Victimless crimes are not crimes at all.

RebuttalThe purpose of law does not just exist for autonomy. Simply because of your modified resolution. If law existed to withhold autonomy then victimless crimes already would not be crimes, and you would have no need to debate this. I should have made this point clear in the first round, but I ask the floor to think about this seriously. The main argument of Pro is that victimless crimes should not be crimes because they go against the purpose of the law, which is a focus on autonomy. If that were true then victimless crimes would not be illegal already. With this specific point, Pro had BOP to prove that this is the purpose of the law. I simply must find a few examples againt that to prove that the purpose of the law isn't, but this debate has already found said examples. These are victimless crimes. Clearly, unless Pro has solid evidence and proof, it makes no sense to say that the purpose of the law has always been to withhold autonomy and concurrently is has been failing, because victimless crimes were always a part of law. I need to make this point loud and clear; Pro has stated that legislature, since the start of legislature has been failing the purpose of law, with no evidence. You cannot simply make such a claim and expect it to be self-evident. Unless written down in such a manner that the purpose of the law has been made clear, then neither Pro or I can define it is purpose, without resulting to legislature that is already there, without cherry-picking, so this must include victimless crimes. This is something I have done to show that law helps maintain human rights, even victimless crimes. Pro has said it is for autonomy, but left out a chunk of legislature in his evidence, but has no other evidence as well, so it simply cannot be heeded as fact. I urge the floor to disregard Pro's point about the purpose of law. Yes, he has valid points, but I could make the case that the purpose of law solely for road safety because there is legislature about it, and all other legislature not relating to it is simply incorrect. This is not true because there is no evidence about the purpose, thus I must point to all legislature and not simply disregard some because it does not fit my definition.I cannot repeat enough how important this point is. Pro's premise is incorrect. The purpose of law is the sum of its parts. The purpose of Shar'ia law is to withhold Islam, not autonomy. Papal law in general isn't there for withholding autonomy, but God. Law isn't for autonomy. If it is, Pro had full BOP which he only picked certain examples of the law. But relate this to my argument relating to road safety. It simply isn't BOP met, and I here have negated what he had achieved. I say this once more, Pro's premise was incorrect thus any following arguments although logical can not be heeded. I urge the members of the floor to take this point seriously. His arguments are enticing, his rebuttal strong, but his premise simply cannot support them, and my negation of them has placed me ahead. I have completed my burden in BOP, but I exceeded buy showing how there is a 100% correlation in law and the human rights, which may not be true, but my evidence lies in the fact that these are the human rights, and we do have legislature for all of them, which is a better correlation that Pro's.Now that I have made that point, I first would like to tackle the issue of the Bible. I am a Christian, but that does not mean I am a ultra-conservative super-Christian. Do not make assumptions. The example I used I could have replaced with Shar'ia law. I said "subjectively" for a reason. If we take the laws relating to awrah, regarding intimate areas, then in certain jurisdictions of Islam, the hands and face of a woman are awrah and must be covered. Now, you never stated which law so I can only assume you mean law in general. Well, how does awrah help retain autonomy? In the Salafi Movement, this is enforced, not for freedom, but because "intimate parts" of a woman being shown are against the Qur'an, are revealing and immoral and other more spiritual reasons only a muslim can preach. Where is the autonomy in that? But this and other laws help to tell the purpose of law. Because the purpose of law is the sum of its parts, and this is hard to disprove. If a country has laws only based on having as much fun as possible, and living ife to its fullest and funnest, then clearly the purpose of that law is hedonism. This is a very important point I wish I made clearer to start with. Because then it shows that what you are doing in defining a purpose and saying certain aspects do not fit does not make any sense.The thirty points was a step-forward of my BOP, just to show a correlation which you could not. Which I will advance on,why they should be crimes.To tackle why it should, we need to find out why they are, and there is a brillaint quote.""The government's ambition is to end all forms of violence against women and girls. This includes protecting those involved in prostitution, who are particularly vulnerable to violent and sexual crimes."- Andrew Boff, leader of the Conservative group in the London Assembly - 2012This is my argument. This shows that law simply does not want autonomy, but safety. It must do, as I have proven above, the purpose of law is simply the some of its parts and this is a part. Law's purpose includes safety, and the criminalisation of prostitution has intentions and hopes to help that. I do not see how much further I need to go into this, it is in black and white, literally. This law is a part of all legislature, so the purpose of law is clearly the sum of its parts, then this law is a part of the sum, so this must be heeded. Victimless crimes should be a crime because they can still cause harm to the safety of an individual and others, and this now has new light shed on it.I really hope the floor has seen what has happened, and they vote responsibly. Thank you.Sources:http://www.politics.co.uk...http://www.samaritanmag.com...http://www.unesco.org...