The Instigator
Pro (for)
18 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
16 Points

Prostitution should be legalized in the United States

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 8 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,583 times Debate No: 27770
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (8)




I will affirm that "prostitution should be legalized in the United States." The basis of my affirmation will be negative rights and objecting moral law; I argue that in a democratic society, there is no reason other than a subjective moral one for prostitution to be illegal. As such, making prostitution illegal on the basis of these subjective moral beliefs creates a moral law which violates the liberty of individuals who may not, or outright do not adhere to the same moral principles.

To begin, I offer the following definitions for the clarity of my opponent and potential voters;
1. Prostitution: The act of exchanging sexual services for monetary gain.
2. Should: A pragmatic obligation.
3. Legalized: An acceptable practice under the law free from prosecution by a governing body.

I will present two arguments to warrant a vote for the pro here, and two more in the next round. I encourage readers to consider them and weight them under a paradigm of comparative advantage against any arguments my opponent may present. If at the end of the round my arguments seem to advocate a more advantageous world, I encourage you then to vote for the Pro.

1. Moral Liberty is the issue of discussion-
My opponent may argue otherwise, however so far as the current writer can see the only purpose behind prostitution's illegality is one of moral scrutiny. Generally our society sees the act of prostitution as a dirty, immoral action and have accordingly made the act illegal in most places throughout the U.S. This is the case with most, if not all sexual taboos; a few find a specific act detestable and make laws to prohibit others from doing such.

With prostitution specifically, the moral division is not one which is shared in all parts of the world. It is instead an influence of America's Judeo-Christian culture, which discourages non vanilla sex. The Devadasi of south India actually sell their daughters to Hindu temples to serve as prostitutes[1]; They are looked up to as members of the high class, and seen as sex symbols. Even with the practice of prostitution was outlawed in 1947, these laws were not enforced due to the beliefs of Hindu society.

2. Legality in the status quo-
Currently, open prostitution is illegal in all but 1 state in the U.S.; that being Nevada. However even there prostitution is only legal within a limited sphere; there exist 28 registered brothels where prostitution is legal[2], outside these establishments one may be penalized for the aforementioned act.

In North America, the United States is the only country (exempting Nevada) where prostitution is illegal. Both Canada[3] and Mexico have legalized prostitution; this has resulted in greater safety for Canadian prostitutes, who now have the ability to hire personnel to protect them, and protect themselves from sex-trafficking; this has unfortunately not been the case in Mexico were despite having legalized prostitution, or better stated made no legislation to address the issue. It is still considered largely an underground business due to the laws quite simply not being clearly defined. Unlike Canada who has openly addressed the issue of prostitution's legality in regards to liberty and safety, Mexico has largely ignored the issue.

Religious and social dogma is the only cause of prostitution being illegal in the United States; accordingly the argument moral liberty must be considered. We musn't make law based solely on personal belief. Furthermore, by finally taking the jump to fully legalize prostitution in the United States, it would stand to reason that prostitution in Mexico would be influence to change for the better. Lawmakers of Mexico would be spurred to address the issue of prostitution and set clearer guidelines. Finally, any opposing arguments which deal with potential negative impacts of prostitution should be disregarded as an appeal to fear. Vote logically, not fearfully.


I thank DoctorDeku for hosting this debate and I appreciate the civility, candor, and readability of his presentation.


PRO has framed the debate around prostitution as a moral and legal imperative. However, by doing so, PRO has attempted to skirt the economic realities of the situation.

According to PRO's own source, "many poor families sell their daughters to Hindu temples. The temple priests often sell these girls to pimps in major cities such as Mumbai. Ironically, they are looked upon as high-class prostitutes and even sex symbols in Hindu society." [1]

This is not a preferred profession - India is known for having some of the worst levels of poverty and inequality in the world, thereby accounting for its 3 million prostitutes. [2] These women are typically from families so poor that they cannot even take care of their own daughters without risking starvation.

