The Instigator
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Speedrace
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Should prostitution be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Speedrace
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 120454
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

WrickItRalph

Pro

When done in a safe business setting, Prostitution would harm no one. I don't care for it on a personal level, But I don't care if anybody else does it.
Speedrace

Con

Let's get into it!

Here are the reasons (premises) why prostitution should not be legal:

  1. Prostitutes are frequently abused by their customers.
  2. Prostitution creates more stereotypes against women.
  3. Prostitution increases human trafficking.
  4. Prostitution allows people to take advantage of children.
  5. Most prostitutes become such because they lack other options.

Premise 1:

Prostitutes frequently become abused by their customers. A study in San Francisco showed that 62% of prostitutes in massage parlors have been beaten by their customers. The homicide rate for prostituted women in Colorado is seven times higher than the most dangerous job for men. Legalizing prostitution will not stop this violence.

Premise 2:

Prostitution creates a bad name for women who don't participate, And that hurts them and creates gender inequality. Prostitutes themselves would still continue to be harassed.

"After New Zealand decriminalized prostitution in 2003, There were still reports among prostituted persons of “continuing stigma” and “harassment by the general public. ”

Premise 3:

When prostitution becomes legal, Then groups can take that opportunity to start trafficking people.

"One study with data from 150 countries found that those with “legalized prostitution experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking inflows. . . . Another quantitative analysis similarly reported that sex trafficking is “most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalized. "

Premise 4:

As the last question says, Human trafficking becomes more prevalent when prostitution is legalized. Children can then be pushed into situations which they should never have to experience.

Premise 5:

Most prostitutes lack other job options, And legalizing it will only encourage them to continue on that path instead of looking for other viable options.

Sources:

https://www. Demandabolition. Org/research/evidence-against-legalizing-prostitution/
Debate Round No. 1
WrickItRalph

Pro

"Prostitutes are frequently abused by their customers"

Why is that I wonder? Oh maybe because they work for pimps and the Johns know that the women can't go to authorities because it's illegal to be a prostitute. So if it was legalized, The johns might think twice about such behavior. Also, By the logic of this premise, We'd have to go through and make a bunch of other things illegal too. Teachers molest students. Should we make school illegal? No! We should throw the teacher in jail. If a priest molests a boy, Should we close down the churches? (please say yes) No! We should throw the priest in jail. If a john assaults a prostitute, Should we make things harder on her by making her a criminal? No! We should throw the john in jail.

'Prostitution creates more stereotypes against women'

So should women stop wearing make up too? Because that causes stereotypes. What about dresses and wearing pink and acting emotional? I think you see where I'm going with this. I'm sorry to say, But this is a very weak argument. We should never do anything base on how society views it. That's how you get people thinking the earth is flat.

"Prostitution increases human trafficking"

No, Illegal prostitution does this, Which is the very thing I want to go away, Lol. You say that making it legal will cause more human trafficking, This is a slippery slope fallacy. The fact is that we have human trafficking now with illegal prostitution. Answer me this. You're aware of people that offer foreign women a ticket to America and then take the passports and force them to work off their debt right? Well why do you think they can get away with that? It's because prostitution is illegal! If it was legal, Then people couldn't pull this trick, Because they'd have to pay taxes on their prisoners and make them visible to public. We would find out very quickly what was going on and stop it.

"prostitution allows people to take advantage of the children"

This is just vacuous. There's lots of legal practices that allow people to take advantage of children. If that's your argument then you have to get rid of half of the legal acts that we can perform. You'd have to make windowless vans illegal, You'd have to make babysitting illegal, You'd have to make home privacy illegal. It's not a good way to look at the problem. Focus on the offenders, Not the methods they used.

"Most prostitutes become such because they lack other options"

This only makes sense if you're starting from the belief that prostitution is wrong. People are forced to work at Burger King because they have no other options. Should burger king be illegal?

I seem like all your arguments are designed to blame prostitution for things that it didn't do because you have a predisposed bias against it. Legal prostitution is superior in every way and illegal prostitution isn't going to just disappear because you don't like it. You have to do something about it.
Speedrace

Con

"Why is that I wonder? Oh maybe because they work for pimps and the Johns know that the women can't go to authorities because it's illegal to be a prostitute. So if it was legalized, The johns might think twice about such behavior. Also, By the logic of this premise, We'd have to go through and make a bunch of other things illegal too. Teachers molest students. Should we make school illegal? No! We should throw the teacher in jail. If a priest molests a boy, Should we close down the churches? (please say yes) No! We should throw the priest in jail. If a john assaults a prostitute, Should we make things harder on her by making her a criminal? No! We should throw the john in jail. "

Why would legalizing prostitution stop this violence? You offered no evidence for that. Your resolution offers no protection for prostitutes against abusers. Those people could put them under a death of threat and they wouldn't be able to go to the authorities anyway. None of the examples you gave are applicable because none of those situations happen at the same rate that it does in prostitution. I did not say that it should be harder for her, But making it illegal prevents her from ever getting in that situation in the first place.

