The Instigator
MyDinosaurHands
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Empiren
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

US Prisoners Should Have Access To Prostitutes

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
MyDinosaurHands
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,173 times Debate No: 56402
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (45)
Votes (4)

 

MyDinosaurHands

Pro

Resolution: The Federal Government shall establish and regulate a system of prostitution in America's prisons and jails.

Debate Structure:
R1 Acceptance
R2 Opening arguments
R3 Rebuttals to round 2 arguments
R4 Rebuttals to round 3 arguments and conclusion

Deviation from the structure should result in a full loss of points for the offender.To give people an idea of what I'm proposing before they consider accepting this debate, I'll lay it out a bit now. Prisoners have accounts with money in them. The state/feds give(s) them a minimum amount monthly, and they can earn more from good behavior and doing extra work. This money is spent on food and extra luxuries, like a second pillow or something of that nature.

Under the system I propose, the Federal Government would have the prostitutes priced in a way that allows them to be attainable for prisoners without some extreme amount of saving up (like a year, they wouldn't have to save for that long). This would not be for profit, it would be paid for by whatever the prisoners can throw in, and then taxpayer dollars.

As far as prostitute safety goes, they will be under whatever surveillance seems necessary to offer them protection. My opponent is free to argue that the prostitutes would be abused with this system, but if they were part of the Federal Government, and had, for lack of a better word, 'handlers' who they could report their abuses to, abuses would be a small problem.

If there are any further questions about my proposition please ask before accepting.
Empiren

Con

I accept your debate and look forward to your reply.
Debate Round No. 1
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I will now demonstrate why one should support this proposition.



RAPE PREVENTION
1 in 20 inmates are raped[1]. Note that these are not singular occurrences, but most often repeated rapings[2]. Not only repeated rapings, but actual sexual slavery:
"Forced to satisfy another man's sexual appetites whenever he demands, they may also be responsible for washing his clothes, cooking his food, massaging his back, cleaning his cell, and myriad other chores. They are frequently "rented out" for sex, sold, or even auctioned off to other inmates, replicating the financial aspects of traditional slavery. Their most basic choices, like how to dress and whom to talk to, may be controlled by the person who "owns" them. They may even be renamed as women.(259) Like all forms of slavery, these situations are among the most degrading and dehumanizing experiences a person can undergo."[2]

Offering prostitutes to inmates would nearly wipe out prison rape. The reason most inmates turn to rape is because of years without sex. In their desperation, inmates turn to people of the same gender, something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Understanding of this desperation and loneliness by other inmates makes gay rape much more acceptable, often being dressed up as a status type of thing.

Providing these men with prostitutes of their preferred gender would alleviate their horniness without turning to homosexual rape. The analogy I like to use is this: A man has been stranded on an island without food for so long that he begins eating his shoes. He doesn't want to, but he desperately must eat something. If someone offered him cake however, he would drop the shoe in a split second and go to work on the cake. It's just an instance of people settling for the best they can do. Give them the option they wanted in the first place, and the problem here goes away.

Perhaps you're thinking, 'why should I care'? You probably have an image of a child molester getting a taste of his own medicine, or some sick murderer suffering. For the people whose thoughts those are, I can't really tell you you should feel bad for those people, however there are plenty of angles you're not examining.

First, consider the fact that not all of the 1 in 20 are going to be sickos who you think have it coming. It could be someone who is in jail for possessing drugs. They could've been addicted, not fully in control of themselves, and rape is their punishment? What if it was someone who stole a TV? Do you honestly see repeated rapings and possible sexual slavery as just repayment for a stolen item? There are many non-violent criminals in prison, and few people would think violent sexual assaults are proper repayment for non-violent crimes.

Further, consider the threat of AIDS. Most inmates are out in a year, 90% in fact[3]. The rapists in prison are hardly concerned for the sexual health of their victims, and so many rape victims end up with AIDS. Within a year most of these men are back in their communities. We can see that a stage is quite obviously set for disaster here. Therefore, it is not only in the interests of the inmates, but also of society at large, to lessen the occurrence of prison rape, and therein reduce the spread of AIDS.

Lastly, consider the fact that AIDS is a death sentence for most who get it. When we condone or turn our backs on the issue of prison rape, we condone or turn our backs on the fact that men who have been given minimal sentences, many non-violent criminals, have effectively been issued the death penalty. This is not what our justice system intended when it sentenced these people to whatever amount of time they were sentenced to, because it is an injustice. If we wanted petty thieves, drug addicts, victims of circumstance: non-violent criminals, to face death, we'd issue them the death penalty, not a year in prison.


RECIDIVISM
To continue answering the question, 'why should I care?', I'd like to present the fact that this proposal would reduce recidivism. For those of you who are unaware, recidivism is simply a term for how many prisoners return to jail. Studies have shown that harsher prison conditions lead to higher recidivism rates, whereas nicer conditions lead to less post-release crime[4]. Clearly, providing the luxury of prostitutes is the opposite of harsh. As mentioned above, 90% of prisoners are out within a year, and I think we can all agree that it'd be a good thing if less of them committed more crimes.


INCREASED PROSTITUTE SAFETY
Prostitutes have a pretty rough go of it, and I'd posit that by allowing them to legally practice it in prisons, under the protection of the Federal Government, we'd be able to help some prostitutes live more healthily and safely.