In wealthier countries it is not much better. South Korea is now a developed nation, and it also has a booming sex trade, accounting for "approximately 1.6 per cent of GDP, or about $14 billion annually." [3] Yet, we see the same story:

"Lim’s study of Korean sex trafficking victims in the U.S. and a Namseoul University study on prostitution in South Korea suggest that lack of economic opportunity for women plays the major role in driving women to make risky decisions like being smuggled into America or willingly engaging in prostitution at home. Personal debt explains why women have been enslaved in many cases." [4]

"The lack of opportunity is simply explained by gender inequality...The latest data from the OECD has it that the gender-income gap in South Korea was a whopping 38.9 per cent in 2009 – the largest among the 27 member countries at the top of the world’s economy. [4]

We see the same pattern. Lack of economic opportunity drives these women into this profession.

It is not a choice, even for PRO's vaunted Devadasi. To claim a moral imperative on the backs of poor, disadvantaged, and vulnerable women is irresponsible and unconscionable. Keep in mind that for the Devadasi, "a girl as young as 6 years old is dedicated to an Indian Goddess." A Devadasi answered in an interview that "“I was only six when my parents dedicated me,” she said. “I had no feelings at the time, except wondering: why have they done this? We were very poor and had many debts." [5] Remember that the word "dedicated" is synonymous to "sold to the local temple." This is child slavery, specifically of young girls.

South Korea shows what may happen in a society if this exploitation of women is allowed to continue:

"... frequenting prostitutes is an accepted part of life for Korean married men. In fact, it is often required of businessmen if they want to be successful and accepted among their coworkers..."

"It’s impossible to go anywhere in this country without being faced with a constant barrage of prostitution venues. Of course, they often masquerade as something else- massage parlors, karaoke rooms, barber shops, tea shops, PC rooms, bars, rest houses, etc., but they all offer at least the possibility of sex."

"I can’t conceive of how Korean men can not only hurt and disrespect their wives like this, but also spend all their time fraternizing with coworkers and women rather than spending it with their children." [6]

This is morally reprehensible. There is no moral high ground in this misogyny. Gender equality and economic opportunity is what SHOULD be the moral imperative, not prostitution. (out of room)

Debate Round No. 1


a. My opponent's first source is a religious website whose intent is witness and prayer for others. An moral implications (explicitly expressed or not) are invalid due to the intentions of this website.
b. The link to my opponent's second and third sources are broken.
c. Con's fourth, fifth and sixth sources are blogs powered by wordpress; their content doesn't serve as a reputable source on an empirical scale
Conclusion: my opponent's arguments are not empirically sound.

2. Burdens-
a. The Pro's burden in the debate is to advocate a vote for the legality of prostitution in the United States, not to reform it in other nations. That said, I do show how a vote for the Pro will revolution the safety and security of prostitutes in other countries through my Canada and Mexico argument.
b. The Con has established their burden on economic security; accordingly social or moral implications aren't voting issues.
Conclusion: This debate is weighing negative rights and freedom from moral law against economic security.

3. Scope-
a. It is my opponent's responsibility to show how the economic issues he argues for are applicable to the U.S. Unless he explicitly shows this link, there is no impact for the economics of prostitution in India or Korea in this debate; he has not done this, do not make that link for him.
b. Despite arguing on an economic framework, my opponent makes several moral arguments; gender inequality, unfaithful Korean men and human trafficking (which I cover in my Status Quo argument) are just a few.
Conclusion: My opponent's arguments do not conform to the scope of this debate in terms of the U.S., Negative rights or the Economy.

4. Direct refutations-
As a brief foreword; my opponent does not make his arguments in a clear format so I apologize if my refutations aren't clear. The following is meant as a response to the whole of my opponent's constructive.
a. The problems my opponent poses aren't relevant to American citizens; they are dealing with the social negatives of prostitution in India and Korea.
b. The negative impacts my opponent shows are non-unique, they would exist whether prostitution was legal or illegal
c. U.S. Citizens have rights and options that Indians and Koreans do not; neither men nor women are 'forced' into prostitution in the U.S. They choose to become prostitutes by their own accord.
d. Finally, as prior stated The con's arguments don't deal with the economic issue of prostitution, but of the moral discrepancies. First, gender inequality isn't relevant in this round as both men and women can be prostitutes and the argument of sex trafficking is an emotional fallacy. Second, the moral arguments are exactly what I contend to object in my constructive; we can't make laws just to enforce morality. Finally the appeals to potential consequence are exactly what I warn against in my underview. Not only that but they are non-unique, all the negative things my opponent shows would exist regardless of prostitution's legality; however I show in my second constructive argument how Canada's legalization of prostitution has actually made prostitutes safer and fought sex trafficking

