Prosthetic breasts and vaginas should be banned from sale

Thanks for the response! It was funny and logical! -------------------------------------- "It is impossible for me to prove absolutely that Mr. Gaga isn't a man because he has consistently refused to subject himself to a full, public gynecological examination of his genitalia." With good reason. If you were accused of being a woman would you want to be examined? even if you have nothing to hide, it's a matter of respect. ---------------------------- "Of course, we have to ask ourselves why this is. What has he got to hide? No doubt, in a few years when his fans have reached the age of puberty and he is all washed up as a pop star, it will come out (I mean the truth, not his penis)." It's a matter of respect. If I was accused of being a woman, I would not consent to examination. Does that make me a woman? This argument doesn't logically follow. ------------------------------------------ "In the meantime, dirty old men are donning prosthetic breasts and vaginas and are going into swimming baths to spy on our womenfolk with impunity." Once again, my opponent has provided ABSOLUTELY no evidence to back this claim. Extend that it is sexist and illogical due to lack of evidence. ------------------------- "They know they can get away with it because no swimming baths manager would go up to a butch-looking woman in the showers and say: "Excuse me madam, but I can't help noticing you have hairy legs and I suspect you may be a man. I'm afraid I'm going to have to have a good grope of your jubblies and a proper poke around inside your minge in order to satisfy myself that you are, as you purport, of the female gender." That's why so few crimes of this nature have been brought to justice." This is funny, but illogical. No evidence that this has or will happen. It's improbable, hypothetical, and lame. Also, my opponent claims that "so few crimes of this nature have been brought to justice", but the reason for this is because there are no crimes of those natures being commited! ---------------------------------------------------- "That said, I do agree that women who have had mastectomies or have suffered injuries to their beef curtains should be allowed prosthetic replacements, but these should be prescribed by doctors rather than be offered for sale by unscrupulous traders of female sexual appendages." Interesting how my opponent now trys to capture my benefits of negating. He obviously agrees to my harms. But his compromise won't work because it the items are banned (as resolution says they should be), then they will be banned from sale by the doctors or pharmacies as well. My opponent would not be affirming the resolution if he decided to sell it privately. --------------------- Note that my opponent drops my second argument, so extend that since he concedes. "2) People have the right to look and be who they want to be Is it right to tell someone they cannot wear a hat in public? Is it right to tell someone they cannot wear shoes? Or even if they can't wear a prosthetic leg. That's up to the voters to decide, but in my opinion, no. The majority of people with those items are using them for personal purposes, not for malicious intentions." So in conclusion, negating is the only way to go to 1) Allow people free expression and 2) Cover up body flaws. His whole argument is improbable and lacks evidence. Please vote who did the better debating, not who you personally agree with. I urge you to negate. Thank you.