Premise 1 stands.

"So should women stop wearing make up too? Because that causes stereotypes. What about dresses and wearing pink and acting emotional? I think you see where I'm going with this. I'm sorry to say, But this is a very weak argument. We should never do anything base on how society views it. That's how you get people thinking the earth is flat. "

Can you give evidence of the stereotypes that wearing makeup creates, As well as that of wearing dresses, Pink, And acting emotional. Also, You completely ignored the part where I said that prostitutes are constantly harassed.

Premise 2 stands.

"No, Illegal prostitution does this, Which is the very thing I want to go away, Lol. You say that making it legal will cause more human trafficking, This is a slippery slope fallacy. The fact is that we have human trafficking now with illegal prostitution. Answer me this. You're aware of people that offer foreign women a ticket to America and then take the passports and force them to work off their debt right? Well why do you think they can get away with that? It's because prostitution is illegal! If it was legal, Then people couldn't pull this trick, Because they'd have to pay taxes on their prisoners and make them visible to public. We would find out very quickly what was going on and stop it. "

You did not read my evidence. It is as follows:

""One study with data from 150 countries found that those with “legalized prostitution experience a larger reported incidence of trafficking inflows. . . . Another quantitative analysis similarly reported that sex trafficking is “most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalized. ""

With LEGAL prostitution they had more trafficking. That is the evidence for it right there.


And making prostitution legal will not stop the example you gave! It will encourage it! The people doing it would know that they wouldn't be arrested for it. If they simply put the person under the threat of death, They could force the women to say that she was doing it of her own free will.

Besides this, Making it legal will NOT force people to make their prisoners visible to the public. That makes no sense and you offered no explanation or evidence as to how it would.

And, For one, Since when do people have to pay taxes on their prisoners? Second, If the government doesn't know they are there, Then they wouldn't have to pay taxes on them.

Premise 3 stands.

"This is just vacuous. There's lots of legal practices that allow people to take advantage of children. If that's your argument then you have to get rid of half of the legal acts that we can perform. You'd have to make windowless vans illegal, You'd have to make babysitting illegal, You'd have to make home privacy illegal. It's not a good way to look at the problem. Focus on the offenders, Not the methods they used. "

Allow me to elaborate. Let's say that someone wanted to traffick children, And he found a family that was desperate for money, So they rented their children out to him. If prostitution is legal, All he has to do is make the parents sign a contract and then put the children under a death threat. Then whenever asked, They will have to say that they consented to it or else he would kill them. If prostitution were illegal, He could not do this AT ALL.

Also, You gave no examples of how some legal practices take advantage of children. Please do so.

Premise 4 stands.

"This only makes sense if you're starting from the belief that prostitution is wrong. People are forced to work at Burger King because they have no other options. Should burger king be illegal?

I seem like all your arguments are designed to blame prostitution for things that it didn't do because you have a predisposed bias against it. Legal prostitution is superior in every way and illegal prostitution isn't going to just disappear because you don't like it. You have to do something about it. "

Prostitution IS wrong because of all of the harmful effects mentioned above. Burger King has none of those harmful effects, So therefore, Burger shouldn't be illegal. Prostitution does, So therefore, Prostitution should be illegal.

Premise 5 stands.

You have offered no evidence of how legal prostitution is superior to illegal prostitution. Please do so.
Debate Round No. 2
WrickItRalph

Pro

Premise 1

My point is that you can't make things illegal by the standard of the premise. It has nothing to do with it being legal or not. You're doing it backwards. The traditional way to give civil rights is to give you every right and then take them away as needed. That means the burden of evidence for this argument is on you because you're the one proposing that it be illegal. So I don't have to prove why it's legal because morality suggest that it's legal until it can be proven immoral. To the end of your rebuke of this premise, What makes you think that making something illegal stops them from doing it? Because that is just false. Making it illegal won't stop her from doing it and it will deter her from wanting to call the authorities.