5. Extensions-
My opponent made no attacks, so these extensions aren't defensive in nature, but offensive.
a. [2]"The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff". Legalization protects prostitutes not harm them.
b. The Devadasi argument was one to illustrate the cultural morality which has led to prostitution being illegal in the U.S; the negative impacts Con argues for are a result of India's Caste system, not a result of prostitution. I would expand more, but that would lead me off on a tangent.
Conclusion: The sex trafficking argument is ultimately an appeal to fear. In the US, legalization of prostitution would lead to greater protection of prostitutes, and it would exist either way in India due to their caste system.


My opponent has made various strawman arguments. I ask that conduct be deducted in his case.

My first source is the same as his first source, and I use it in an economic context, not an explicitly moral context, as my opponent falsely charges (strawman argument).

The second link works (another strawman) - I will quote the relevant passage on the last page of the PDF file: "there are 3 million commercial sex workers in India, of which an estimated 40% are children." [1]

Indeed I don't know why the third link broke. My apologies for that one:

I was unaware that wordpress was not considered "sound" material. Regardless, it is easy to cite the simple details that those links depicted in graphic detail:

1) Devadasis are originally sold into child slavery at an extremely young age:
""Many of these women were tiny girls when they became devadasis, "dedicated" to the sect by poverty-stricken parents unable to pay their future dowries and hopeful that a pleased goddess would make the next pregnancy a boy." [2]

"Girls from poor families of the "untouchable", or lower, caste are "married" to Yellamma [the Hindu goddess of fertility] as young as four. " [3]

2) There is massive gender inequality in South Korea that forces a large number of desperate women into prostitution
"Out of 135 countries covered in the World Economic Forum’s 2011 Global Gender Gap Report, Korea ranks an abysmal 117 in Economic Participation and Opportunity," much lower "than those in China and Japan (ranking 50 and 100)." [5]

3) Prostitution plays an integral part of business negotiations in a male-dominated Korean society, thus overtly discriminating against women in similar forms of employment as their male counterparts:
" Elected officials and private business people discuss and negotiate deals not only in boardrooms, but also in "business clubs" where whiskey and elaborate plates of overpriced fruit accompany a bevy of attractive young women, or girls - there to peel the grapes, pour the shots and perform sexual services for money. " [4]

The conclusions are almost exactly the same from both the empirical sources and the wordpress articles, thus I see no reason to rescind any of the wordpress material.

My argument is clear. Gender inequality directly contributes to Economic inequality, thus reinforcing the moral travesty that forces women into prostitution as their only viable economic activity in countries that practice it. I do not ignore the moral element as my opponent falsely claims (another strawman) - instead I place the moral element within the greater context of economic inequality.

My opponent seeks to preclude my usage of moral arguments for some unknown reason (another strawman). I am of course able to utilize moral arguments effectively.

My opponent makes the false accusation that I "do not conform to the scope of this debate in terms of the U.S., Negative rights or the Economy." This is another strawman, PRO is fabricating inane rules and regulations that seek to restrict arguments that he cannot counter.

My purpose in illustrating the effects of prostitution in India and South Korea is to demonstrate how prostitution works in countries that practice it, how if the US were to do so, it would likely face similar consequences in due time.

My opponent states that "neither men nor women are 'forced' into prostitution in the U.S." THIS IS BECAUSE PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL IN THE US AND IS HEAVILY ENFORCED, AS IT SHOULD BE.

PRO is no longer arguing in good faith. I move to end this debate immediately with PRO's forfeiture.

Debate Round No. 2


1. Sources-
a. Look back at the prior arguments and decide for yourselves; links two and three were broken for me, and I called my opponent out on that. That isn't a Strawman, as I didn't build up an alternative argument; I simply attacked my opponent's sources which is more than acceptable in any academic debate.
b. Wordpress is a blog hosting website[5]. Accordingly the things posted on these sites aren't accountable to anyone but the users and publishers; they aren't legitimate in an empirical impact calculus.
Conclusion: Use your own discretion here.

