The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.
Debate Rounds (4)
Just a note to voters: the ELO minimum has been set to 2500.
I think this resolution is relatively straightforward, but I'll be as clear as possible. This is a policy-based resolution, and as such, it is my burden to present a case. The burden of proof is on me, as I am seeking to change policy, though if my opponent decides to present a counterplan, our burdens will be shared.
The United States Federal Government: In this case, since we're referring to U.S. policy and what it allows for, we're necessarily referring to what should be done by the U.S. Legislature. To be clear, we're not talking about the political will for this to be done, but rather the positives and negatives of the legislature passing my proposed bill into law.
Legalize: "make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law."
Prostitution: "the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment."
This debate will have a total of 4 rounds. The usual rule of no arguments in the final round still applies as always, first round is acceptance, and the opening rounds may include no rebuttals, in order to balance the debate.
With that, I await my opponent's acceptance.
Thank you for the welcome, and I wish my opponent good luck.I agree upon the definition's he had provided, so I will go on to state my case. As Con, I will be convincing the voter's that Prostitution should be illegal on many levels:
Argument 1: Prostitution violate's one's rights / It's immoral.
One may ask, "How is prostituion violating one's right, isn't it their choice?" In this case you're right. It is a person's choice to preform sexual favor's for another for money. But as a goverment, it's their duties to inform one's saftey as well as the rest of society.
"It violates the prohibition of torture and of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment because clients’ acts and practices of sexual 'entertainment' and pornography are acts of power and violence over the female body. "
Many can agree, the main reason as to why women become prostitute's is because they need money, they are unable to get a job, and there's no possible wayto earn money other than being a prostitute because it's easy money. This goes right along the lines of " It violates the prohibitation of torture and of crual, inhuman or degrading treatment." Goverment should offer more organization's that help women who are postitutes. They should be teaching them business ethics, how to build a resume, interviewing tips and mentoring them along the way. This would get more women off the street's and get them to start working on a "buisness" not, and educational real job.
First off, i'd like the define some defintion's here
Immoral: violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Moral's: of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.
Principle's: an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
I'd like to ask this question first: How is prostitution by any means is prostitution moral, how dose it have any principles?
It dosent. Many women arent left without a choice, prostituition is the only way for them to make money, to be able to survive.
"A few years ago, prostitutes disappeared from the pages of medical journals; they returned as 'sex workers.' Nor did they work in prostitution any more: they were employees in the 'sex industry.' Presumably, orgasms are now a consumer product just like any other. As for pimps, the correct term is probably: 'brief sexual liaison coordinators.'... The idea of the state coercing its population into prostitution is, of course, repellent. Even the most liberal of liberals would probably agree with that. This means that there is after all a moral difference between prostitution and washing dishes in the local restaurant or stacking supermarket shelves. And that prostitution is both age-old and ineradicable does not make it any less degrading to all concerned.
Anyone would know the difference between prostitution and washing dishes, or working in a store. Which has moral's? of course workin in a store would because you are wroking in a professional setting, learning buisness ethics and working in a sfe humane way. It's clear to see that, Prostitution has no moral's what so ever. Preofrmin sexual act's more money is Immoral, as the defintion provided above.
Now, not only is it immoral to just the Women herself, but what about other's who are forced into it? That's right, I'm talking about Human Trafficing.
What is Human Trafficing? Trafficking in persons is a serious crime and a grave violation of human rights. Every year, thousands of men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers, in their own countries and abroad. Almost every country in the world is affected by trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims. UNODC, as guardian of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) and the Protocols thereto, assists States in their efforts to implement the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Trafficking in Persons Protocol).
Allot of people want to say that trafficing dosen't happen in the U.S, but it actually dose.
