Wearing clothing in public areas should be optional

Wearing clothing in public areas should be optional. "Indecent exposure" should not be a crime.

First round is for acceptance.

Thank you.

1. Indecent exposure is a victimless crime. No one is harmed by the act of not wearing clothing. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to not allow public nudity.

2. When the government enforces the wearing of attire in public, it is displaying a vested interest in the clothing industry. A law that mandates the possession of any item sold by private industry should not be allowed, since private businesses should function independently from the government. Buying clothing should be based on preference, not based on obligations to the government.

3. Primitive people from bygone eras had only worn clothing (fur and skins) when there was cold weather. Due to a shift in views on what is "proper," this is no longer allowed. However, I argue that the "properness" and morality of nudism is arbitrary and should be up to the discretion of the individual.

I thank my opponent InVinoVeritas for this debate.

My opponent bears the BOP because public nudity is presently illegal, and even an arrestable offense. Therefore my opponent needs to provide reasons why wearing clothes in public should be optional and I simply have to effectively refute these reasons.

"1. Indecent exposure is a victimless crime. No one is harmed by the act of not wearing clothing. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason to not allow public nudity. "

I have two ways to refute this one.

First I will disagree that public nudity is a victimless crime. A nude person in society can cause distress and discomfort to others around them (disturbing the peace pretty much). Sure public nudity isn't as harmful to a victim as murder or assault is, but in pretty much every sort of crime there is a victim affected somewhere, somehow.

Now even if you want to call indecent exposure/public nudity a victimless crime, it should not be made legal. If public nudity is labeled as a victimless crime, and that is the basis to make it legal, then (following that logic) all other victimless crimes should be made legal.

These crimes include, but are not limited to:

- Prostitution

- Drug possession and usage

- White collar crimes (tax evasion, insider trading, etc.)

- Vandalism (not on the website I cited but it is a victimless crime)

( http://www.wisegeek.com...)


"2. When the government enforces the wearing of attire in public, it is displaying a vested interest in the clothing industry. A law that mandates the possession of any item sold by private industry should not be allowed, since private businesses should function independently from the government. Buying clothing should be based on preference, not based on obligations to the government. "

Yes that must be it... prohibiting public nudity is another evil plan of the government!!!! REBEL!!!! *takes off clothes and runs down a busy street*

All joking aside, I must disagree that the prohibiting of public nudity is the government displaying a vested interest in the clothing industry. The government doesn't allow public nudity because a person walking around nude can be offensive to others in society. The government's obligations is to society as a whole, and only 12% percent of adults would enjoy going to a nude resort (http://www.fishkeepingbanter.com...). The vast majority of citizens would rather keep their clothes on, and have everyone else keep their clothes on.


"3. Primitive people from bygone eras had only worn clothing (fur and skins) when there was cold weather. Due to a shift in views on what is "proper," this is no longer allowed. However, I argue that the "properness" and morality of nudism is arbitrary and should be up to the discretion of the individual. "

Once again, when it comes down to society and government policy, it's not always about the "individual". Society deems what is necessary and polite, and public nudity just isn't on the list. That's why it is prohibited now.

If a person would prefer to be nude in a private place, or among others that didn't necessarily care about nudity, then that is completely fine. Nudity is not what's being questioned here - PUBLIC nudity is. And public nudity is wrong simply because it is immoral for a person to be "in the nude" without regarding others around them. If one does not have a single care for the well-being of others while committing an action, how is that action moral?


I have refuted my opponent's reasons to make the act of wearing clothing in public optional. Over to my opponent.

Vote Con!

1. a. Indeed, a nude person in society can cause distress and discomfort to others... But it is a personal decision that has no direct impact on others' well-being. I may feel uncomfortable when people are wearing clothes--or if someone has a big moldy stain on his shirt. But they have a right to choose, and my discomfort is not a reason for their rights to be taken away.

b. I think that other victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drug possession/usage, should not be considered crimes, also. Vandalism tends to not be victimless, and not all white collar crimes are victimless; this is, however, tangential to the primary matter of dispute. The opponent's argument is not effective, since I agree that these other victimless crimes should also be legalized.

2. By legally requiring clothes to be worn, the government REQUIRES citizens to consume from a certain business industry (in this case, clothing industry.) This strong leaning in the government's position requires that clothing be purchased in order for people to stay in public territory. Essentially, the government is forcing people to spend money on what the government wants them to spend money on.

One could argue, "But wait, can't people just be nude in the privacy of their own home?" Sure, but in that case, they would be required to have their own private property (e.g., a home) in order to avoid the obligation of purchasing clothes. This is simply another level to the issue of the government's dominance of what people buy.

People supposedly have a right to purchase what they want with their money, after government taxes are deducted. Nonetheless, the government forces people to purchase specific items, with the consequence of breaking the law if one chooses not to.

3. Individual rights are more emphasized over the preferences of society. Society views racism as distasteful--or better yet, despicable--but hate speeches and KKK protests are protected by the freedom of speech (in the United States.) [1] It is one's right to not purchase and use items according to the government's interest.

One should have the right to be nude in public, since the well-being of others is not directly affected. Everyone, under their clothes, is naked, and there is nothing taboo about nudism in itself; it is the body in its natural state, and it is present in art throughout many museums because of its beauty. Many, many children go to art museums and see these depictions, and adverse effects to their well-being have yet to be proven.

Before the opponent pushes this argument further, he must logically first establish that there is a definite negative on the public's well-being to begin with.

---

The resolution has been affirmed.

Vote Pro.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, I'M NAKED, YEAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vote for meh.

Check it out... I'm mo' awesome than awesome-sauce himself!