2. Devadasi-
a. In India there is a caste system which exists as an unfortunate part of their Hindu belief system[6]. In earlier years, the devadasi were looked upon as very high ranking members of the Castes system, many of them still are -- it wasn't until British the invaded and colonized India that prostitution was looked down upon; they took the opportunities away from Indian prostitutes without changing the Caste system. Because of moral law, the Devadasi suffered.
b. My initial argument mentioning the Devadasi was to illustrate this divide of cultural morality; ultimately prostitution is a different business with different rules in the United States than it is in India.
Conclusion: It's the caste system, not prostitution which harms these women and children.

3. Sex Trafficking and Protection of prostitutes-
a. My second constructive argument spoke on how Canada's legalization of prostitution actually led to greater safety for prostitutes, who could now hire protection personnel and staff[3]. The think we need to realize here is that Canada is far more closely related to the United States in terms of culture and law, and so we can easily foresee this being the outcome of prostitution's legalization in the US.
b. My opponent never responds to the argument of Canadian prostitution. He never argues against the higher levels of safety for these prostitutes and he never shows that prostitution would end or the negative impacts claims are unique to the Con.
Conclusion: Canadian prostitution protects prostitutes.

4. Culture, Rights and Society-
a. Women have the same rights as men in the United States. Unlike the Devadasi who many times don't hve any other option to support their family aside from prostitution, American citizens do have other options. For whatever reason, they choose that career themselves.
b. The entirety of my opponent's arguments deal with India and Korea, there isn't even any link to the United States. This debate is not whether or not prostitution is good or bad, it's whether or not it should or shouldn't legal.
Conclusion: The United States is not India or Korea. Prostitution would and does work differently here, Canada has a more immediate precedence and we can understand out system will be closer to their than to the Devadasi's

5. Burdens and Decorum
a. My opponent doesn't get to claim that "I am not acting in good faith" just because he doesn't like my arguments or my style. I will avoid calling out his flaws as quite frankly it won't do anything for this debate. However I encourage all readers to use their heads and not let this debate become a he-said, she-said bicker session.
b. The resolution says the United States; I've made that explicitly clear in every round. The arguments my opponent provides are completely unique to these other countries and completely ignore the negative rights argument which was the purpose of this debate in the first place. He never responds to the issue I present of making moral law from the personal beliefs of a given society.
Conclusion: Wah, wah, whatever. My arguments are sound and I encourage you ignore my opponent's claims of abuse. Furthermore I ask you consider the issue of the scope of this debate being outright ignored.

a. None of my opponents impacts are unique or relevant
b. The US is not India or Korea
c. Negative rights has been ignored.


I remind voters that the resolution is whether or not prostitution should be legalized in the United States. How this is argued is irrelevant, as long as it is effectively argued. PRO has spent a lot of time attempting to unreasonably restrict the scope of my arguments citing some unknown set of rules. He is using fear to detract from his position.

1) Sources. There are no problems with sources at this point. Redundant accusation by PRO.

2) PRO states: "it is my opponent's responsibility to show how the economic issues he argues for are applicable to the U.S."
Gender inequality and prostitution feed a vicious negative feedback loop, where the existence of one will fuel the other. This is evident in my prior posts. Once prostitution becomes legalized or unenforced in America, the potential for this feedback loop manifests in America. There is no reason to take such a risk.

3) PRO continually ignores the damage to inroads made in gender equality that legalizing prostitution would do to America. India and South Korea are societies where both exist in copious amounts. We need not follow their path.

4) PRO states: "ultimately prostitution is a different business with different rules in the United States than it is in India." No. Prostitution is NOT a business in America, it is illegal and heavily enforced. This is why America ranks high in gender equality. The US is #4 in income equality between the sexes, Japan #80, Korea #109, and India #124. [1]

5) PRO states: in India, it's the "caste system, not prostitution which harms these women and children." I disagree. Poor economic conditions in India force girls into slavery, i.e. prostitution. The combination of poverty, lack of women's rights, and prostitution equate to a miserable existence for women caught in this negative feedback loop. A woman should not have to be sold into prostitution because their family is too poor to feed her.

6) PRO states: "Canadian [legislation] protects prostitutes." That's great. In the US we simply don't have this problem. Instead we try to find more productive avenues for a woman's time.

7) PRO states: "Canada is far more closely related to the United States in terms of culture and law, and so we can easily foresee this being the outcome of prostitution's legalization in the US." PRO and CON are in agreement here. However, Canada has a long tradition of ambiguous laws that made the act of consensual sex for pay legal, but nearly every other aspect of prostitution illegal, to include "communicating in a public place for the purpose of selling or buying sex, keeping or using a [brothel], and procurement[/pimping]." [2] This is de facto criminalization of prostitution, valid as of 2008. If you cannot legally negotiate terms of a deal, how can you effectively conduct any significant business?

Canada is experimenting with the gradual process of legalizing prostitution, but before it does, for all intents and purposes prostitution is illegal. Canada currently enjoys high gender equality rates, on par with the US - it ranks #14 in income equality. [1] Canada is taking the risk that it may enter the negative feedback loop of prostitution <=> gender inequality. All it would take is one significant economic downturn while prostitution is legal. Women, who due to their less privileged status in the work force, would probably be affected more by a downturn and would see prostitution as a way out. The objectifying of women would begin here, gender inequality would materialize, and the negative feedback loop would solidify. THIS IS THE RISK, AND THERE IS NO REASON FOR AMERICA TO TAKE IT.

The choice is clear. There is precedence where societies with entrenched views on prostitution have an almost grotesque views on women's rights. Vote CON. (out of room)

[1], pg 46
Debate Round No. 3


0. Overview-
a. I want to remind all readers that my advocacy stems from a standard of negative rights. I do not claim negative impacts will not arise as a result of voting pro, I argue that protecting negative rights is more important.
b. I don't care how my opponent advocates the con, however I do urge that they advocate the con within the scope of the United States. They have not made the link between India Korea and the US, and if a link is made in their next speech it isn't viable.

1. Sources-
a. Drop, flow this argument Pro.

2. Cross-application-
a. This is a Slippery-Slope fallacy, an appeal to fear based on potential consequences.
b. Even if it wasn't a fallacy the argument begs itself; both exist in the Status Quo, and this argument requires the existence of one to fuel the other.

3. Gender inequality 1-
a. The Canada precedence proves my point here.
b. Slippery slope.

4. Gender inequality 2-
a. Appeal to popular belief; just because it's illegal now doesn't make it ipso facto wrong any more than slavery was right when it was legal.
b. Even if it is wrong, that isn't grounds to make it illegal; it violates personal autonomy by imposing moral law.

5. Caste System-
a. All these negative impacts stem from the caste system, not from a combination of that and prostitution.
b. Men are forced into similar situations because of the caste system. This is another appeal to fear stem from a neotenous desire to protect young girls; the fact is voting con won't help them whatsoever.

6. Canada 1-
a. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy; Canada is right next to us, we share a very similar culture and saying women don't engage in prostitution in the U.S. is nothing more than a cheap way to reject the pro.
b. My opponent ignores the fact that Canada's precedence has worked. Prostitutes not have the means to protect themselves
c. Finally, realize that all negative impacts my opponent suggests would come with affirmation still exist when voting con. Prostitution won't just disappear, but voting neg will help protect them.

7. Canada 2-
a. Brothels are legal in Canada[3].
b. The price can be negotiated so long as the negotiation takes place in a brothel[3]. The public communication law is to keep prostitutes from standing on a street corner hollering out to every person they see drive by.
c. This is an appeal to popular belief, just because prostitution is commonly seen as being immoral doesn't mean that making laws against it is valid.
d. Any income inequality argument must be ignored. All major studies conducted on the matter recognize that the income gap is a result of personal choice; men naturally tend to gravitate towards higher paying jobs (construction, business, technology) while women tend to gravitate towards lower paying jobs (childcare, food industry, design/art)[8][9][10].
e. This argument is ultimately an appeal to fear which ignores the pro's premise of protecting negative rights. Con concludes by claiming that this is a risk we cannot take; there is not argument against prostitution except "something bad may happen."

8. Conclusion-
a. I want to preface this conclusion by urging you all not to listen to new arguments in the next round since I am unable to respond to them. If anything Con writes hasn't been stated in a prior round ignore it.
b. The issue of negative rights still stands. regardless of what may happen, we cannot stand to allow laws which stem from individual moral belief.
c. The Con has failed to bring adequate refutations; at the point we realize this is true, there can no other vote than or the Pro.