"The United States of America is principally a transit and destination country for trafficking in persons. It is estimated that14,500 to 17,500 people, primarily women and children, are trafficked to the U.S. annually"
By making prostitution illegal, it makes human trafficcing okay. It will just make it much easier for dealer's to bring young men and women here to the U.S and have their bodies sold for sexaul pleasure's. The worst part is that most of them don't have a choice, they are forced into this trade. Making Prostitution illegal will decrease the chances of letting theese young men and women being transported here and being taken advantage of. How could anybody disagree with this.
Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking in the United States:
There are 100,000 to 300,000 underage girls being sold for sex in America.9
The average age of entry into prostitution is 12-14 years old.10
50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States each year.11
1 out of every 3 teens on the street will be lured toward prostitution within 48 hours of running away from home.12
Minor victims were sold an average of 10-15 times a day, 6 days a week.12
1 out of 5 pornographic images is of a child.12
The sale of child pornography has become a $3 billion dollar industry.12
Over 100,000 websites offer child pornography.12
55 percent of internet child pornography comes from the United States.12
How could anyont think this is okay? The only way to stop this is to make prostitution ILLEGAL.
The only possible way to stop this is to have stricter law's and making sure theese law's are inforced.
Pack to Pro!
As I mentioned in R1, the burden of proof is on me to show that a change in policy is beneficial. As such, I'll be advocating a specific policy. That policy would be to expand the system currently available in locations in America that already have it legalized, most specifically Nevada. This means that legal brothels will be opened and regulated like any other business, including wage laws, employment laws, and taxation. Brothels will be required to allocate a fair amount of money to their prostitutes rather than taking out a huge cut for themselves, as is currently the case. They will be required to have clean facilities, hire only adults, get their prostitutes tested regularly for STDs, and require the use of contraception to prevent the spread of disease and pregnancy.
With that, I'll launch into some advantages.
The reality is that prostitution is alive and well in this country, and that it will happen whether or not we do anything about it. That system, however, allows the widespread harms that currently exist for them, and as this encompasses as many as 2 million people, it's not a problem we can ignore. The women involved in this system are often so afraid to leave it due to abuse by their pimps that even those who find it untenable cannot leave. Beyond that, many women are simply dependent upon the money they earn in this system as other job opportunities are not available to them, often because they have suffered so much abuse as children, including rape and incest, that they simply don't have the wherewithal to take on another job. This means that we're currently forcing them into these abusive situations in order to survive.
Enforcement is, itself, harmful. 62,668 people were arrested in 2010 are arrested each year for solicitation of sex, taking up valuable police time and crowding our prisons and jails at huge cost through both the trial and incarceration. This isn't just a cost issue (more on that later). There are actually two substantial problems with this. The first is a lack of reporting actual crimes like rape and forced sex, both things that happen in the current system. The second is that the psychological implications go well beyond the duration of imprisonment. Whether we're talking about PTSD, diminished self-worth, severe difficulties with reintegration into society, social withdrawal, interpersonal distrust, or any of the many other documented psychological harms to prisoners, this is a tremendous problem, and one that leads to breaking down families and lives.
The law also consigns prostitution to being a criminal enterprise, which is the reason why things like human trafficking are such tremendous concerns " an industry built on crime is not going to care if they add a few more illegal practices to the mix. A legal industry has a lot more to lose by engaging in blatantly illegal activities.
Looking at STDs, Nevada has substantially lowered their prevalence and incidence, to the point that a job that's more broadly legalized, namely porn stars, are actually in worse shape than prostitutes. Even decriminalization, a very basic response that is only the most basic part of my policy, has been effective in other states like Rhode Island at reducing STD rates, as well as rape. Please note that this isn't just a benefit for the prostitutes themselves " sexual violence and STD incidence both decreased in the state population as a whole. Other studies have found that reduced homicide and rape rates country-wide are "anti-correlated with the availability of prostitution. It is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year."
