the brothels to scatter (to desolate and private areas) throughout a city/town. In a big city like Las Vegas there could be around 13-17 brothels. I would argue that if brothels were situated closely to clients then they have easy access, then the business would not stop, it would thrive!

My opponent even stated, "Prostitutes aren't professionals", therefore they shouldn't receive more money than a professional, they should receive an amount that is decent but not overwhelming! When prostitutes learn that they are not going to be getting paid the overwhelming amount of m, they money will have to either adjust or do something else for a living. Of course prostitutes are only prostitutes for money! If prostitutes raised enough money they could go to college and get a better occupation instead of degrading themselves.
Then why has the brothel done such a good job at preventing STD, if "STD testing is poorly contrived"? My opponent brings up a good point; however the brothels have done such a good job at protecting their prostitutes from disease.

Of course brothels can't hold everyone, which is why I am proposing a new brothel like building. This brothel like building would supply the prostitutes on the streets with condoms and the prostitutes would provide the money that they were paid to the brothel like building. The building would make sure that the prostitutes were okay, by having security watch them carefully, this eliminates any type of abuse that a prostitute may receive and would secure that she came back. Of course this idea sounds very bizarre, but it might work. It would regulate the taxes that a prostitute has to pay; it would keep the prostitute safe and disease free. (there are many more that escape my mind at this moment but I will write them in the conclusion)

My opponent has lost me on the 4th paragraph. Of course legalizing prostitution does not eliminate moral stigma, this is obvious! Prostitutes degrade themselves!

This is all the time I have for today, I apologize if my statements are a bit weird or don't sound right, but I had to rush.


I thank my opponent for his prompt response and will begin addressing his counterpoints.

1A. Insurance plans would refuse to cover STD testing for prostitutes because their actuaries would view them as high-risk. Thus, they can expect to pay about $50-$100 per week on testing alone. In addition, insurance companies would refuse to cover prostitutes for STD treatment for the same reason. They are not interested in giving low premiums to high-risk people. In addition, these prostitutes would probably not be covered by state insurance or medicaid because they would be pulling in a fairly high taxable income whereas their costs would still make them technically poor. Thus, these mandatory medical tests would discourage prostitutes from operating legitimately. They would prefer not having to be forced to take the medical examinations at all, because $50-$100 a week is pretty hefty.

1B. Prostitutes are not paid according to will, prostitutes are paid according to the free market. Before, prostitutes earned a decent amount of money because of the illegal nature of their work. Prostitutes after legalization would earn substantially less from their clients simply due to them being on a much more open market instead of an exclusive one. My opponent may argue that the safety benefits will outweigh this and justify a higher price, but remember that with those safety procedures come a much higher upkeep cost for the prostitutes themselves.

2. Until I can see detailed statistics about Nevada's legalized prostitution, I cannot accept my opponent's contention that STD control is working in Nevada's legal brothels. I can offer explanations for the statistics in the video: First of all, they have not stated any statistics on STDs besides AIDS. Only that HIV itself has presented no cases amongst the prostitutes. Second, it is reasonable to assume that a prostitute that contracts an STD would not be employed until it clears, meaning, it is quite easy to fudge the numbers because a prostitute with an STD wouldn't show up as a statistic.

3. Brothel-like buildings would require hideous amounts of upkeep. Electricity, maintenance, administration, plumbing, not to mention rents and licensing, etc. My opponent also talks about security guards and free condoms, and on top of all that, taxes. Keep in mind that for every penny spent on these new things, it is another penny out of the pocket of the prostitutes. Why would prostitutes accept all these regulations that will strip them of the money that they need when they can operate illegally? Sure, there's the risk of being arrested, but prostitution has been a field of work where desperate women will use any means to get money. In that case, the illegal nature of prostitution will not be an issue compared to the huge pay cut they would have to take under these regulations.

4. My opponent has said he does not understand my final argument. Although I believe I was more than clear, I will try to rephrase my point:

Prostitutes vote, and my opponent is proposing legislation that will directly affect them. Thus, it is important that we consider what prostitutes think about my opponent's proposal. Not only that, but after all legislation is passed, it is still up to prostitutes whether or not they choose to enter the regulated profession at all. The point I was trying to make is that prostitutes would oppose the legalization of prostitution. The legalization of prostitution, as I have detailed in many points above, would provide for much lower wages than prostitutes are making now. As I have said before, the proposal is nice, but impractical because he would have no participants. It would just be a waste of money all around.

I also do not mind my opponent rushing his argument and instead found it well written. I too understand that requires a chunk of time that we may not quite be able to afford, and do look forward to his next response.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent makes a good point on the insurance; the insurance benefit was only an idea. However, employees have to follow the regulations in a job whether they like it or not. Therefore Prostitutes should pay for the medical testing. It is to ensure their well being and also to regulate a business; if the prostitute wants to keep on working then they have to be aware of their overall health.

Prostitutes would actually get paid more, because if the brothels were scattered throughout cities (especially a highly populated city), then there is no doubt that business would thrive. Men/Women would seek sexual service that is close to them. It is not likely that they would seek the cheapest brothel that is 25 miles away. Even if prostitutes weren't paid according to will, the prostitutes would still receive a decent amount of money. Again, the legalization of prostitution would allow more brothels to be built, and yeah the brothels might compete with one another but the location of the brothels matter. The government could specify how many brothels can be built in one particular area.