As far as how rough they have things, consider:
Prostitution Statistics[5]
We could reduce the beatings per year, unprotected sexual acts per year, contractions of AIDS per year, arrests for prostitution per year, and STD's related to prostitution significantly. Especially for those employed in this proposition, but also overall, as this program would have to be big enough to service most jails, at the very least the highest-incidence of rape jails.

We could reduce beatings very easily. The pimp-prostitute relationship is an abusive one.
"Victims undergo a process of being recruited, groomed, abused, controlled, and being turned out by violent pimps. The result of this step is a ""trauma bond" between victim and pimp or trafficker that can be equated to Stockholm Syndrome. "Pimps crush runaways [girls] with a mix of violence and affection, degradation" and then require absolute obedience to a rigid code: the prostitute cannot look the pimp in the eye, call him by name or keep any cash." In this way a pimp dehumanizes his prostitute[s] by turning him or her into a commodity."[6]
If we took the abusive pimp out of the equation, beatings per year would doubtless drop.

We can assume that the rest of the beatings would come from clients. I think we can all logically infer why that would not be the case with prostitutes working under my proposal. Prisoners would be very careful not to lose their privilege, and given that this prostitution would be legal, she'd be free to report any abuses to her Federal Government 'handler'.

We could reduce unprotected sexual acts per year by regulating that condoms be required for these sexual acts. This would also obviously reduce the likelihood of a prostitute getting AIDS, and reduce the amount of AIDS prostitution spreads. Not only would regulated use of condoms reduce this spread, but so would frequent testing for AIDS. Frequent testing would alert Federal 'handlers' whenever a prostitute had been 'contaminated', and they could act according to the third preventative measure. The third preventative measure being a system that would prevent individuals with AIDS from engaging in sex with an individual who did not have AIDS. With condoms, frequent testing, and as I like to call it, 'AIDS-based sexual segregation', we could easily freeze the 50% stat in its place, and eventually push it back.


THE GREATER GOOD
There may be some who have finished all the above and think that promoting prostitution anywhere is immoral. I have a very short, simple reply for these people.

Which would you rather happen, unconsensual sex, or consensual, paid sex?





Thank you for reading.


Sources:
[1] http://www.hrw.org...
[2] http://www.hrw.org...
[3] http://abcnews.go.com...
[4] http://www.anderson.ucla.edu...
[5] http://sex-crimes.laws.com...
[6] http://annaengel.wordpress.com...
Empiren

Con

I AGREE]
1. Rape does happen in prison and is a big concern when talking about the prison system.*(this also acknowledges the severity of the AIDS virus being spread through rape).

2. I have no such views that everyone in prison is a sick or demented person. I think this is more for the audience, but just re-iterate there is no debate on whether prisoners "deserve what they get", rape in prison is something that shall not be condoned in this debate and neither Pro nor Con will accept any such talk.

3. I agree on recidivism and the implications that a better system will have less repeat offenders.

4. I agree that in theory prostitution being supplied to prisoners would "kill two birds with one stone".*

* But I do not hold the opinion that this is the correct answer, nor is it possible.

[I QUESTION]

1. The legitimacy of the "90% of prisoners are out in one year or less." Especially coming from a non-linked quote at ABC news coming from an activist.

2. Accepting the quote as being true just to humor it:
A) The statistic would not be in relation to the topic.
B) There is no connection that those 90% would likely get raped by the 10%.
C) We can generally assume that rape would not happen in under a year because of the lack of sex.

3. The legitimacy of [6] especially, but really all your sources are improperly linked.
NOTE: You should just link federal or statistical data. Anything else is rather unneeded in this debate and I could have completely argued "improper sources" and have won that point quite easily. I however am not going to do that since my reply does not need to contradict them.

[I DISAGREE]

1. The "AIDS is a death sentence" statement nor the linking of that to the current system.
A) AIDS Is not curable, but it is no longer recognized as a "Death Sentence".
B) The prison system does not give people the AIDS virus themselves.
C) The prison system does not condone the act of rape.
D) The prison system is not able to be held accountable of illegal activity, but should strive to prevent it.

[Prostitution is ILLEGAL]

This is where I could end the debate, but I am choosing not to. The fact that prostituting, pimping, or purchasing services gets you jail time and that it would be hypocritical for the government to sponsor the same thing that it sent people to jail for, kind of ends the argument.

-But again, I'm humoring the debate and I think that Pro should have stated this being a "hypothetical: If prostitution were legal" scenario in the opening.

[The COST and realistic approach of politics.]

Right now the prison system cost taxpayers a lot to keep functioning. The added cost of prostitutes would be an enormous amount on top of that. one that would never get supported by the public and one that would probably never get into congress or such anyway because no politician would advocate for prostitution, much less for felons.

[The Problem Solved]

While I believe that the proposition would indeed solve both problems, there are better ways to go about doing this.

1. Give prisoners a better environment(more space/single person cells) and masturbation tools to relieve sexual frustration.

2. Make a better system so that prostitutes can become more helpful members of society and join the mainstream workforce.

I'm going to make the point that the solution of giving prisoners prostitutes would not solve the issues of both problems entirely and that it would be a short-term answer to the problem.