The protection from physical abuse is even stronger. There are fewer instances of violence, rape and disease in the Nevada system. I solve for a great deal of this just by allowing prostitutes mobility out from under abusive pimps and johns, who are responsible for an average of 16 and 33 reported rapes per year, respectively. 82% are physically assaulted, 83% are threatened with a weapon, and nearly 70% have been raped since becoming a prostitute. If implemented on a country-wide basis, it's estimated that we would have 25,000 fewer rapes in this country. Murder, which goes at 20 times the national average among prostitutes, would also be ameliorated by both regulation and dramatically improved reporting structures.[10, 11]
All of these impacts to life loss and suffering are dramatic and easily the most substantive points in this debate.
There are a number of reasons why prostitution should be legal for the sake of justice. But in order to understand this, I first need to frame what a job is.
Fundamentally, a job is a negotiated task agreed to by legally consenting individuals, usually involving some pay being given to the person completing the task. As adult human beings, we have the freedom to take on any number of jobs, ranging from the mundane and safe to the extraordinary and dangerous. And the only thing that gets in the way of any individual adult's ability to acquire these jobs is finding someone who will hire you for the purpose.
I would say that the ability for these negotiations to proceed is itself a civil liberty. Human beings have a fundamental right to work, something that can easily be established by looking at international law. We can look to any number of sources. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states it plainly in Article 23.1. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is unequivocal as well, and this can be found in Part III, Article 6. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights agrees as well, in Article 15. I think these all firmly establish the right to work quite clearly, and as long as this right exists, it must be extended to all adult, capable human beings.
So what does it mean to deny this right? It's dehumanizing. Denying work to people who would otherwise be able to get it denies their agency as individuals. The law is currently engaging in this dehumanization, engaging in the unjust decision to illegalize a line of work that 1% of all American women have engaged in at some point in their lives. Since this is an industry dominated by women, it's even more unjust, as it's a discriminatory practice that predominantly affects a single sex.
One could argue that this is associated with the risk of the profession. I would counter that the risks are far greater so long as prostitution is illegal, but that there are also many other risky professions that are allowed in status quo, and for which we would find a ban to be abhorrent. An example would be a worker on an oil rig, where explosions, fires, fatigue, heavy machinery, bad weather and choppy seas put many of these workers at great risk. Extensive studies have been done detailing these harms, which include many mental illnesses. Oil rigs are male dominated, and despite safety improvements, continue to be a great source of physical risk. Why should these men get to engage in a risky job that requires a certain body type, while women are consistently denied the capability to do the same through prostitution? There's fundamentally no difference here, and the law should not treat them differently based on arbitrary evaluations of what it considers moral.
This breaks down into 2 sources of cost savings included in my policy.
A) Arrests, court and incarceration fees
Taken together, these average roughly $2,000 per arrestee. For cities, this means an average of $7.5 million on prostitution, and taken country-wide, that cost adds up to roughly $200 million per year.[18, 19] While the costs of regulation replace some of these, those costs are already built into basic regulation systems already in place, and the cost of expanding them to a new industry are minimal by comparison.
Prostitution is an $18 billion industry, and even if we assume 0 growth following legalization, the government stands to earn $6 billion in federal income taxes and $2 billion in licensing fees.
In both cases, the resulting finances are substantial. Most of the costs and bureaucracies of regulation, as in Nevada, are borne by the brothels themselves, creating a barrier to entry that also ensures that unsavory owners simply cannot even start in the industry. That means the government is receiving billions in revenue and paying hundreds of millions fewer to boot. Those funds can be spent on better enforcement of human trafficking, more effective education systems and rehabilitation facilities to give these women more job options, better health care systems, the list of possible options is tremendous. Any of them is a more effective choice than a failed system of enforcement that drives prostitution underground, leading to pimps controlling law enforcement with sexual favors and feeding organized crime.[22, 23]
Back to Con :)
Pro states that: "The reality is that prostitution is alive and well in this country, and that it will happen whether or not we do anything about it"
By legalizing Prostitution, the rate will just go higher making it easier for this trade to go on. Prostitution may always happen, but it CAN be decreased. You argue 1st off, that police officer's waste "valuable time". What is a job of a police officer anyways? Just to watch these women continue in their path's and watch their lives go down the drain? Not only are they physically abused, but some are murdered. A police officer's job, as defined in the dictionary is: "Responsibilities of a police officer are varied, and may differ greatly from within one political context to another. Typical duties relate to keeping the peace, law enforcement, protection of people and property, making us feel safe and protected and the investigation of crimes." As you can read, their job is to protect citizen's, not pretend to be oblivious to the fact that they're are many women out there who are being abused and used.