I apologize that I did not fully explain my proposal of the brothel like buildings. The brothel like buildings are not like brothels, these buildings would be rather small and wouldn't need so much taking care of (maintenance, electricity, administrations, plumbing and licensing). The brothel like buildings are specifically for the prostitutes who work on the streets. The brothel like buildings would only supply prostitutes with condoms and security, the prostitutes wouldn't be

Some women/men don't have any educational background and would rather prostitute themselves than work in a job that requires hard work. It is likely that brothels will have employees. Therefore eliminating (since my opponent states) the overcrowding of brothels and street soliciting.

I apologize for not touching on all of my opponents points but I still have to rush, I will fully touch them on the conclusion.


My opponent concedes the point that the legalization of prostitution would force prostitutes to pay for the medical testing out of their pocket, without insurance.

My opponent makes the assertion that the prostitutes will be paid more because the brothels would be scattered, and he also proposes that they be limited. I find this proposal to be extremely short sighted on my opponent's part for two reasons.

First, my opponent believes that scattering and limiting will increase prices. In a one dimensional economic view, this would be correct. However, my opponent forgets that a limited supply would be met with a high demand, one that could not be filled with limited brothels. In order to meet that demand, illegal prostitution would go on the rise.

Second, my opponent asserts that location of the brothels would raise the price. He completely forgets that illegal prostitution has no boundaries and will simply pick up the profits wherever the brothels are not allowed to be built.

Third, my opponent's proposal for the brothel buildings is still a poor proposal. My opponent has not mentioned where the funding would come from, so I offer two choices:

1. The government. This would lead to an uprising of the public. There is no way that the government would pay for free medical testing, security, condoms, etc. for street prostitutes.

2. Associated Brothels. I would assume that these street prostitutes are still brothel associated, or regulated/legal in some way. Thus, we can expect these costs to come out of the pocket of the legal street prostitutes, severely cutting their paycheck. If this is the case, illegal prostitutes would be forced to either pay for protection and all those services, or risk it on their own. Guess what? They're going to risk it because that's what they've always done before.

Finally, my opponent makes the assertion that since many would rather prostitute themselves than work in a job, brothels will have employees. However, I am confused at his follow up, he says that this would PREVENT overcrowding of brothels and street soliciting. He has not countered my point that women desperate for money look to prostitution, so in essence, he has now added to the population of women who we can expect to prostitute themselves. I repeat my point: Where would we put all of these prostitutes? Especially if my opponent is going to limit the number of brothels and brothel-accepted locations? All of the prostitutes who cannot be regulated will simply be illegal prostitutes, solving absolutely no problem.

My opponent's proposals have grown steadily more confusing and ill-thought out, and I attribute this to his rushing. Since it will be his last post next, I would hope that he takes more time to correct all of the flaws I have listed.

So far, I have made counterpoints for all his claims, but I still have several issues outstanding I want him to address that he has ignored in his last response for some reason:

1. The statistics on STD transmission I requested.
2. A response to my point about prostitutes not wanting to register and wanting to keep anonymity.

In addition, here is a short summary of the issues I raise here:

Estimated 20% tax, $50-$100 weekly STD testing fee, Payment to brothels or other supervising center, medicare tax, social security tax, payments towards the brothel-like building and funding for the rent, security guards, condoms, lighting, electricity, cleaning, plumbing, administration fees, as well as any hotel room rental fees for the actual sex (if not in a brothel) will deduct a MASSIVE amount of pay from prostitutes. My opponent's understanding of supply and demand was too light to show that this could all be overcome from a few government regulations. Because of this, my opponent's proposals would not be an incentive for any illegal prostitutes to switch to legalization.

He has failed to show why illegal prostitutes would willingly succumb to regulation.
Debate Round No. 4


EckoFreak92 forfeited this round.


I find it disappointing that my opponent has forfeited the most crucial round of this debate, the last chance for him to counter the points which I have raised in showing how his proposal to legalize prostitution would fall apart at the seams. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate, and hope that we will be able to debate again someday.

Thank you everyone, be sure to vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago

Oh the terrorist does crack me up. Look at his pseudo-benevolent attitude. This pompous, self-righteous, ignorant, grade-A A**hole.

Discriminating against people based on site activity is exactly what I would expect a moronic, self-proclaimed Christian Conservative with a psychological disorder would do.

Just because the terrorist can't understand that this site attracts intelligence and doesn't form it, he assumes that all new debaters are at some handicap.

Stay the *%&^ out of area of intellectual exchange, because you just pollute it. Seriously, I wonder what your children are going to think of you if they ever see through your bull#*&$ exterior and what an intolerant and mentally fragile wreck you really are XD

Oh what a laugh....
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
ecko, post every round. Do not give up for any reason.

Klep, good luck with your debate.

You always say that, Josh. How should I say it again:

Will the babbling unintelligent dumb ignorant foolish disrespectful idiot also known as Josh/Hypocrisy/antisemantic the terrorist and extortionist who practices the religion "vote bombing" please use more than 10% of your brain and refrain from touching his mouse to click on the "Add post" button and pouring his spamming clutter of stupidity all over this site?

Thank you.
Posted by EckoFreak92 8 years ago
Yeah I meant prostitution should be legalized in all states.
Posted by antisemantic 8 years ago
Wow Klep. you are still at it huh? How many debates does he have under his belt?

ecko, post every round. Do not give up for any reason.

Klep, good luck with your debate.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Er, that should read "Just because soomething is the case doesn't mean it shouldn't be."
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
(Disclaimer: Terms and conditions apply. NO RUELZ! is a registered trademark of R_R. It's not a whole lot else.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Just because something is the case doesn't mean it should be. Lulz. This isn't (whatever formal debate it is) where Pro has to be against the status quo. It's, NO RUELZ!
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Maybe you mean, "Prostitution should be legalized in Clark County." Because its sure more legal in Nevada than any other state in the country.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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