The Instigator
FoxTrot16
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should prostitution be legal?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 92829
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

FoxTrot16

Pro

Round 1) Accept debate
Round 2) Opening Statements
Round 3-5) Rebuttal
Debate Round No. 1
FoxTrot16

Pro

Let me first start off by stating that prostitution is the oldest living profession that has worked for thousands of years yet it gets shunned more than any job. The majority of the people who want it to be illegalized are mostly afraid of STD's spreading around quickly and the rate of them to skyrocket. But as I will explain, this is not the truth. Where prostitution is illegal, sex workers are more prone to STD's due to the fact of lack of health care and other social services. However, if we legalized it we could require that every sex worker has to wear condoms and get tested for STD's weekly or even monthly.
Another reason to legalize prostitution is that it lowers sex crimes and violence. In 1980, lawmakers accidentally removed the section that stated prostitution was illegal, it went unnoticed until 2003. During these years the number of woman sex workers went up while rape decreased by 31%. There was also a 39% decline in gonorrhea. Legalizing prostitution can also help stop human and child trafficking. If there were sex workers at the ready, nobody would have to literally by somebody just to have intercourse. In Germany where prostitution is legalized, human trafficking rates went down by 10%. Lastly, the government should not have control on what I do to my body. If I want to sell it for sex, I should be able to considering I own it.
SJM

Con

My opponent starts off by saying prostitution is one of the oldest but yet gets shunned, viz, because it"s old it must be good, which is the appeal to tradition fallacy. Next, my opponent makes the argument that because prostitution become legalized that they have no std and they could enforce a condom policy, but yet the evidence i"m sharing explains why such a thing wouldn"t enforced. "In one study, 47% of women in U.S. prostitution stated that men expected sex without a condom; 73% reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom; and 45% of women said that men became abusive if they insisted that men use condoms (Raymond et al, 2001, p. 72). Although certain sex businesses had rules that required men to wear condoms, men nonetheless attempted to have sex without condoms. One woman stated: "It"s "regulation" to wear a condom at the sauna, but negotiable between parties on the side. Most guys expected blow jobs without a condom (Raymond et al, 2001, p. 72)." Plus the idea about testing for STD"s, that would take way too much time and money. I find my opponent"s argument flawed because it brings up rape and it being decreased by 31%, but the reason why it"s flawed is because rapes do not occur a lot, and rapes are not always reported because it causes too much pain for the victim to speak up, so it isn"t really reliable information. There was also about a 64 million population increase which could explain for both rape and gonorrhea. My opponent then says human trafficking went down by 10% but doesn"t really a card for it which makes it hard to counter except with my own card, "In the year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, eight Dutch victim support organizations reported an increase in the number of victims of trafficking, and twelve victim support organization reported that the number of victims from other countries has not diminished (Bureau NRM, 2002, p. 75). Forty-three of the 348 municipalities (12%) in the Netherlands choose to follow a no-brothel policy, but the Minister of Justice has indicated that the complete banning of prostitution within any municipality could conflict with the federally guaranteed "right to free choice of work" (Bureau NRM, 2002, p.19)." This basically provides information from a very reliable and biased source but to my disadvantage, but still refutes my opponent"s point.
And we obviously have certain restrictions on the use of our bodies, for example we can"t be nude in public. Why are these so? Because we can not infringe on someone else"s well being while still trying to get ours. Spreading a STD is infringing on the well being of others. Also the government has the obligation to help the people of the U.S., meaning we help people avoid getting in trouble.
I would also argue that prostitution discourages students to get an education because it tells that they always have a job to fall back on, without realizing how dangerous it really is. This will change students wanting to become a doctor, someone surely does more for the good than prostitutes, to someone who works for a job in which he or she has to be on the lookout all the time to watch out for people trying to rape, kidnap, kill them, etc.

Sources- http://www.embracedignity.org...
Debate Round No. 2
FoxTrot16

Pro

My opponent argues that the 31% is completely false due to the factor that not every rape is reported, which is a very bold statement if I may say. Yes, not every rape is reported but the general percentage is correct. Next my opponent argues the condom usage of sex workers in U.S prostitution. But they fail to mention if this is legal or illegal prostitution considering only certain parts in Nevada have prostitution legalized. Men will try not to wear a condom during sex, but that is where you would enforce the rule and if they get violent, make them leave. When my opponent argues that testing for STD's would cost time and money, the business itself typically pays for it so it is not out of the states or governments money. I am not entirely aware of where you got your statistics for the Netherlands, but I have a few statistics and a site that contradict that entire argument. Let me first quote the creator of the article, Maggie McNeil, when she writes," This sort of statistical malpractice has always been typical of prostitution research. But the incentive to produce it has dramatically increased in the past decade, thanks to a media-fueled moral panic over sex trafficking. Sex-work prohibitionists have long seen trafficking and sex slavery as a useful Trojan horse. In its 2010 "national action plan," for example, the activist group Demand Abolition writes," Framing the Campaign"s key target as sexual slavery might garner more support and less resistance, while framing the Campaign as combating prostitution may be less likely to mobilize similar levels of support and to stimulate stronger opposition." She means that a lot of wrong statistics are out there and are not reliable because they are made to make people believe that prostitution is bad. Let me quote her again when she writes," New Zealand legalized prostitution in 2003. A study by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice five years later found "no incidence of trafficking," and sex worker advocates say the law has made it easier for sex workers to report abuse, and for law enforcement to make arrests for crimes against sex workers. Some anti-prostitution activists have tried to claim that Germany"s liberal form of legalization has encouraged sex trafficking. But they actually cite coercion among illegal sex workers (for example, those who are too young to legally work at a German brothel) and claim that their exploitation had somehow been caused by the legal framework from which those women had been excluded."(McNeil, Maggie. "Lies, Damned Lies and Sex Work Statistics." Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2016. ) Once again we can see that no additional sex trafficking was found in the study as well as more false statistics that are taking place. Lastly, in the brothels of Nevada, a research was done for over 15 years on whether or not the sex workers felt safe working in the brothels and the majority,84%, reported that they felt safer, considering they had law enforcement on there side. This research team also found no sex trafficking taking place in the brothel and even convinced Canada to decriminalize prostitution. (Brents, Barbara G. Nevada"s Legal Brothels Make Workers Feel Safer. The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2014. Web.)
In conclusion, I think it is safe to say that prostitution does not lead to any additional rapes or sex trafficking and it should be legalized and treated like any other job.