[The prostitutes themselves]

1. It is pretty apparent that people would still abuse the prostitutes, especially those in jail already for a long time or life. The prison guards themselves also pose a risk to the prostitutes.
A) This would leave the people who are more likely to rape others(i.e. the 10%) not able obtain prostitutes.
B) Less beatings or rapes of prostitutes does not mean it is the desired outcome. The desired outcome should be ZERO.
C) Disregarding the people who went to jail for prostitution charges, it would present a big issue for sexual assaulter, rapist, and murderers to get these prostitutes as it would seem both rewarding and a danger to the prostitutes safety.

2. Willing prostitutes. How many prostitutes do you think would be actually willing to work at a prison? Not many. Prison presents both a higher mortality risk and a higher chance for infection.

3. The prostitutes would most likely go to the white-collar or less-threat prisoners, who are not usually the ones who would rape another prisoner. Therefore it wouldn't really solve the problem of rape in the prison system.

========================================================

I believe that is all I need for this response. I await your next and will reply in kind.
Debate Round No. 2
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

My opponent is new to this site, and I was not extremely clear in my instructions, so please do not give me 7 points automatically for his deviation from the debate structure.

Generally when someone says that the second round is for opening arguments, that means to post your own reasons without addressing the ones your opponent presented in the same round.


MY OPPONENT QUESTIONS..
1. The legitimacy of my statistic showing that 90% of prisoners are out in a year. While I think my source is just fine, I'm not going to sit back and assume everyone else will be. Though I was unable to find the activists who made the statement, I found what we should all be able to agree is a more reputable source, that supports, if not the the statistic, the spirit of the statistic.

We can see that the average time spent in jail overall is hovering a little under 3 years[1]. I think we can see that the original statistic is either true or close to true, as the 10% would be spending a lot of time, and thus raise the average somewhat. And even if that isn't quite the case, and, for instance, 90% got out in 1 and a half or 2, my point still stands.

2.
A) My opponent says the topic is not in relation to the topic without addressing my reasoning for why it is. It is relevant because it shows that we're sending out prisoners who could've acquired AIDS due to widespread prison rape at a rapid rate.
B) My opponent claims that there is no connection to support the idea that the 10% would rape the 90%. I believe there is a very clear connection, that being excessive loneliness. The 10% would've spent a lot of time in jail. Keep in mind also that those among the 90% could be frequent offenders, who keep getting shuffled in and out of jail.
C) Here my opponent says that we can assume rape wouldn't happen in under a year, and I'm assuming he means new inmate on new inmate rape. This contention is based on the validity of contention B), which I have already refuted, therefore, I have nothing to say for this one.

3. My opponent says he could argue that my sources are improperly linked, but then says he won't, therefore this isn't something I really need to refute.

MY OPPONENT DISAGREES..

1.
A) My opponent says that AIDS is no longer a death sentence, though it is not curable. I assume he refers to the treatments that can allow one to live a normal life. The problem with this contention is that the yearly costs for AIDS treatment is over $23,000[2]. Even if you were a median earner of income in the US, making roughly $51,000[3], this would be an extremely burdensome cost. After all, it's not as if the average person gets to the end of the year with half their income unspent.

But we're not even talking about your average American, we're talking about prisoners. As far as employment goes, things look much bleaker for any recently released prisoners. To quote the Urban Institute,

"Eight months after prison, 65
percent of respondents had been
employed at some point, but only 45
percent were currently employed. "[4]

"Most respondents relied on family
and friends for income after release,
more so than legal employment."[4]

Additionally, only 52% of released prisoners have a high school diploma or GED[4]. All of this information factors into the contention that AIDS is not a death sentence. Clearly it is, if you're in the economic position that recently released prisoners are. We can see that few are holding steady jobs, most are relying on their family and friends for economic help, and most lack the education necessary to get anywhere in life. The average non-diploma holder earns $25,000 a year[5][6][7], and the average diploma holder $33,000[5][6][7]. Compare those incomes to $23,000 a year for treatment, and you can see that the odds of AIDS being a death sentence for these people is quite high.

B) My opponent states, correctly, that the US Prison system does not give the prisoners AIDS themselves. This is, I assume, in reference to the part of my opening where I talked about ignoring/condoning the rape. I don't think it would be necessary for my opponent and I to argue who's condoning what, as whoever wins that argument hasn't helped themselves in arguing towards the resolution. Therefore I won't be rebutting this, or C and D, as they're along the same thread.

PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL
My opponent claims that this proposition is hypocritical, and therefore shouldn't be implemented. My response is two-fold.

First, differing motivations remove hypocritical nature of acts. Prostitution is outlawed in the interests of keeping people safe (whether or not it does that is an entirely different debate, of course), and this prostitution would legalize prostitution in prisons in the interests of overall safety. If the motivations were along the lines of, "Normal citizens can't have sex with prostitutes but prisoners can just because", then there would be hypocrisy. However, this is not the reasoning behind this proposal, and it is therefore not hypocritical.

Second, assuming it were hypocritical for the sake of those unconvinced by the above refutation, hypocrisy does not necessarily mean an act is wrong. For instance, this act would prevent rape. Your thinking the use of prostitutes in jail does not change this fact. It does not change the fact that it is doing something good, even if it appears hypocritical.