Pro then states: "The women involved in this system are often so afraid to leave it due to abuse by their pimps that even those who find it untenable cannot leave" and then proved that "crowding our prisons and jails at huge cost through both the trial and incarceration"
By saying this, you agree with these women having "pimp's" because that's the main reason as to why they are employed on the street's. Let's define "Pimp" A pimp is a person, usually male, who arranges sexual acts between johns and the person in prostitution.* Although some pimps might "protect" the prostitutes who work for them by making sure that the customers pay, pimps are often more violent to the women than customers are. In fact, 85% of prostitutes are raped by pimps.* Gee, no wonder why they are afraid to leave, but it's not the women's fault! Most of the time the only reason why they go onto the streets is because they are unable to live a substantial life. This goes on to lead my to my 2nd rebuttal, There aren't as many "Pimps" as there are Prostitutes. This proves you point that arresting prostitutes will over crowd prisons. It's the "Pimp's" who employ these women and force them to work. Even if the women want to get out of it, they're unable too because of the fear over what will be done to them. There are less pimps then prostitutes because a pimp usually owns multiple prostitutes. So arresting pimps (the employer) would not over crown these prisons.
My next argument: Abuse and Violence.
Many people chose to ignore the fact that these prostitutes get abused much more then what we actually think.
"Even though prostitution itself is illegal, crimes such as rape, abuse, and murder can still be committed against women in prostitution. Women in prostitution have the right to report crimes committed against them, though many are afraid to come forward because they will be judged and perhaps arrested."
This is the main reason as to why we don't hear so much about the kind's of things that go on. If we were to legalize Prostitution it would increase, and would just make it much easier to abuse these women. Legalizing this would mean it's okay for the abuse and violence to go on. But making it illegal, would make it much harder to take advantage of these women.
Many prostitutes experience : "physical violence,
"economic abuse or manipulation,
"threats and intimidation, and
"minimization and denial of physical violence.
Sexual harassment, verbal abuse, stalking, rape, battering and torture are all types of violence that prostituted women regularly experience.
"Women in prostitution have a death rate that is 40 times higher than women who are not involved in prostitution."
"Sixty-eight percent of prostituted women meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the same range as combat veterans and victims of torture."
How could anybody possibly let this continue? So basically legalizing it makes it okay to kill abuse women. Pretty soon the trade will just get even worse because they are allowed to do whatever they want.
"The health consequences to women from prostitution are the same injuries and infections suffered by women who are subjected to other forms of violence against women. The physical health consequences include: injury (bruises, broken bones, black eyes, concussions). A 1994 study conducted with 68 women in Minneapolis/St.Paul who had been prostituted for at least six months found that half the women had been physically assaulted by their purchasers, and a third of these experienced purchaser assaults at least several times a year. 23% of those assaulted were beaten severely enough to have suffered broken bones. Two experienced violence so vicious that they were beaten into a coma. Furthermore, 90% of the women in this study had experienced violence in their personal relationships resulting in miscarriage, stabbing, loss of consciousness, and head injuries"
How can this possibly get any worse? I mean women are already getting murdered, but worse they have to suffer through the violence because they are afraid to leave, they're is no hope for them.
