The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
TheChristian
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Series 1 Episode 7 : Legality of Prostitution.

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 1 vote the winner is...
SebUK
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/13/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 814 times Debate No: 66948
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

SebUK

Pro

Burden of Proof is shared , round 1 is acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting and I request that in the next round he makes a case for himself rather than address the things I say here . Rebuttals should occur in Round 3 .

The Case from Morality- It is wrong to ban prostitution as it is not inherently an immoral behaviour and this is because it doesn't include the initiation of force . A sexual act between one person and another in which one person agrees to pay for the service is a voluntarily relationship , a contract . It is possible for one of the people included in the act to end up with an STD this is however the result of the person being irresponsible and choosing to have sex and taking that risk. It is my opinion that we should stop making excuses for irresponsible behaviour as this is counter-productive . Unless my opponent also advocates for people not being aloud to eat foods that contain high-fat , high-sugar and high-salt content he cannot make the argument that we should not legalise prostitution because of the spread of STD's . Not mentioning the fact that if there was a legal market for prostitution it would be safer than the current one.

The Case from safety- As it has been shown through the alcohol prohibition in 1920s and early 1930s when you criminalize certain parts of culture crime increases . 'In a study of more than thirty major U.S cities during the Prohibition years of 1920 and 1921, the number of crimes increased by 24 percent. Additionally, theft and burglaries increased by 9 percent, homicides by 12.7 percent, assaults and battery rose by 13 percent, drug addiction by 44.6 percent, and police department costs rose by 11.4 percent. This was largely the result of "black-market violence" and the diversion of law enforcement resources elsewhere. Despite the Prohibition movement's hope that outlawing alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to Prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.' -Charles Hanson Towne (1923). The Rise and Fall of Prohibition: The Human Side of What the Eighteenth Amendment Has Done to the United States. New York: Macmillan. p. 159–62. Prostitution has been a part of human culture for a long time and we haven't seen it end . The fact that it is illegal in so many nations means that there has to be a black market and this black market cannot be regulated which leads to poor management and violence . The Economist says (http://www.economist.com...) ' Governments should seize the moment to rethink their policies. Prohibition, whether partial or total, has been a predictable dud. It has singularly failed to stamp out the sex trade. Although prostitution is illegal everywhere in America except Nevada, old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). And prohibition has ugly results. Violence against prostitutes goes unpunished because victims who live on society’s margins are unlikely to seek justice, or to get it. The problem of sex tourism plagues countries, like the Netherlands and Germany, where the legal part of the industry is both tightly circumscribed and highly visible.' If prostitution was legal we could regulate the market in ways to make prostitution safer such as require prostitutes every couple of years to test for STD's. Marjan Wijers in her article in the book Global Sex Workers wrote "Criminalizing the sex industry creates ideal conditions for rampant exploitation and abuse of sex workers...[I]t is believed that trafficking in women, coercion and exploitation can only be stopped if the existence of prostitution is recognized and the legal and social rights of prostitutes are guaranteed." To this I can only add that I agree 100% .

The case from Economics- We already addressed Morality and Safety . Now let's address legalising prostitution from an economic stand point . If prostitution was made legal the market itself could be taxed and this would produce large amounts of money for the government . 'Another benefit of legalizing prostitution resides in the ability to generate tax revenue. Once the applicant has successfully obtained licensing she may work at a brothel, enjoying legal income taxable at the appropriate rate. The average annual income of an employee at one Nevada brothel working only one week per month is at least $100,000 (Ayres). Based on this figure, each legally licensed sex worker would contribute more than $20,000 in federal income taxes per year.' -(http://people.emich.edu...) There is massive potential for a new booming industry and not just in the USA , this new field of legal work could provide jobs and money not only for those seeking employment but it would also help the state through tax revenue . Let me reference back to the quote from the Economist that I included in my case from safety - 'old figures put its value at $14 billion annually nationwide; surely an underestimate. More recent calculations in Britain, where prostitution is legal but pimping and brothels are not, suggest that including it would boost GDP figures by at least £5.3 billion ($8.9 billion). '.These are large sums of money which can improve the conditions of many countries economically.

In addition as this is my last argument I would like to point out that legalising prostitution would also lower rape rates . Legalising prostitution could make it easier to access and make it more available .

'If prostitution were legalized in the United States it is rational to
assume that prices would resemble those in the Netherlands, this would result in an I of
80 and a decrease in the rape rate of 10 per 100,000. The population of the United States
if roughly 275 million so this should result is a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes
per year. ' -(http://www.independent.org...)

I hope that I have made a well thought-out argument for legalising prostitution and I wish good luck to Con.

TheChristian

Con

Ok, first off, STDS can be spread rapidly during prostitution, and unwanted pregnancies can lead to abortion. This defies morality, and sex should be between loving, consenting adults, not just oversexed consenting adults. No man will have sex with a pregnant lady, so that drains her livelihood. Stds are very deadly and painful. Aids is an std which wiped out many, so i not only have made my case, but regrettably had to rebut my opponent in the process, sorry about that. Your move. Good luck
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

-REBUTTALS

Con starts off with 'Ok, first off, STDS can be spread rapidly during prostitution, and unwanted pregnancies can lead to abortion.' I have already addressed the issue of STD's , in R2 . 'If prostitution was legal we could regulate the market in ways to make prostitution safer such as require prostitutes every couple of years to test for STD's. ' . The debate is not over abortion , I would like to point out that not everybody considers abortion morally wrong and that additionally it is likely for business owners to require their prostitutes to use contraception as why would a business owner want to loose a worker through their pregnancy? surely not every prostitute would have an abortion nor would many prostitutes want to get infected with a disease or get pregnant. If there would be enough support the government could introduce a regulation telling all prostitutes to use contraception although I wouldn't support this . An online doctor-adviser says this about prostitutes in Amsterdam -

'Yes, I'm sure that a visit to the GUM would be a good idea.