As an example, look at the case of Native America tribes and African Americans. Native Americans get special tax exemptions[8], but black people do not. Why not? Both groups have been severely mistreated by the US Government in the past, why is it that only one of them is getting compensative treatment? I don't know, but I would ask you, just because it's hypocritical to withhold tax exemptions from black people whilst giving them to Native Americans, would you then say the Native Americans should lose their exemptions? No, of course not. It might be a hypocritical situation, but that doesn't mean you should make the situation worse for the NA. The same could be said for my proposition, assuming it were hypocritical. Just because you think the situation is hypocritical, doesn't mean you should make the situation worse for the prisoners and prostitutes who could benefit.

COST AND REALISTIC APPROACH
My opponent's contention here is that A) this would be too expensive, and B) it would never become a law in reality.

My rebuttal is pretty short here. This debate is about whether or not we 'should' implement this proposition, not if we 'could'. Part A of this contention applies in part to 'should', but whether or not politicians would have the balls to even touch this idea is not related to 'should'.

So, for the cost, there are many solutions. Off the top of my head, I see two great ways to raise funds for this undertaking.

First, trim a little of military spending.

This year (2014), the military spending will be at $526 billion[9]. It is planned to rise. It wouldn't be too great of an issue to take out one or two of those many, many billions to help fund this proposition, no?

Or, we could put some kind of tax on all Americans. If we levied a $5 tax on all Americans we could raise $1.585 billion[10][7] to help prevent rape and provide a safer line of work for prostitutes.

Or we could do a bit of both. There's plenty of creative ways to provide funds for this proposition. Additionally, remember that the gov't won't be shouldering all of the cost, the prisoners will be subsidizing this in part with the money they pay for the prostitute, even if the money they pay doesn't come out to a profit for the government.

THE PROBLEM, 'SOLVED'
1. Masturbation is not the same as sex, even if there are 'tools' involved. Perhaps this would reduce rape to a certain degree, but we can safely assume these guys have been masturbating a lot before turning to someone outside their usual sexual preference. Therefore, if we really want to reduce this pandemic in a significant way, I recommend sticking with my proposition.

2. 'Make a better system' is a lot simpler to say than do. I recommend we try to do both. Try to make the situation better for prostitutes, but also follow through with my proposition. Unless the situation is improved so significantly that we run out of prostitutes for my proposition, we can do both, and improve the situation in both categories.

THE PROSTITUTES THEMSELVES
1. My opponent says here that the prostitutes would be abused, ignoring my rationale for why they wouldn't be. I'm running out of characters, so I will not be re-stating why prostitutes would be very safe in jail, and why it's preferable to them being out on the streets with their pimps and clients.

2. My opponent says that prostitutes wouldn't want to take this job. Same rebuttal as part 1 of this section.

3. My opponent says the prostitutes would likely go to white-collar prisoners, and therefore wouldn't really be targeting the issue of rape. Nowhere in my proposition did I say this would be the case. I have already said that this would be aimed at all prisons, and failing that, prisons with high incidences of rape.


Sources:
[1] http://www.pewtrusts.org...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
[3] http://money.cnn.com...
[4] http://www.urban.org...
[5] http://www.bls.gov...
[6] https://www.google.com...
[7] https://www.google.com...
[8] http://smallbusiness.chron.com...
[9] www.prwatch.org
[10] http://www.usnews.com...
Empiren

Con

Questions]
1. Thank you for the more reputable source. I did not mean to be attack the original source, but it was about as backed as any blog could be so I figured we needed a better one.
(that being said, I fully accept this new source).

2.[A&B] I apologize, for I was not originally clear in my statement.

-The prison system of the united states separates criminals based on the severity of their crimes.[1] This means the 10% of criminals who have longer sentences, will generally be sent to different prison than the white collar criminals.

NOTE: I only mention this difference because equating the 90% and 10% together is not how the prison system works.

C) This assumption is actually based on your premise, in that people through their sexual desire rape another person. I put the assumption that generally people will not rape another person because of lack of sex in that time.

[Disagreements]

1
-Would like to note the realistic approach my opponent takes here, while in a few paragraphs states the argument is hypothetical.
A). While I do believe that AIDS*(or any disease) is a heavy financial burden, it's not relevant in that regard as a "death sentence" for that is primarily a healthcare issue.

[BCD]
-ok.
===============================
[Prostitution is Illegal]

Oh boy...

Ok I wasn't going to argue this part because I was assuming this was purely hypothetical in the case that prostitution was legal, in fact your next point is that we "should" do this, not if we "could".
-A reoccurring theme.

Prostitution is illegal and some prisoners are in jail for charges involving prostitution. What argument you have for the prevention of prison rape would not matter, it would be condoning an illegal activity to the people it put in prison for doing the same thing. Do you know how much distrust that would generate with the people? With the prisoners? It would make the assumption that the Government could do whatever it wanted regardless if it was illegal or not.

Secondly, I don't know if you know this but the case of the Native American and African Americans is entirely different and they are based upon completely different cultures. Also, affirmative action was a thing.

(But this is extremely off topic and I just was pointing out that it was a horrible example).
=====================

[Cost and Realistic Approach]

Should and could. The act of preventing AIDS/Rape, you "should" do whatever you can. But I think that there are better alternatives and that just because you should do something, does not mean you escape the reality of if you could* do something.