Please rehabilitate premise 1 or it dies.

Premise 2
lol, Special pleading. I could turn around and ask you "Can you give evidence of the stereotypes that prostitution creates? " and then we'd be in the same boat. Stereotypes are subjective and irrelevant. I made it very clear in my previous refutation that stereotypes are not a good way to make decisions. That's why racism is bad, Lol. There is no reason to care what a bunch of judgmental bigots think about anyone. Their opinion is unwanted. Did I make that clear enough? Do you have evidence that opinions are good for decision making? Cause I know about a million Christians who would love to hear that.

Please don't try to rehabilitate premise 2. It's quite frankly just silly.

Premise 3

Your supposed study is not sufficient, That is why I ignored it. Legalized prostitution is easier to keep track of, So it's only natural that the stats would appear to be in their favor. Illegal prostitution is not as heavily tracked because they're committing an infraction and don't want to tell the world about it. Later in the response, You try to shift the burden of proof again. As I said earlier. Since you're the one trying to make it illegal, The burden of proof is on you. I don't have to show it's right. You have to show it's wrong. Which you're not. You're just proving that people do bad stuff to prostitutes. That is only a case for saving the prostitutes, Which is not the debate topic.

Premise 3 Debunked and Slam Dunked

Premise 4

If Burger king feeds someone a burger and they have a heart attack from eating burger king all their life, Is burger king to blame? Nope. The guy is to blame. Similarly, If somebody gets harmed during the act of prostitution, It's not prostitution's fault. Lemme ask you this, Is consensual sex immoral? Nope. Prostitution is simply consensual sex for money. If you posit anything besides this as prostitution, Then you're both factually incorrect and you're misrepresenting my argument. The act of prostitution, As defined, Is not immoral. Prove that it is or your entire argument falls apart.

Premise 5

Once again, Not my burden of proof. It is considered superior because that is how society does civil rights properly. People get all the rights, Then we take them away when we realize one of them is bad. So you have to prove to me that it's morally wrong and for extra credit, Tell me how the illegal version is superior.

All premises refuted. Unless you can prove prostitution immoral, Then you have nothing and every other argument is useless. So I suggest you argue that premise hard because if you just try to affirm the unrelated premises, You'll be wasting your time.
Speedrace

Con

Premise 1

"My point is that you can't make things illegal by the standard of the premise. It has nothing to do with it being legal or not. You're doing it backwards. The traditional way to give civil rights is to give you every right and then take them away as needed. That means the burden of evidence for this argument is on you because you're the one proposing that it be illegal. So I don't have to prove why it's legal because morality suggest that it's legal until it can be proven immoral. To the end of your rebuke of this premise, What makes you think that making something illegal stops them from doing it? Because that is just false. Making it illegal won't stop her from doing it and it will deter her from wanting to call the authorities. "

I did provide proof. However, I will concede that illegalizing prostitution would not stop that effect. "

The point, However, Is to deter anyone from becoming a prostitute and receiving that abuse in the first place. Legalizing prostitution means that anyone can start and then proceed to most likely be abused. That is why premise 1 was offered.


Also, I said:

"Why would legalizing prostitution stop this violence? You offered no evidence for that. "

This is not shifting the burden of proof, It is telling you to provide evidence for your claim. If you do not, It falls.

Premise 1 stands.


Premise 2

"I could turn around and ask you "Can you give evidence of the stereotypes that prostitution creates? " and then we'd be in the same boat. Stereotypes are subjective and irrelevant. I made it very clear in my previous refutation that stereotypes are not a good way to make decisions. That's why racism is bad, Lol. There is no reason to care what a bunch of judgmental bigots think about anyone. Their opinion is unwanted. Did I make that clear enough? Do you have evidence that opinions are good for decision making? Cause I know about a million Christians who would love to hear that. "

Perhaps I should restate. First of all, I can give evidence of the stereotypes that prostitution creates, Like the one that all women alone at bars or in male-dominated spaces are selling their bodies. This can lead to them being abused by someone who thinks they are a prostitute, Spreading harassment to those who don't. However, Since making prostitution illegal likely won't stop this, I will concede premise 2.