'The emotional health consequences of prostitution include severe trauma, stress, depression, anxiety, self-medication through alcohol and drug abuse; and eating disorders. Almost all the women in the Minneapolis/St. Paul study categorized themselves as chemically-addicted. Crack cocaine and alcohol were used most frequently. Ultimately, women in prostitution are also at special risk for self-mutilation, suicide and homicide. 46% of the women in the Minneapolis/St. Paul study had attempted suicide, and 19% had tried to harm themselves physically in other ways."
Not only is physical abuse, but it's emotional abuse as well. If someone who was NOT involved in prostitution and was just living a normal life in society and they experienced depression, and tried to commit suicide, serious action would be taken. They would be helped and watched out after and receive counseling and medical care. But these women aren't able to. They are forced to continue in this lifestyle with no chance of help unless we arrested there employers, then they would have a chance to leave the trade.
Back to Pro!
OV1. It"s difficult to determine where Con"s points actually come from, as she quotes from many of her sources but doesn"t actually show where they come from. In most cases, her sources leave something to be desired as well, including using two large listings of quotes from a separate debate site (none of which can be directly verified, and all of which are based on the opinion of select individuals), and 4 dictionary references that do little to nothing to bolster her arguments. These fail to support her case.
OV2. Con"s case is problematic. She talks about implementing new programs, passing "stricter law"s and making sure these law"s are inforced", but it"s unclear what those new programs are, what new laws she wants passed, and how she plans to beef up enforcement. In each of these cases, more red tape, more police time, and increased costs are guaranteed, so my cost advantage just becomes larger. However, I ask that judges take the vagueness of these policy changes into consideration, as it is impossible for me to evaluate their effectiveness and harms without knowing how they would be implemented.
I) Rights violation/morality
Con says prostitution is "torture," but the only support she provides is that clients are allowed to engage in practices that "are acts of power and violence over the female body." Multiple responses.
1. I solve. Note that Con is describing harms that are taking place in the status quo, harms that any prostitute has to endure without pursuing police action afterward, as doing so would implicate them. Only in my case are women protected from these harms by regulations, improved reporting structures and better law enforcement. Con"s assessment of morality is also based entirely in the current system, which she is doing little to nothing to address.
2. These are paid acts, and if the prostitute consents to have a john engage in these acts, then there's no harm. Con simply asserts these harms without recognizing that some women may accept these risks, just as other workers accept various risks in their lines of work.
3. Con recognizes that many of the women who become prostitutes do so because "they need money, they are unable to get a job, and there"s no possible wayto earn money" beyond prostitution. Note that this requires that these women either not earn a living, leaving them destitute, or engage in an unlawful practice that necessarily puts them at great physical risk without any recourse or way out. She doesn"t provide an alternative to them beyond a claim that the government can "offer more organization"s that help women" and basic job searching skills, both of which are available already.[24-29] Con doesn"t state what she"s adding, so all she"s doing is making these programs redundant. Thus, she"s causing far greater harm by allowing the status quo to perpetuate itself.
4. Cross-apply my justice point in response to Con"s morality arguments. This all functions as a principle upon which prostitution is moral, contrary to Con"s assertion that it doesn"t have any. A dishwasher has the same principles behind them. The only difference is the type of work involved. Forced labor is immoral in any case.
5. Con asserts a difference between how washing dishes and prostitution are viewed without explaining what that difference is. All she"s shown is that they"re perceived differently. However, it"s unclear why they"re perceived so differently. I would argue that that perception is couched entirely in the way it"s presented, which means that illegality creates much of the animosity.
II) Human trafficking
Again, multiple responses.
1. I solve. Con does absolutely nothing to improve upon the enforcement system in place. Legalizing prostitution is not the same as legalizing human trafficking. All of these men, women and children continue to fall into the hands of traffickers in the status quo. Only my policy ensures that these prostitutes feel safe in going to the police, drives the criminal enterprises that run them out of business, and increases funds and time available for police to enforce laws against human trafficking, as well as adding enforcement through regulation.