For instance, we SHOULD give Americans the best healthcare possible for free and stop everyone from ever committing a crime again.

But can we do that? No.

1. Spending
A) It would benefit more people and people of better societal standing to spend that money in other areas. The homeless, the poor, generally the money could go anywhere else it would effect more people in a more meaningful way.
B) The general public would never go for government sponsored prostitutes.
C) The politicians would never back it either.

D) Again, a tax for government sponsored prostitutes. Would never fly. Ever. You are mixing taxation(which people hate) and a societal taboo.

2. Society and politics
A) The US being what it is, would never EVER let this happen. I mean you'd be making the jump from legal prostitution to prisoners getting prostitutes. A large portion of the US is against gay marriage, marijuana, and healthcare already

.B)Whichever party puts this up will be giving the other side a "win button" for any debate, any ad, and in general. The implications that could have on American law-making would be horrible.

[The Problem solved]

1. You know, this is problem I forgot to address. You are linking the lack of sex to rape. This is not a X=Y scenario, rape is also not generally caused by a lack of sex in normal scenarios and is a bit deeper than the X=Y fashion it has been addressed in.
-But on that note, I think masturbation would solve the problem just as much with a thousandth of the cost. Sexual urges gone, I don't see the difference other than the argument that "sex =/= masturbation" which is irrelevant as it addresses the main problem.

2. Again, you seem to not use a realistic scenario and just think that prostitutes will like this system because they get beat less*(maybe) and now have a government sponsored pimp.
A) You'd have to pay and provide food/lodging.
B) Most prostitutes aren't that trusting of their government, seeing as how their work is illegal.
C) Most people, everyone really, regards prison in a negative light.
D) There would be abuse. As much as you'd like to argue against it, the crimes against sex workers is already very common. In prison, I am not convinced this would present less opportunities for abuse.

Prison: It's not a place you want to go. It's not a place you want to visit. While I have no factual proof to back up that prostitutes would not like to work in a prison, I can surely tell you that they would not.
===================================

[MORE FLAWS.]
1. If a prisoner has AIDS, he would not get a prostitute, and keep on raping.
-If you could test and give him an AIDS infected prostitute, why not just have timed test for AIDS and separate the AIDS prisoners from everyone else?

2. The amount of prostitutes would be enormous for a decent ratio of non-STD infected ones to keep working. You'd need at least 1 for every 2-3 prisoners to not get a high infection rate.

3. The amount of pay you'd need to support a prostitute for getting infected with STD's and if she sued, would be ridiculous.

4. General cost of lodging, food, and pay for a prostitute would be more than a prisoner's cost.

5. What about those incarcerated for sexual assaults of any kind? It would be seen as a reward by society.

6. What about gay men or women?

7. What about those who deny the prostitutes? Would they be forced?

===================================================
[Let me make the case for SHOULD NOT]
-Real quick.

1. The government should not be hypocritical in it's implementation of the law.
2. Prostitutes would fair just as badly within a government system.*(especially one dealing with prison).
3. It would present too heavy of a financial burden on society, where funds could be spent elsewhere to impact more people.
4. It would impact the US political structure in a negative way.
5. Instead of solving both the issue of prostitution and prison rape completely, you'd be taking a very costly measure to try and stopgap a problem with no sufficient evidence it works.
- It does not make prostitutes into productive members of society
- It would introduce all kinds of new problems with handling the prostitutes.

Again, should and could go hand in hand. If if the argument is not philosophical and has real world meaning/impact, then you should consider both accounts, not just the wishful thinking part.
===================================

Proof I'm requesting:
1. That "handlers" would stop abuse of prostitutes or not abuse them.
2. The reason most inmates turn to rape is because of years without sex.
-I figured to just bypass this because prostitution itself was an easier topic, but I'm done with that so I'll ask for this.
-Also I wanted to make the point that rape is a deeper topic than "lack of sex."

3. This isn't "proof" but I'd like to see your estimate on cost done in scale with the system and your implementation of it.
Debate Round No. 3
MyDinosaurHands

Pro

QUESTIONS
2. "The prison system of the united states separates criminals based on the severity of their crimes.[1] This means the 10% of criminals who have longer sentences, will generally be sent to different prison than the white collar criminals."
It seems my opponent is associating the 'out in a year' people with white collar criminals, which is not necessarily true. However he does inadvertently raise the point that the 10% and 90% could be separated, and he uses a source to back up this idea of separation (he posted it in the comments, fyi).

Two things about the source, first, it is a wiki, which is ironic given that my opponent criticized me earlier for faulty sources. However I accept the source, as it undermines the point he raises. While he never specifies where in the source he draws this information from (also ironic, as I have seen him criticize other debaters for this practice), I believe I have found where, under 'security levels'.

"In various, but not all, states' department of corrections, inmates reside in different facilities that vary by security level.."[1]
What this means? In some instances, the 90% are perfectly liable to be raped by those who have been in for a while. Therefore my contention of AIDS being spread back to society holds, though it is slightly diminished.

