Should Prostitution Be Legal?
Debate Rounds (5)
I'll be arguing that prostitution should be legal. My opponent will be arguing that prostitution should be illegal.
Round 1 - Opening Statements from Con
Round 2 - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from Con
Round 3 - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from Con
Round 4 - Defense from Pro, Con Must Waive
1) No hate speech/ slander
2) No kritkiks
3) No plagiarism
4) No new arguments in final round
5) Please use citations
6) No forfeiture
7) No trolls
8) BoP is shared
1) Vote Convincing Arguments
2) Only vote conduct if plagiarism, forfeiture, and/or slander is present
3) Only vote spelling and grammar if it's so poor it detracts from the arguments at hand
Should - Prostitution -
Comment if you're interested. Thank you.
I accept with the knowledge that the only rules that apply are those that are listed above.
My case, for sake of adaptability, will be a one-off style of Poetics.
My opponent broke the very rules I constructed this debate upon. I wanted a serious debater, not someone who would disobey those rules. Also, note the message at the bottom of the page:
"Comment if you're interested. Thank you."
My opponent never did this. He just accepted without my permission.
For my opponent's next round, I ask him to waive, as he went against my rules. I hope my opponent takes this request. Thank you.
And a pre-empt to their understanding of the structure, my acceptance was my 'opening statement' from the Con side.
It's not my fault that my opponent doesn't understand how the site works for making debates operate -- don't penalise me because they didn't say I couldn't accept. I legitimately wanted to debate this, that's why I had forwarded what my argument fleshed-out will be.
My opponent claims he did comment about accepting the debate. If you look at the actual comments of the debate, you'll see the following from my opponent:
"Hey, could you please post the aff sooner than later? I like a quicker moving round than a slow one (I prefer 12 hour response times, but sometimes we all fall behind)." This was made after they accepted my debate. They didn't comment that they were interested in debating with me, they just commented telling me they'd prefer if I uploaded my arguments as soon as possible.
"Lol, wtf? You can make an argument instead of being lazy ..." I was not being lazy. I just wanted a strict set of rules placed upon this debate and my opponent broke the rules of structure. Here's the structure I proposed:
"Round 1 - Opening Statements from Con
"Round 2 - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from Con
"Round 3 - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from Con
"Round 4 - Defense from Pro, Con Must Waive"
By opening statements, I meant you're arguments. Even if my opponent mixed that up, I wouldn't be able to rebut an introduction. That would be ridiculous. The only reason I'm doing that right now is because my opponent failed to follow my rules.
My opponent then says that I shouldn't penalize them because the site didn't say he couldn't accept. But I did say this:
"Comment if you're interested. Thank you." I legitimately wanted to debate this topic too. That's why I made the debate. But I wanted you to comment so that I could find a good opponent.
Are you serious... I followed your dumb rules and now you're too afraid to debate. This is ridiculous. I wanted to legitimately talk about prostitution, but I guess since you're too lazy ...
You make me want to light my skin on fire.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.