Thank you for the debate
SJM

Con

My opponent says that what I said is a bold statement, but this is my opponent just trying to slip by my point and not concede it, because there is nothing bold by saying that some rapes aren"t committed when there have been for a fact people who have not reported them and it"s reasonable to say unless my opponent is the denying the painful effect of rape. "Everyone should feel that they can report their rape. Not everyone does for lots of different, often highly personal reasons. We live in a society that blames victims and survivors, and which places responsibility on women to avoid rape, not on men to not rape. Our society sexualises women in such a way that all women are viewed as sexually available at all times to all men and creates the idea that a women who refuses to have sex is unfairly denying her boyfriend/husband/friend/date. Our society teaches men that sex is their right and that women are fickle and often mean yes when they say no. Our society teaches men that they should pursue women and sex even when their would-be bedroom partner is unwilling, because "a no is just a yes that needs convincing". I recently told that I had a responsibility to report my rape for the sake of future victims. This is a list of the reasons why I didn"t and won"t report the rape. Reason 37 makes me feel very guilty and ashamed. I want to protect other women, but there is no way I can do that without exposing myself to possible physical, mental and emotional danger and the potential of irreversible estrangement from my family. Further I have no reason to believe that my report would be taken seriously, be investigated or result in conviction. In fact I have every reason to believe that he would be acquitted and would use that as a way to justify future rapes." Even though rape culture is really stupid, that doesn"t remove from the fact that people still think this way. My opponent also misunderstands my card by saying that it matters if parts of nevada was legalized or not, but that does not matter at all because the point is that these people have an attitude where they don"t care about protection, whether illegal or legal, and therefore have regard only for the pleasure of not using one instead of being careful. And my opponent makes the argument that the businesses will pay for it, it"s an absurd thing to think a business will pay for it when they could just do it illegally like they have already done, or not just enforce that one law. This is the same mentality that monopolies have when they don"t follow certain rules so they can grow in business. Next my opponent uses a really bad card which is not evidence at all, but merely someone just saying that out there nowadays there are people who lie about statistics, that"s very obvious but your evidence in no way does it say why mine specifically is wrong. Next my opponent brings out a statistic that says in 2003 prostitution was legalized but five years later there was no incident, well it"s not accurate to say that it was because of prostitution that there was no incident when it was five years later. That"s a significant amount of time, they simply could have just waited for one year to pop up with no incident and say that. Plus it"s that"s unreliable being that people don"t speak up for the reasons listed above. My opponent then says that 84% felt safer which doesn't actually mean that they are safer. I bet people in the Orlando gay bar felt pretty safe until there was the shooting. Also, again my opponent reported that no such thing was reported, but again I wouldn"t be surprised if a significant amount of people didn"t report such incidents for having the mentality listed above. And just because it is legalized doesn"t mean people don"t go to the street and still prostitute, which is very critical to this debate regarding all her argument about them getting STD"s and using condoms. "Legalization was supposed to get prostituted women off the street. Many women don't want to register and undergo health checks, as required by law in certain countries legalizing prostitution, so legalization often drives them into street prostitution. And many women choose street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by the new sex "businessmen."

I thank my opponent for this debate, and also the people viewing.

Sources- http://www.liberateyourself.co.uk...
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca...
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SJM 5 months ago
SJM
Lol thank you for that but i disregard anything from the bible.
Posted by Thiest_1998 5 months ago
Thiest_1998
1 Corinthians 6:18-20 - Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
Posted by whiteflame 5 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: youmils03// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Both of them had serious flaws in their collection of evidence. Con successfully argues that prostitution is harmful but does not successfully argue that it should be illegal. Just because something is wrong or bad doesn't mean that the government should prevent people from doing it. Con needed to go further with this. Didn't love Pro either, so the points are 3-1, a fairly narrow margin. Other votes should balance it out and could change the overall decision altogether. I'd give Con a C and Pro a B-.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain conduct. Just because the voter thinks Con deserves a point doesn't obviate the need to explain why this point was allocated. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to assess specific arguments made by both debaters, and while the voter does that for Con, he does not do so for Pro.
************************************************************************
No votes have been placed for this debate.