C. I understood you, I was saying that the validity of your third contention relied on the validity of your second contention, which I'd already refuted. (not super-important but I just wanted to clarify)


DISAGREEMENTS
"Would like to note the realistic approach my opponent takes here, while in a few paragraphs states the argument is hypothetical."
I didn't say hypothetical, I said could and should. By showing the costs of treating AIDS, or as you put it, 'being realistic', I showed that this 'should' be implemented, due to the fact that released prisoners are often in a bad way, economically.
A. "While I do believe that AIDS*(or any disease) is a heavy financial burden, it's not relevant in that regard as a "death sentence" for that is primarily a healthcare issue."
It is of course relevant. It means that unless you're wealthy, AIDS is going to take your life earlier than it would otherwise end. You don't have to call it a 'death sentence' if you want, but we all have to recognize that a recently released prisoner with AIDS is not likely to survive.

PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL
In my previous round, I made an argument for why this wouldn't actually be hypocritical, and then I made an argument for anyone who still thought it was hypocritical. My opponent has not addressed that argument, and simply restated his earlier contention. Therefore, voters can consider that argument dropped.

As for the Native Americans and African Americans, my opponent waives away my argument saying 'cultural differences' and 'affirmative action was a thing'. True, it was a thing, and still is, but it's not just for black people, it's for all minorities[1]. So really, it's like saying Native Americans: 2, African Americans: 1. Additioanlly, the 'cultural' differences don't change the fact that both minorities have been mistreated, but only one compensated with tax breaks. Therefore my earlier point about hypocrisy with Native American tax breaks is preferable to nobody having tax breaks still stands.

"Do you know how much distrust that would generate with the people? With the prisoners?"
I believe that as long as the government very clearly explained why this wouldn't be hypocritical, like I have, then there wouldn't be any issue. And even if some people still thought it was BS, is that enough to stop this? Is that what you say to someone who's getting raped hundreds of times a year in prison, "Sorry we didn't want to upset people"?

COST AND REALISTIC APPROACH
"For instance, we SHOULD give Americans the best healthcare possible for free and stop everyone from ever committing a crime again. But can we do that? No."
True, but we can stop the spread and death toll of AIDS, and stop massive amounts of prison rape. There isn't a solid parallel between the example offered by my opponent and the proposition at hand.

1. Spending
A) "It would benefit more people and people of better societal standing to spend that money in other areas." What, $5 a year? I chose that number because it would hardly make a dent in anyone's pocketbook. Everyone would still be free to donate to their favorite charity, or support their local businesses.
B&C ) Both of the contentions found here are repeated in different sections, therefore I won't be rebutting these.
D) "..government sponsored prostitutes. Would never fly."
Would is pretty much the same word as could, especially in this instance. This gets back to could and should, and what is right. Just because it would be hard or unpopular, does not mean it shouldn't be tried.

2. Society and politics
A&B) So is that what we're going to tell the people getting raped? Sorry, the politicians were afraid to stop you from getting raped. Again, all they would have to do, in order to get some people on their side, is argue and defend their position as I have.


THE PROBLEM SOLVED
1. In my opponent's first contention, he contradicts himself. First, he says rape goes deeper than loneliness, then he says masturbating will be enough to cure the loneliness and stop the rape.

I agree that rape goes deeper than loneliness, but, and this is the important part, I think it goes deeper than that in cases outside of prison. I say this because the situations in and outside of prison are very different, and so are the rape rates.

Outside of jail, the rape rate is 286 per 100,000[2], whereas the rape rate inside jail is 5,000 per 100,000[3][and previous source]. This would suggest that the added feature of extreme loneliness is what forces such a high rate in jail.

I say this because of the following:
On the outside you've got those creeps that are interested in feeling more powerful than their victim, and we see the kind of numbers they rack up.

But in jail, the number is much higher, and there's the difference that they spend many years alone from the opposite sex. Logically, this added factor will then play a large hand in the increase of rapes. This loneliness has led to a culture that is very comfortable with rape as a necessary thing, adding to its widespread occurrence. Prostitution would wipe out that loneliness and that necessity.


MORE 'FLAWS'
1. "If a prisoner has AIDS, he would not get a prostitute, and keep on raping." Already refuted.
"If you could test and give him an AIDS infected prostitute, why not just have timed test for AIDS and separate the AIDS prisoners from everyone else?" Because this would not solve the problem of rape.

2. "You'd need at least 1 for every 2-3 prisoners to not get a high infection rate." Not sure where you pulled this number from, I'm pretty sure you have nothing to substantiate this claim with.

3. "The amount of pay you'd need to support a prostitute for getting infected with STD's and if she sued, would be ridiculous." Make her sign a waiver before she takes the job.

4. "General cost of lodging, food, and pay for a prostitute would be more than a prisoner's cost."
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the prostitutes will be living in the prison. That would not be the case. I told you that if you had any further questions about my proposal, that you should ask before joining. Any confusion that arises out of your not doing that is your fault.

5. Again, just explain this stuff to people. If society gets riled up with the idea you're suggesting, just know that it is to prevent rape and deaths related to AIDS, and it will lower the recidivism rates.

6. "What about gay men or women?" Gay prostitutes are a thing.

And if you mean, will this deter them from raping, of course it will. Would you rather have sex with someone who is resisting or not into it, or someone whose job depends on being good at sex?

7. "What about those who deny the prostitutes? Would they be forced?"
No[4].

THE CASE FOR WHY NOT
This section was just my opponent restating his earlier arguments, which have already been refuted, therefore I have nothing to say here.


