Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
RFD for legalized prostitution debate
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 6:51:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
== Debate ==
Resolved: The USFG should legalize prostitution.
== My RFD ==
Pro argues that people have the liberty to do whatever they want insofar as it does not harm a non-consensual other, and that infringing on the right to work without reason to prevent harm is unjust, that legalizing and regulating the industry will ensure higher rates of safety and reduces abuse by the johns, that regulation of the industry will reduce risk of STDs, and that legalized prostitution will ensure greater income tax revenue. Con first argues that legalized prostitution will cause more people moving into the industry for employment, and that this will cause a rise in STDs (failing entirely to explain the link between the rise in STDs and more people joining such jobs). Con also argues as an extension of this impact that this will negatively impact healthcare costs.
So straight up, purely on impact analysis, Pro wins because she has much stronger impacts. Con doesn't clearly highlight the probability and magnitude of STDs from legalized prostitution, nor does Con show the extent to which this would impact healthcare costs. In contrast, Pro clearly highlights the impact of each of her arguments, with clear links to government regulation and safety, with huge weekly cash incomes for prostitutes allowing a rise in income tax revenue, and an actual source that shows *reduction* of STDs from legalized prostitution (thus link turning Con's argument from diseases, and economic benefits).
With respect to Con's offense, Pro tears down each argument individually, with research from Australia demonstrably disproving Con's assertion on STDs alongside Pro's original sources, and a link turn on the economic benefits, alongside the weighing mechanism on STDs. In R3, Con brings up a new argument saying prostitution can be used to cover up rape, without any clear link/impact or even one example of such an occurrence, which means Con completely loses the impacts on probability.
Pro's offense, in contrast, virtually goes untouched from Con's weak responses. Con doesn't even respond to Pro's argument from justice outside of bringing up the rape issue (which Pro refutes via the harm principle itself). Con's response to safety is that "charitable organizations can do it," which makes absolutely no sense because there's no guarantee whatsoever and so the impact is slightly mitigated (to no clear extent). Con's rebuttal to STDs states: "So the total number of STD cases would stay about the same because of women who become prostitutes as a solution to poverty, but the percentage would go down, creating the illusion that STDs became less common." Here, Con completely fails to explain how the percentage would go down when there are STDs anyway; there's no relevance. Decreased percentage of people suffering from STDs means less people suffering from STDs, because people who are prostitutes are counted under the statistic anyway. Pro winning the STD issue means Con's case remains completely unjustified.
I'll also note that Con completely fails to warrant the assertion that when prostitution is legalized, more people will move into the industry, since illegal prostitution does exist. Anyhow, Pro objectively wins because her offense remains, while Con's offense is completely defeated.
This vote is provided by the DDO Voter Union; contact donald.keller, TUF or me for details.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass