The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Legal Prostitution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 709 times Debate No: 85682
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




I believe it is the persons right to decide what they want to do with their body. The government has no place telling us what we can or can't do with our bodies. Our bodies are our own business and if we choose to make this an occupation we should be free to.


Prostitution should be illegal.

If it is a person's right to decide what they want to do with their body, it follows that they choose to suffer a high probability of getting sexually harassed, raped and possibly be continually followed by the attacker if the person does not act.

Suppose prostitution is legal, then the availability of prostitutes will rise, allowing for more people to purchase this service. Their motives are usually: sexual urges, satisfy sexual fetishes and dissatisfied with partner. This produces problems with men/women that cannot contain their sexual urges: sexual harassment rates increase. Additionally, if the person is religious, their acts of sins may make them go alcoholic or take illegal drugs to control their emotions.

My last point is that people with sexually transmitted diseases will increase because cheap brothels will accept nearly everyone as they require currency to survive. As a consequence, the clients may have STIs and sexually transmit it to the prostitutes unknowingly and then we see a rapid spread.
Debate Round No. 1


Dissatisfaction with partner would have started before hiring a prostitute, anyone that is happy in a relationship is unlikely to cheat on their partner which means that if they are dissastified with their partners it would have happen before hand.

Like any profession there are dangers that will take place and it is up to the worker to decide if they want to be put in that place. Police are at risk of shootings on a daily basis and scientist could make a deadly chemical reaction while conducting experiments, doctors are at risk at being exposed to deadly dieseses if one were to arise. There are dangers with every job that the workers have to take into account.

The prostotute or the person paying for them, are responsible for making sure STDs are not transmitted. If they are transmitted it was the fault of both people. STDS are risks people would have to take if they want these services or give them.


Some people hire prostitutes because they are dissatisfied with their partner so dissatisfaction comes before hire of prostitutes. Not sure if I understand your point here.

The dangers of prostitution cannot be compared to those named by you. They take heavy precautions to minimise potential dangers. "About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape."[1] This is not comparable to the intuitively low probability of a police getting shot, a scientist causing a dangerous chemical reaction. So unlikely because they these guys are trained, your point is valid if and only if they are untrained, then the risk of getting shot and causing a dangerous chemical reaction will skyrocket.

As for your STD point, I think you argued for Con.

Debate Round No. 2


Hailey_Palmer forfeited this round.


It was a pleasure to have a debate with you on this topic. I have learnt more about this topic and more about myself. In either case of winning or losing, we both benefit from the experience!
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Xerdex 2 years ago
Hi Shaw357, that's a great argument that I had foreseen. I took the risk and judged my opposition, but you caught me. The STD point was out of impulse, it was poorly constructed and backed up.
Posted by Shaw357 2 years ago
Side Debate arguing against Con: You could easily make policies, regulations, and laws that prevent or minimize risks. Such as making it required that in order to hire the service that you have an up to date medical document that shows any STD's you may have (Finer details would be needed for this one obviously, but moving on), you have a dedicated security staff that makes sure all workers are safe in the workplace who are able to remove (violently if needed) any patrons that are violating policies, rights, agreements, etc. Have the workers equipped with alert systems or safety words that alert the security staff, have workers sign a waver/workers comp for guaranteed safety in the workplace but not outside of the building (to insure employers aren't completely liable for things outside their control). Really, there's numerous possibilities of safety regulations that can make it just like any other buisiness. Although I'm sure that once the big competitors get a hold of the market and create chain brothels and franchises, the smaller ones won't be able to compete.
Posted by Xerdex 2 years ago
I am accepting this debate because it seems difficult to argue for against.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 2 years ago
oh I see.
Posted by Hailey_Palmer 2 years ago
Were I am from it is illegal so..
Posted by MikeTheGOd 2 years ago
so are you suggesting keeping prostitution as it is now? I mean it's currently yeah a popular wide spread occupation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bolas 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins by default due to Pro forfeiting last round. Only 1 point will be awarded, "better conduct", to Con.