However, having once gone to a medical seminar about the working girls in Amsterdam I can tell you that in my opinion they are the cleanest sex workers in the world.

They can get a condom on a guy even if he doesn't know they're doing it! And your friends are right about them being tested regularly.'

Referring back to what I said in R2 - ' A sexual act between one person and another in which one person agrees to pay for the service is a voluntarily relationship , a contract . It is possible for one of the people included in the act to end up with an STD this is however the result of the person being irresponsible and choosing to have sex and taking that risk. It is my opinion that we should stop making excuses for irresponsible behaviour as this is counter-productive . Unless my opponent also advocates for people not being aloud to eat foods that contain high-fat , high-sugar and high-salt content he cannot make the argument that we should not legalise prostitution because of the spread of STD's . Not mentioning the fact that if there was a legal market for prostitution it would be safer than the current one. ' I think I made a very valid argument there that you did not take into account when typing up your own argument .

Volenti non fit injuria - It is an old principle that states if someone willingly chooses to do something that may result in harm then he cannot blame others for the harm being done . 'This defies morality, and sex should be between loving, consenting adults, ' You did not back up your argument with evidence , it is a baseless assertion . You do not have the right to tell others (consenting adults) who they can engage in a voluntarily relationship with such as a sexual one nor do you have the right to steal taxpayers money and spend it on something useless such as fighting prostitution . ' No man will have sex with a pregnant lady, so that drains her livelihood.' Volenti non fit injuria - It was her choice , she was being irresponsible and now has to pay for it . ' so i not only have made my case, but regrettably had to rebut my opponent in the process, sorry about that. Your move. Good luck' I don't see where my opponent has refuted any of my arguments .

TheChristian

Con

Ok, my argument was not over abortion, but i could debate that topic if you ask. Contraception cannot be required, due to rights and laws. Stds are contagious even with the contraception. So unless you can make argument that thet aren't, that is nullified. I refuted about all of those argument,and a doctor can be wrong, so that has been nullified. I never saw pregnancy argument refuted, so i need one of those done, and i deleberately make these short because they are compacted into just a few sentences.
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Pro

'Ok, my argument was not over abortion, but i could debate that topic if you ask.' Not now. 'Contraception cannot be required, due to rights and laws. Stds are contagious even with the contraception. So unless you can make argument that thet aren't, that is nullified.' You have not proved that but it doesn't matter , I wouldn't advocate for such a policy to exist so I'm gone use a different argument I would also like to add that you have not used a single source in any of your arguments . They are purely worthless assertions . There is no evidence that shows STD's would spread faster if prostitution was legalised . One study shows this : 'But more interesting than that is this: The pair found that rape decreased by almost one-third, down 31 percent. Gonorrhea decreased by 39 percent.' - The study is referring to a loophole that decriminalized indoor prostitution in a certain part of America . -(http://www.laweekly.com...) . ' I refuted about all of those argument,' you have barely attempted to address any of my arguments that I stated in R2. 'and a doctor can be wrong' I'm not gone address what you said here as you have not backed it up with evidence , you would have to prove that a doctor is wrong in most cases when checking for STD's for that argument to even make sense as even if in a minority of cases a doctor was wrong the policy would help reduce the spread of STD's (again this is just a possibility not what I'm saying I would advocate for) . 'I never saw pregnancy argument refuted, so i need one of those done, ' What argument? please do elaborate .
TheChristian

Con

Ok, im just going to say that doctors have malpractice insurance, and if say, 2% of 18+ people get prostitutes. That has no connection to rape, and if we assume that number, 2% s accurate, then over 5 billion people visit prostitutes. Then, say, 1% of prostitutes get an STD, then 200,000 stds can be blamed on prostitutes,so then if they are protected, it is almost exactly as likely to happen- government-supplied std information.
Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Pro

In the previous round I have shown a study proving that legalising prostitution would lead to STD's decreasing in popularity . I don't accept your guess as a valid argument equal to that of a documented study . Conclusion - Con has failed to address most of my arguments from R1 while I addressed everything that was worthy of addressing , Con's spelling was worse and his arguments were not detailed . Vote Pro .
TheChristian

Con

My guess, as you call it is actually understating the true numbers, due to nonreporting, and basic error. My math was accurate, and it is addressed in all rounds all arguments. However, i did not properly rebut, so personally id vote for my opponent. Thank you for the debate, and my opponent never rebutted me.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Stefy 2 years ago
Stefy
An issue that needs to be talked about. My compliments to the instigator.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
donald.keller
SebUKTheChristian
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was one sided after Con brought up one small argument, dropping EVERYTHING Pro said. While Con's case was debated through out the debate, Pro's case remained unchallenged. Sad, really. I was hoping for more.