Also, I realize my opponent has made several attacks on my character during this debate. Whether these stem from frustration or legitimate concern, I must urge you all to use your own objective sense. This isn't a sweet tea social, it's a debate. Certain claims will step on toes, but those claims are not malicious in nature.

I urge a vote for pro.


1) I want to thank PRO for the opportunity to argue this case. When I accepted this debate I was familiar with, but personally neutral to, the issue. Now, after some research, I am vehemently against prostitution in any form, and I have this debate to thank for this change in my personal position.

2) PRO "urg[es] you all not to listen to new arguments" even though PRO has proffered several of his own this round. Misconduct!

3) PRO has accused me of making "several attacks on [PRO's] character during this debate". Untrue, I merely stated that PRO is "fabricating inane rules and regulations," "unreasonably restrict[ing] the scope of [CON's] arguments," and is "no longer arguing in good faith," all of which I will reassert. Misconduct! Strawman!

4) Caste system is irrelevant. Untouchables can't touch any other caste, yet for some reason, untouchable Devadasi can become high ranking brahmin prostitutes? There is no logic in PRO's assertion. The real reasons are gender inequality and economics.

5) Reviewing my opponent's closing statement, I conclude that PRO has no case - his entire case now rests on refuting my arguments, so I will simply reassert them:

The case is simple. The US and Canada have similar views and traditions. Regarding prostitution, it is ILLEGAL AND HIGHLY ENFORCED - PRO's own source cites how Canada's brothels were legalized LESS THAN ONE YEAR AGO. [1] The US and Canada currently enjoy a high level of gender equality, ranking #4 and #14 respectively. [2] Canada is only now experimenting with laws legalizing prostitution.

Korea and India do NOT have similar views and traditions, neither between each other nor with the US and Canada. Yet Korea and India do have one thing in common - a long tradition of prostitution. Both Korea and India also have gigantic gaps in gender equality - Korea is ranked #109, and India #124. [2] Women who cannot find adequate work because of the gender gap are forced by economic circumstances into prostitution. Prostitution being what it is - non-productive, non-contributive to society - does not do much to advance society. This fuels further misogyny, a larger gap in gender inequality, and more prostitution. This is the negative feedback loop.

The difference between the US/CAN and Korea/India is that that US/CAN has a long history of PROSTITUTION BEING ILLEGAL. Once it is legal, all it would take is one economic downturn. Women, who earn less than men even in the US, will be hit hardest. If prostitution is legal, women may turn to it. Gender equality then materializes, as men pay disadvantaged women to have sex with them. Women slowly concentrate less on productive jobs and more on prostitution, the easy money. Gender inequality gets reinforced. This is the negative feedback loop.

How do I know this? Because this is EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN KOREA AND INDIA. Korean businessmen openly engage with prostitutes while on the job. [3] Think about what a Korean businesswoman would be doing during this escapade, and you can see why Korea ranks BY FAR THE LOWEST IN GENDER EQUALITY out of all OECD countries. [2]

PRO's two most prominent examples are India and Canada. Indian Devadasi are sold into child slavery as young as four years old. Canada has similar traditions to the US, illegal prostitution and high levels of gender equality. PRO's examples strengthen CON's case.

PRO accuses me of stoking fear. This is not an accusation, this is a fact. I am also afraid of jumping off 100 story buildings and swimming with crocodiles, because the likelihood of death is high. Similarly, I am afraid of legalizing prostitution, because the chances of a huge regression in gender equality are also high.

Finally, just use your common sense. Look at your mother, your daughter, your wife, your sister. Do you EVER want to see them as prostitutes?

Common sense. Vote CON.

(out of room)

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Indian rape protest:

Rape cases have jumped 875% over the past 40 years. India's stance on prostitution is very similar to South Korea's, illegal in name only, rampant in practice.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
As this debate and the voting period have ended, I want to thank again DoctorDeku for hosting this debate. I congratulate him on his point victory on this website.

I will also claim a victory, as an informal poll on CNN shows that 77% of voters want prostitution to be legal, and only 14% want it to remain illegal. To the extent that these two venues differed in opinion to such a large extent, I think this points to the fact that this issue does need a lot more debate in order to fully ascertain the consequences. Are either of these two voting systems in any way statistically significant? Absolutely not...regardless it is still fascinating how a bit of debate created a dramatic difference in the numbers.