Premise 3

"Your supposed study is not sufficient, That is why I ignored it. Legalized prostitution is easier to keep track of, So it's only natural that the stats would appear to be in their favor. Illegal prostitution is not as heavily tracked because they're committing an infraction and don't want to tell the world about it. Later in the response, You try to shift the burden of proof again. As I said earlier. Since you're the one trying to make it illegal, The burden of proof is on you. I don't have to show it's right. You have to show it's wrong. Which you're not. You're just proving that people do bad stuff to prostitutes. That is only a case for saving the prostitutes, Which is not the debate topic. "

The study is sufficient. The statistics were measuring human trafficking, NOT prostitution. It said when prostitution was legal, Human trafficking rates were higher than when prostitution was illegal. You cannot argue that it is easier to track human trafficking when prostitution was legal than when it was illegal because in BOTH cases, Human trafficking was ILLEGAL, Meaning that the stats were not inherently in the favor of either.

When you say that I shifted the burden of proof, I assume that you meant when I said:

"Besides this, Making it legal will NOT force people to make their prisoners visible to the public. That makes no sense and you offered no explanation or evidence as to how it would. "

Again, This is not shifting the burden of proof. I am saying that you have to give evidence for your claim. Just because I have the burden of proof does not mean that you can offer a claim without evidence. Because you offered no evidence for that claim, It falls.


Premise 3 stands.

Premise 4

You didn't respond to premise 4. In premise 4, I showed how making prostitution illegal would prevent people from taking advantage of young children.

Premise 4 stands.

Premise 5

If Burger king feeds someone a burger and they have a heart attack from eating burger king all their life, Is burger king to blame? Nope. The guy is to blame. Similarly, If somebody gets harmed during the act of prostitution, It's not prostitution's fault. Lemme ask you this, Is consensual sex immoral? Nope. Prostitution is simply consensual sex for money. If you posit anything besides this as prostitution, Then you're both factually incorrect and you're misrepresenting my argument. The act of prostitution, As defined, Is not immoral. Prove that it is or your entire argument falls apart. "

I never said that the act of prostitution is immoral, Rather that the legalization of prostitution is immoral because of all of the effects that it creates. That is the topic of the debate and that is what I argued. By legalizing it, We are promoting those negative effects and negatively impacting those who become prostitutes.

Premise 5 stands.

My Conclusion

"Once again, Not my burden of proof. It is considered superior because that is how society does civil rights properly. People get all the rights, Then we take them away when we realize one of them is bad. So you have to prove to me that it's morally wrong and for extra credit, Tell me how the illegal version is superior. All premises refuted. Unless you can prove prostitution immoral, Then you have nothing and every other argument is useless. So I suggest you argue that premise hard because if you just try to affirm the unrelated premises, You'll be wasting your time. "

Once again, It is still your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. You offered no evidence when you claimed that legal prostitution is superior to illegal prostitution, So that claim falls.
The illegal version is superior because it prevents the negative effects described above. That is not necessarily proof that prostitution is immoral, But it IS proof that legalizing prostitution is immoral, Which was the point that I was striving to prove. I may have accidentally said that prostitution is immoral in my previous arguments, Which threw you off, And I apologize for that.

Premises 1, 3, 4, And 5 all stand, As well as my conclusion. They are more than enough evidence as to why prostitution should be illegal. My opponent offered no evidence for any of his claims, So therefore they all fall.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Cool lol
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Thanks! I used to be a door to door salesman, So I know how to be convincing. I try to make sure I'm arguing for as many true things possible, But alas, I can't be right about everything. But I can dream :)
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@WrickItRalph

Really? I never would have guessed, You're pretty good
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@EverlastingMoment. I know I'm bad for giving sources :( I tend to be skeptical and I see them as appeals to authority. I get that there has to be statistics added, Especially in debates that involve society or are detail heavy. I'm really bad for that. I appreciate that you give detailed inputs in your votes, Because I'm trying to learn to format my statements better. I'm kind of new to debating.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Thanks, You too!
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Good debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
WrickItRalphSpeedraceTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The problem I found with this debate was that Pro offered very little substance throughout the entire debate. There were a lot of analogies instead. This is not bad, but it's not substantial enough in a voter's eyes to sway the debate. The BoP is shared, given that the motion states "Should prostitution be legal?" Pro has an inherent burden to show evidence to back up his premise. The lack of evidence or actual case studies means there is very little analysis. On the flipside, while Con's arguments were a little vague and had a lot of room to explore, there was still evidence on his case. In addition, Pro left one of the premises unanswered by the end. Simply saying that a study is not sufficient is not enough to discredit it, counter-facts have to be shown. All in all, it was an okay-ish debate. I feel as a voter that too much time was spent from both sides trying to shift the BoP when it was shared, but Con fulfilled his burden better in the end.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.