Prostitution Should Be Legalized

My opponent states that he hasn't conceded the ethical aspects of prostitution, but he unwittingly did. If you read my first round, I clearly gave an argument stating that prostitution is not immoral. By not refuting it in his first round, it can only be assumed that he has conceded it. In a debate, not refuting arguments is NOT a good way to go about. However, do realize that I never stated I would win this debate because he failed to refute it - I have not "proclaimed victory". I merely observed that my opponent shifted his attack from not moral grounds, but economic grounds - and I complied. For him to accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when I am not is a stain on himself. Seeing as how he has given some arguments pertaining to moral grounds, I will refute that first then go on to the economic grounds. ==================== Taxation Ethical aspects of prostitution ==================== {quote}If my opponent had had the thought or respect to fully read my argument, or to check out the source I listed, he would had read that prostitution as a business is NOT taxed. The only income Nevada receives from organized prostitution rings is from the licensing fees. {endquote} ----> A complete red herring. Of course Nevada brothel's aren't taxed, I never disputed that. HOWEVER, I am arguing that when prostitution becomes a legal industry, customers SHOULD get taxed per "bang for a buck", if you get my drift (everything they pay for sexual offers). Because if prostitution does become a recognized business, then why not institute taxes throughout? My opponent's argument is an obvious misunderstanding between the words "is" and "should" - a sad mistake indeed. {quote}. .. but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far. .. But could you let prostitution spread, and along with it, the moral depravity necessary to degrade a woman enough to have no qualms with equating them to GROCERIES? {endquote} ----> There is nothing immoral with it. Whatever "image" will be projected on the prostitutes by customers, it is the women/men THEMSELVES who chose to live with their profession. They aren't forced to become prostitutes - they chose to. Therefore, it is their burden to carry whatever consequences come along. {quote}Devastating if she is a prostitute, but this might be from the fact that prostitution exists. In other words, although she might not be a prostitute, she might be treated as one, with men being reinforced for their behaviors. {endquote} ----> This is an empty claim with no evidence to back it up. How does my opponent go from the fact that some men will be reinforced with "bad behaviors" when treating prostitutes, to saying that all women will be degraded? This is similar to arguments used by feminists against pornography, and it's unequivocally unconvincing. While psychology can be scientifically rigorous, many psychologists aren't. ==================== Economic aspects ==================== {quote}But from the perspective of the BUSINESS, all competition does is force you to sacrifice profit, directly to the opposition, or also from advertising and other techniques to bring customers through your doors. {endquote} ----> True, but there is a crucial difference in this scenario: the fact that prostitution will BECOME a legal business. True, Nevada will lost at least some of their potential customers to other competitors (though I suspect not many), but OVERALL, their net income will increase. This is because Vegas can now actually invest in large projects related to prostitution (a prostitution mansion? ), and with smart business moves profit much from their services. Making prostitution a legit industry will introduce a whole new aspect to the economy, and Vegas will surely be the first to benefit, and probably monopolize, from it. That being said, my opponent has yet again failed to refute TWO OTHER of my arguments - both on economic grounds. He has failed to show why Vegas' economy will take such an economic harm when gambling is it's primary motivation. He has also failed to show -- and this is most important -- why we should even care about Vegas! Why should an entire potential industry be based on the success of ONE area? ! If prostitution would be legalized nationwide, America OVERALL would benefit in so many ways. More jobs. More money. All these benefits shouldn't be forsaken just for Vegas' benefit when it already can sustain itself (more than that, it flourishes). ==================== Risk of spreading STD's ==================== {quote}Next, my opponent speaks of an entire potential for jobs. But I speak of another spread. The spread of a plethora of STDs. HIV, AIDS, anyone? How about herpes? Gonorrhea? Chlamydia? The clap? Crabs? Which would you prefer? {endquote} ----> This perceived "problem" is easily circumvented. Like the porn industry, the prostitution industry will have hard guidelines and regulations concerning STD's until medicine can catch up. This means that customers will have to be given a mandatory STD checkup every time they come for services, while prostitutes will have to take a mandatory STD checkup every few months or so. In fact, I can imagine great expansion on these guidelines. Customers have their own "profile" when they go to a certain business to avoid redundant checkups, sex with condoms will be cheaper, etc. Also, it should be noted that legalizing prostitution will in fact DECREASE the amount of STD's. Obviously, prostitution happens a LOT right now - and it's very dangerous(STD-wise) and illegal. If we legalize it, then we can curb the "bad" sides to it - just like how legalizing drugs will curb the crime that goes along with it. My opponent's other two rebuttals don't apply, since I don't use any of the hypothetical arguments he argued against. ==================== CON Claims: PRO has failed to make arguments of his own ==================== Why does my opponent constantly accuse of me of false claims? I certainly have made arguments of my own, and just a semi-concentrated read of my rounds will reveal as such. Here are my counterarguments, which my opponent falsely believes makes up the entirety of my rounds: 1. Vegas shouldn't be the focus of attention 2. No evidence/reason to show how legalizing prostitution will lead to men "degrading" women who aren't prostitutes 3. Vegas will profit from legalizing prostitution, because it's the birth of a NEW industry NOW, let me give you a list of arguments I have made for my side. Even though some arguments are related to my counterarguments(above), it doesn't matter! I can formulate a new argument by the process of refuting another, it's perfectly okay! : 1. Legalizing prostitution is not immoral 2. Legalizing prostitution will help the economy - both Vegas' and USA in general 3. Legalizing prostitution will curb the spread of STD's Is it not obvious that I have fulfilled my burden? I have given rebuttals to each of his arguments, and given several for my own. If my opponent is keen on accusing me of things that aren't rightfully so, then shame on him. ==================== Conclusion ==================== All of my opponent's claims and arguments have been refuted, and mine still stand. He has failed to refute TWO of my arguments concerning economics, and his new arguments relating to STD's and morals have been adequately refuted as well. While he may taunt at my "semi-delusional state", it should be clear to the voters who won.