Cheers and thanks to all who bothered to read this debate. I've learned a lot through researching the topic and discussing/debating it with several of you.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
"Would you tell your sister that she can't be a prostitute if she wants even for 400 pounds per hour?"

I would tell her to weigh it against the consequences. All it would take is just one photo of her in the act getting leaked onto the internet, and her future would be ruined.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago

If you don't see gender equality as preferable or unpreferable, then I can understand why you voted as you did.

However, I sincerely challenge you to voice your point of view to your wife, mother, girlfriend, or daughter, and not a prostitute, and see what kind of reaction you'd get.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
Here in Europe, we have countries in which prostitution is legal and others in which is not, interestingly the countries in which it is iligal they have a very high levels of prostitution, some prostitutes are badly paid, and some are very well paid like 400 pounds per hour [check diary of a london call girl].
Would you tell your sister that she can't be a prostitute if she wants even for 400 pounds per hour?

The solution for gender inequality is not to ban prostitution, is to endorse european socialism, no one should be force to work in prostitution.

By the way, woman also rent men.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Fair enough.

Again, good debate, cheers.
Posted by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
Let's talk about this PM one point at a time, I don't feel like arguing about it here.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Again, in relation to negative rights, I repeat:

"Allowing prostitutes the ability to hire bodyguards is quite similar to allowing women the ability to work for equal pay as men. Both need government interjection, both are "moral issues", both involve protection of a woman's rights to basic freedoms. This was why I wholly ignored that argument, and thus saw no need to even address it. I focused instead on the bigger picture."
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
"The gender pay gap is a myth, at least in the United States."

You will have to expand on this. I have no idea in which direction you are referring.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 3 years ago
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: Con rooted his argument in Indian and Korean prostitution, whereas Pro rooted his in Canadian prostitution. Prostitution in Canada has not resulted in the problems con asserts it does, which suggests that there are other differences resulting in these issues not present in North America, as Pro pointed out.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: I remain undecided on this issue. This debate was hard to follow, with both sides adopting a clipped sort of shorthand style. I think Pro made a mistake introducing child prostitution in India into the debate. He was trying to show that the morality is subjective, but the net effect was to spotlight the immorality in an extreme case. Pro failed to use full links, an S&G error. Con had a non-printing character at the end of two links, which bothers some browsers and not others. Con cited blogs, but the blogs had good sources in them and offered interesting info. Pro's sources were overall less informative. Using a strawman is not a conduct violation -- it's a debatable point. I think Pro's strongest argument was legality in Canada, but Con successfully questioned the extent of the legality. I'm giving the argument edge to Con, but Con stepped over the line with nfounded conduct allegations.
Vote Placed by phantom 3 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Master Riddler
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 3 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 
Reasons for voting decision: epic
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 3 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for false accusation of broken links. (worked for me) Otherwise, equal in arguments. Economics and society vs freedom... I'm still undecided for the issue now.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 3 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 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: Con's grand argument rest in Gender Equality, however.. Con assumes that "gender equality" is a good thing... as this was never granted (nor denied) by Pro, one may take it as conceded... but I disgree... i think it's something that has to be proved (Con should have asked Pro for agreement on it)... while Pro didn't argue against it that well, Con was rapped up in his own head about gender equality, with no real basis for it. Con did get Pro to go off topic (which some consider a win), but I don't think that is enough.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument that prostitution is only harmful for reasons of a subjective nature only, are quite clearly rebutted by Con by pointing out that children as young as six are used in prostitution acts in the Devadasi hindu temples, I fail to see how using this example can ecourage the act in the United States. and further point out the harmful effects that are objective to a six year old forced into prostituion. Plus I fail to be able to activate this link to the source of the Devadasi temples offered by Pro.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 3 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 Checkmark1 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: Both sides got caught up in the issue of whether prostitution is de facto immoral. Yet the real issue is whether legalizing it is moral. That is, prostitution may be something we cannot get rid of. So given that, is it better to legalize it? The positive example from Canada clinches the debate for Pro. Neither side gets sources. Con had broken links. Pro's links don't appear as hyperlinks which is annoying. Use a different url shortener. Conduct to Pro for Con's statement that Pro was not debating in good faith.