PROOF HE'S REQUESTING
1. "That "handlers" would stop abuse of prostitutes or not abuse them."
A prisoner would not abuse because they wouldn't want to lose their special privilege. If a handler abused, it could be reported to someone else.
2. Already refuted.
3. No clue. But I have shown that there are some very simple ways to raise funds, and I have already mentioned that instead of covering all the jails/prisons in America, they could just prioritize on a few if it came to that.


IN CONCLUSION
I encourage you vote for me, because:
I have shown rape would be reduced by the implementation of this.
I have shown that it would make the lives of prostitutes better.
I have shown that it would reduce the spread and death toll of AIDS.
I have used far more, and far more reliable sources than my opponent, who only utilized a wiki, which he only ever put in the comments.
My opponent has been very arrogant and condescending throughout the debate.


Thanks for reading. Vote Pro.

Sources:
[1] https://www.aclu.org...
[2] http://americanprogress.org...
[3] https://www.google.com...
[4] http://www.google.com...
Empiren

Con

On the Questions]
NOTE I linked a wiki because it's common knowledge. This isn't something that I do not need factual, verifiable proof of a scientific study for. There are multiple levels of prison in accordance to the crime committed. This is how the system works and was stating it in general. I honestly didn't even need a source for that seeing as how the topic was prison-based.

"What this means? In some instances, the 90% are perfectly liable to be raped by those who have been in for a while. Therefore my contention of AIDS being spread back to society holds, though it is slightly diminished."

Well it meant that there are different prison systems for different levels of crime. Also the assumption that the 90% is innocent is baseless if you make the point of recidivism. I was just pointing out that that people who get out of prison within a couple of years will not have the tendency to rape "due to lack of sex".

C) My opponent just wasted the best opportunity he had. There was no proof, no logic, and no link to rape being caused by lack of sex.

The statement of "I already refuted that" is being dishonest. Here is the quote he is referring to:

"Offering prostitutes to inmates would nearly wipe out prison rape. The reason most inmates turn to rape is because of years without sex. In their desperation, inmates turn to people of the same gender, something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Understanding of this desperation and loneliness by other inmates makes gay rape much more acceptable, often being dressed up as a status type of thing"
-Pro

Again, there is no logic or proof in that, just a baseless assumption that lack of sex would cause rape. I think both I and the audience will agree, that's oversimplifying a very complex subject(rape).

-This eventually leads into everything else, which has it's own problems show below.

[On Disagreements]

A)"If you want, but we all have to recognize that a recently released prisoner with AIDS is not likely to survive."
-Pro

I agree with the logic that anyone with a disease has less chance at surviving. However again, universal healthcare would be the better option here.

[Note] Pro really just had to link a statistic on disease deaths from prisoners being released. That would have been hands down the easiest way to explain the point better than "people with disease have it harder" and appealing to the audience that most likely have their own problems in life..

[Prostitution is Illegal]

Again, the hypocritical argument of another hypocrisy makes all hypocrisy ok is invalid.

I don't have to argue the difference between African American and Native American compensation. It's irrelevant. The point was that both were compensated and if you wanted to make the assumption that one act of unfair compensation by comparison is ok then any hypocrisy is, you are wrong.

"I believe that as long as the government very clearly explained why this wouldn't be hypocritical, like I have, then there wouldn't be any issue. And even if some people still thought it was BS, is that enough to stop this? Is that what you say to someone who's getting raped hundreds of times a year in prison, "Sorry we didn't want to upset people"?"

I can sum this up to naivety and the appeal to emotion fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org...

It's naive to think that the American public would ever support prostitution and appealing to emotion to support an unproven system because people are being harmed in the current one.

[Cost and Realistic Approach]
A) Missed the point. The money could help more people spent elsewhere.
D) Already refuted(I'm repeating myself here).

2. My opponent tries to make an appeal that because people are being raped his system is therefore the best one and the only one we should use. It's a fallacy.

[Problem Solved]

1. My opponent has not proved why people are raped in prison and keeps making baseless assumptions, presumably influenced by his societal position.

NOTE: This is the third time he has not proved why people commit rape in prison and chalks up a very complex subject to his baseless assumption that it is due to lack of sex and loneliness.

Example:
"On the outside you've got those creeps that are interested in feeling more powerful than their victim, and we see the kind of numbers they rack up.

But in jail, the number is much higher, and there's the difference that they spend many years alone from the opposite sex. Logically, this added factor will then play a large hand in the increase of rapes. This loneliness has led to a culture that is very comfortable with rape as a necessary thing, adding to its widespread occurrence. Prostitution would wipe out that loneliness and that necessity."

[More Flaws]

1. My opponent assumes that separating people would not prevent rape or the spread of AIDS through rape. He is wrong.

2. My opponent is right. I have nothing to back my claim up with, this was a parody that shows neither does my opponent have reasonable scenario.

3. My opponent suggest making a prostitute sign a waiver so that if the system treats her unfairly she cannot sue.

4. My opponent does not explain how prostitutes would be paid/supported through this system.

5 My opponent makes the rather naive assumption that people would care about prison rape and would implement prostitutes because of it.

6. My opponent rather naively thinks that a prostitutes job depends on how good they are at sex. This is odd because he just listed homeless statistics in part 2.