2. I solve. Criminalizing prostitution is what causes brothels to turn to underage and forced labor, since they are already engaging in an illegal practice simply by pursuing prostitution as a line of work. Under Con"s case, criminalization continues, as does the illegal practices she describes. My case forces these organizations into the light of day and makes them thoroughly accountable. Driving it further underground, as Con has supported, would merely increase the incentive for brothels and pimps to engage in human trafficking.
3. All of the details on child pornography are off topic, but since Con brought them up, the human trafficking that brings many of these children to this country continues unabated in Con's world.
Onto Con's rebuttals to my case.
CR1 and CR2) Law Enforcement and the Prison System
Con makes the unsupported claim that legalization will result in a higher rate of prostitution. Even assuming it"s true, any associated harms are entirely reliant on the physical and moral harms she states being accurate. However, as I"ve shown, those harms are either ameliorated, erased, or turned completely by my case.
The job of a police officer is to ensure a safe society through enforcement of the law. Con has to show how legal prostitution actually harms society. It"s unclear from Con"s definition why police need to protect these women from themselves, as they are entering into a legal working contract with full knowledge of the consequences should be barred from doing so. All of the harms Con cites here are based on the current system where their trade is illegal " murder and abuse don"t continue under my plan, and all the harms that extend beyond the trade are reduced.
In fact, much of Con"s rebuttal seems to be predicated on many of the harms in the current system persisting through legalization. But I"ve already preempted these concerns. Pimps who beat and rape their prostitutes will be run out of business by regulations, and those that aren"t will be turned into the police by their prostitutes, who would now have an open line of communication with law enforcement. It"s possible that some won"t due to persistent fears of retribution, but that seems far less likely under my case than it does under Con"s, where protection of law enforcement is practically non-existent.
CR3) Abuse and Violence
Con states that increased prostitution "would just make it much easier to abuse these women. Legalizing this would mean it"s okay for the abuse and violence to go on. But making it illegal, would make it much harder to take advantage of these women." Con's own sources contradict these unwarranted assertions.Prostitution is illegal in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, and yet the problems Con cites there persist. All of the sources Con cites show the tremendous abuse they suffer in a system where it"s illegal " they're all direct harms to keeping prostitution illegal, otherwise known as her case. In other words, Con's evidence is all showcasing harms to her own case.
But I've taken it several steps further. I've shown, and am continuing to show, that the illegal nature of prostitution in other states has caused many of these women to avoid getting appropriate counseling and medical care due to concerns regarding discrimination, two of the very thing Con suggests would help. In fact, "Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police", showcasing how illegalizing prostitution has only made things worse.
I am the only one in this debate who has presented what the situation actually looks like in states where prostitution is legalized or decriminalized. One need only look at my sources [8 " 11] to see just how effectively legalization reduces these harms, not a one of which Con actually addressed.
The first thing to notice here is the many drops. Con straight drops two-thirds of my case, including my justice point and my costs argument. Extend both " the justice point is by far the strongest on the principle debate, and the costs point presents many real world benefits to my case that Con cannot garner. She also drops all of my STD analysis, extend that. It"s a real world harm that spreads well beyond prostitutes and only my case will effectively reduce it.
Most glaring of all, though, extend my case. Con spends most of both rounds attacking a straw man (i.e. prostitution in the U.S. today), making unwarranted and unsourced claims about what legalization will do (often in direct contradiction of my arguments, which are bolstered by both warrants and sources), and generally fails to address what my plan actually entails. As a result, most if not all of her arguments don"t even link to my plan, and her whole case falls.
Even where Con attempts to be responsive, she simply fails to address many of my arguments. The fact that law enforcement will have more time to devote to other crimes goes dropped, as does the reality that prisons will experience substantially less overcrowding. She drops the psychological harms of imprisonment, which have broader implications in society. She drops all the reasoning for why my plan will reduce rape rates and all types of abuse, making workplaces safer for prostitutes. These are all huge advantages to my case.
Back to Con.
OV1: Generally when you put a " this means, its not you're own words, meaning it's from another source. Then I had listed my sources in order so you could exactly see what I referred to. Just because I don't do things the way you do it doesn't make me wrong :) How exactly do I know that you're sources are creditable? Debating isn't all about using other people's work. It's about applying you're own knowledge as well.
OV2: I did explain these organizations, and what a benefit they would be to society and these women who are stuck in prostitution. Maybe you just overlooked that part. " I ask that judges take the vagueness of these policy changes into consideration, as it is impossible for me to evaluate their effectiveness and harms without knowing how they would be implemented" Here you're basically saying that, organization's to help these abused women would do no good therefore we shouldn't waste time trying to help them? If everybody felt that way, our world would be in great despair.
Pro wants to argue that my point's are invalid, yet he only made 1 main argument in R2, as in the other round he didn't. So I really didn't have much to rebut, other that his critique on my own point's.
He then goes on to say that: "Con says prostitution is "torture," but the only support she provides is that clients are allowed to engage in practices that "are acts of power and violence over the female body." Multiple responses."
I did provide much evidence as to why it is "torture" and also explained as to why it's considered torture. Because they want to enter the business, but can't leave because they are afraid at to what their employer's will do. The employer's are holding them against their will, thus torture. If you had read my argument's you would have seen that.
I don't see much else to do in this round.
Let's see what he brings next round.
I don't really know what my opponent expected to see in the previous round. Not every constructive round has to include new arguments. I made my case clear in R2, and I planned to use the remaining rounds to clarify it and rebut my opponent's arguments. So I don't see why Con starts off the round saying she's sad. Nor do I comprehend why she says that "he only really gave me 1 round to rebut", as she started her rebuttals in R2, specifically attacking my case. She had this round to engage in counter-rebuttals and defend her own rebuttals. She chose to do scant little with it, failing to even conclude her points, but that is not my fault. Remember, though, that this is Con's final round, as she must not post any rebuttals, argumentation or conclusions in the final round due to posting her opening arguments in R1.
OV1. I was pointing out a concern with Con's sourcing, since it forced me to search several sources for the quotes she chose. That confusion didn't prevent me from finding everything, but it did require extra time and effort. It was a suggestion, not a reason for judges to vote.
My sources are credible (not "creditable") because all of them provide evidence that supports my assertions and warrants, showcasing that I'm not simply pulling numbers out of the air and that the harms and benefits I'm citing are real. Like it or not, neither of us is an expert in this field, and our involvement in this debate makes us biased. We need external sources to support our claims. That's how sources are meant to be used. Con used a few sources in this fashion, but it's interesting that my opponent chides me for "using other people's work" when she directly quotes several opinionated people to establish her own arguments.
OV2. I'll quote Con directly:
"Goverment should offer more organization's that help women who are postitutes. They should be teaching them business ethics, how to build a resume, interviewing tips and mentoring them along the way. This would get more women off the street's and get them to start working on a 'buisness' not, and educational real job."
I see Con arguing that they'll "help women", and some of what they'll actually do, but I've already shown in my rebuttals that programs that do these things exist in status quo. Con isn't explaining anywhere how she's improving on what they do, making them more readily accessible, or generally how she's doing anything that actually changes the world we live in. If they are the same as current programs, they're redundant and therefore unnecessary, unhelpful and actually harmful, as they increase costs and expend more police time. If they're different, Con had to take the time to explain how they differ. She didn't do that. Con doesn't take any extra time to explain her case here, and thus judges should assume redundancy.
The rest of Con's responses aren't particularly organized. I'll put her quotes in italics and respond to what little there is to address below.
Pro wants to argue that my point's are invalid, yet he only made 1 main argument in R2, as in the other round he didn't. So I really didn't have much to rebut, other that his critique on my own point's.