7. My opponent then confirms that the system being non-mandatory would not prevent rape to it's utmost efficiency.
(IF the belief that rape was due to lack of sex was true, it is not).

[Proof requested]
1. My opponent is again, naive. He thinks the reporting system works, which is utterly shocking given that rape goes on because it does NOT work. This applies to both inside and out of prison.
Note: Wow.

3 My opponent has "no clue" how much this would all cost nor any idea of implementation. Basically his idea is admittedly to be fantasy in a fantasy world.

In conclusion:*(Mirror)

My opponent did not show that rape would be reduced because of this or the cause of rape to be "lack of sex".

My opponent did not show that this would make prostitutes lives better.*(and I'd argue there would be more risk in working at a prison as a prostitute than on the streets).

My opponent again makes assumptions that because A works then B C and D would, without proving A.

I do not need sources. It is simply not required in this debate for the Con side with the arguments provided.

I probably have been arrogant and maybe condescending, I'll admit that, however I don't think that really changes the counter's brought up in the least.
-------------------------------

My conclusion:

Pro did not provide proof or logic that rape in prisons was from a lack of sex.

Pro did not support his claim that the prostitutes would be fine under a report system.
NOTE: One that does not work for rape already, hence prison rape existing in the first place.

Pro provided no realistic outlook for the system as far as economic impact was concerned.

Pro did not provide a reason for the American public to accept this system of any other or to support it over another system.
----------------------

Thanks for reading, Vote who you want to vote for.
Debate Round No. 4
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
As long as we're talking about the good kind of stalking. Not that there's any other kind.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Well I am flattered by that explanation.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
No, I just happened to come across this debate while stalking MyDinosaurHands' profile and noticed the comments war going on here. I had to go to the emergency room :(
Posted by Empiren 3 years ago
Empiren
What, did he come crying to you romanii?
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Empiren, I'm filing a law suit against you.
Your final comment to whiteflame made me facepalm so hard that my skull split in half.
Posted by Empiren 3 years ago
Empiren
Again not arguing that they are biased solely because they know you or even the majority from that.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
I have over 200+ people on my friends list, but I'm not really friends with any of them. I make sure to have a lot of friends so my friends activity feed gives me lots of stuff to look at.
Posted by Empiren 3 years ago
Empiren
Don't know
On friends list
-yeah ok

No claiming they are biased because of you, but in general
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Who would have a bias for an idea as absurd as mine? The knee-jerk reaction to this proposition is incredulity and rejection.

And I don't know either of these guys, they have no reason to vote for me in that regard.
Posted by Empiren 3 years ago
Empiren
I did not mean to insult you, I am sorry that you took at such. All I meant to do was provide the reasons why your RFD was wrong, biased, and showed you did not read.(on both of our debates).

But you are right, I can't help it if you won't read the entire debate, have an innate bias within your opinion, or are just plain wrong. It was wrong of me to put my opinions on a vote from someone so obviously stuck in their opinions.

Wait a minute.......
"So, rather than gleaning anything from this RFD, look at it as a diatribe aimed squarely at you. Continue to see your own arguments through the narrow lens of your perception and ignore all other outlooks as nothing but bias. That way, you'll feel better about yourself, and you'll garner absolutely nothing from what should have been an informative debate. Continue to repeat yourself here in defense of the same points, despite the fact that they were obviously insufficient to garner votes. If the only judge you can get to side with you is actively inserting his opinion into his decision, as the ironically named "neutral" did, then something is wrong."

Instead of going on and pretty much destroying you right here, I'll simply state that maybe you should have thought about how easy it is to point out the above is exactly what you are doing and how you should really take a minute and review what you post before posting it.

^_^ . This is great, I got someone who voted against me to admit to his own hypocrisy.

Oooh boy, I'll take the win and call it a night.

Ciao~
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
MyDinosaurHandsEmpirenTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate had potential yet Con based his arguments on attacks and no solid arguments presented that conveyed their position. This is especially illogical as Con conceded that the innate problems (i.e. rape and AIDS) will not be remedied in any other way than has been proposed by Pro. The only way we get to this point partly is when Con mentions universal healthcare, and spending to decrease prostitution outside jails, but this is not the proposition of the debate and void arguments. For these reasons arguments go to Pro. Lastly I have awarded source points to Pro as they were provided while Con did not provide any for claims made. Suggestion regarding the wiki source of Con, I would suggest always to put sources in the debate argument rounds and not comments as most readers don't want to sift through comments.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
MyDinosaurHandsEmpirenTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Also, affording sources to Pro on the basis that he provided substantially more evidence to back up his claims.
Vote Placed by neutral 3 years ago
neutral
MyDinosaurHandsEmpirenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Sorry to Pro, but he lost in first round. Rape is not about sex, its about power and dominance. By getting that fundamental issue incorrect, he torpedoed his case. Again, prostitutes exist all over the world, and that does not prevent rape - prostitutes are themselves often victims of rape. Con doesn't do much better here, but the genesis of the argument and it being Pro's main argument dooms the debate. Its a factual error.
Vote Placed by GOP 3 years ago
GOP
MyDinosaurHandsEmpirenTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, I don't have the time to read the entire debate to determine who made more convincing arguments, but Con didn't use any sources at all.