I'm not sure what debate Pro is reading. I posted 3 separate advantages in R2, labeled Safety, Justice and Costs. Con failed to respond to the second and third advantage, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. She also never touched the points made in the first advantage, merely expanding on her own arguments and focusing on attacking the way prostitution is in areas where it is illegal, which paradoxically is the position she's supporting. Con could have used her R2 to attack my case, but failed to even address my plan, let alone the advantages that supported it. The lost opportunity is on her.
I did provide much evidence as to why it is 'torture' and also explained as to why it's considered torture. Because they want to enter the business, but can't leave because they are afraid at to what their employer's will do. The employer's are holding them against their will, thus torture. If you had read my argument's you would have seen that.
It seems Con is continuing to ignore the realities of my case in favor of attacking the straw man that is status quo prostitution (which, again, is a part of her case). Being unable to leave a pimp or brothel is partially the result of their inability to approach law enforcement. I solve for that by legalizing prostitution and thus removing the fear that they will themselves be arrested. Being held against one's will also results from allowing criminals to run these brothels and act as pimps. I solve for this by driving these abusive pimps and brothels out of business, requiring that they adhere to extensive regulations that they either cannot afford or will be incapable of meeting. I solve for it again by ensuring that a legal industry is monitored regularly, creating numerous safe options for prostitutes to be hired. These are all part of the case I posted clearly in R2, and yet Con has consistently ignored the argument, as well as the warrants and evidence from Nevada and elsewhere in the U.S. that demonstrably supports it.
I'm not sure why Con has been consistently determined to ignore large swaths of my argumentation, especially when she had almost 8000 characters remaining in this round. All of my rebuttals beyond the overviews have gone cold dropped. All 3 counter-rebuttals have also been dropped. All of my conclusions went dropped. They join my case, and at least 2 of my advantages, though the Safety advantage might as well have been as well. It's bizarre that I don't have to put a single ounce of ink on any of these points in order to win them.
But what's utterly baffling to me is that Pro's entire case is yet another set of advantages to my case. Only in my case is the violation of rights seen in status quo removed. Only in my case is morality returned to the occupation of a prostitute. Only in my case is human trafficking better policed and perhaps even stopped. It's very simple: these are huge harms that exist in status quo, those harms are largely the result of prostitution being illegal, and thus legalizing prostitution solves for a large portion of these harms. Con has completely failed to respond to any of the analysis behind these claims, and thus her entire case is turned against her.
Normally, this is where I'd insert of a whole bunch of "even if you're buying this" statements, but I can't for the life of me find one point Con is winning against me. She chose to use her final round in attempts to nitpick on minor points I made in R3, and thus has practically conceded this debate to me. I appreciate the debate, but I can't help but be upset to see how it turned out.
and then you say that: I see Con arguing that they'll "help women", and some of what they'll actually do, but I've already shown in my rebuttals that programs that do these things exist in status quo.
Notice how I said the government SHOULD provide organizations. I never technically said that they DID have organization's for these women. Should is an idea, they should have organizations for women so that way they can get their life's back on track. I never said that we did have organization's for these women.
How was I ignoring any of your point's? If anything, you twisted around my own point's and made them seem like they are something there not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: I initially thought this would be close but it was a pretty clear Pro win so I'll be brief. Con starts off by tying prostitution to Human Trafficking including minors to argue that prostitution is bad. But these are actually advantages to Pro's side since he can solve for them by legalizing prostitution. All of Con's problems exist in the status quo which she defended for the most part so those are points AGAINST the status quo. The other option Con gave was a counterplan of "stricter laws" which Pro points out is incredibly vague while also strengthening his Cost argument. Her plan also has no solvency as she provides no reasons why it would solve for the harms she listed. I lean Pro on the morality argument as he at least solves the problem of prostitutes inability to seek police action. Pro's offensive arguments of Safety, Justice, and Cost are massive wins for him, Con's rebuttals here were barely coherent. I think this debate had potential but it just fizzled out towards the end.
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.