Prostitution should be legal in each state.

1. ) A. ) My opponent concedes this point. My opponent who was the one who made a point that Prostitutes on the street were bad, I proved him otherwise. He is now trying to turn the point around on me. Look down for more information. B. ) My opponent decides to say because Point B is wrong, Point A is wrong too basically. Human trafficking as I've proven is more of a problem in countries that have legalized Prostitution. Look down for more information. C. ) My opponent has misconstrued the point I was trying to get across here. I have shown that a ban on prostitution is a good thing throughout my argument. However, this debate is not whether johns and such should get more jail time and heat down on them; rather whether Prostitution in general should be legalized. Do not take my opponent's desperate third round attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. My opponent also seems to love this article, which points out this: "According to a study by the Scottish government in 2003 on the consequences of prostitution policies in several countries, those that had legalized and/or regulated prostitution had a dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry, saw an increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry, and found a dismaying increase in child prostitution, trafficking of women and girls and violence against women. " Since my opponent seems to love this article, he has such agreed that there is a dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry, an increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry, found a dismaying increase in child prostitution, and trafficking of women and girls along with violence against women. My opponent has just agreed with my entire argument! Points #1,2,4,7,8,9, and 11 are now mine by default as my opponent has conceded these points by agreeing with me. My opponent has failed to point out that I have not supported Legalization anywhere in my argument; rather the reality of the situation is I supported the bans that took place in Sweden. 2. ) A pimp by nature does not have to be violent. A pimp by nature must give off a aura of strength, respect, and command. Many prostitutes PICK their pimps. Pimps do not go out of business if Prostitution is legalized. Look at point #1 for more information. 3. ) Those two links were not about taxation in the first place. I was wondering if more human trafficking which if you look towards the bottom of point #1 for more information, and embarrassment for the prostitute is worth having Prostitution legalized. I have not tried to lie to you dear reader, I have only asked if it is worth all the things that could go wrong with Legalization of Prostitution in exchange for supposedly a couple million dollars in tax revenue. My opponent has resorted to cheap tactics in trying to paint me as a liar while avoiding my points. 4. ) A. ) So my opponent concedes the fact women are controlled in legal Prostitution. Like by PIMPS for example? My opponent has hurt his own argument here. My opponent also says Legal Prostitution is no better because Prostitutes are still controlled. My opponent has therefore agreed with me and has conceded this point. Look above for more information. B. ) My opponent fails to point out that they have not even begun to test for HIV did not even begin until the 1980's or beyond. My opponent fails to point out that Prostitutes can still be given the HIV virus by males/females who have HIV in the first place. 5. ) The foundation of such a document built upon by hypocrites. The fact he wanted Liberty, right to life yet owned slaves is quite relevant. They banned the importation of slaves in 1808 which is a cheap cop out. By then, slave owners could easily have enough slaves here in the United States and make more by birth. 6. ) They did not ban Slavery. Thomas Jefferson for example owned slaves up until his death in 1826, far after 1808. 7) A. ) False as I've proven. Legalizing Prostitution in general will not do this. B. ) False once again as I've proven above. C. ) Wrong as I've once again proven above. D. ) We lose tax revenue to people who simply don't pay. The government expects a amount from each person a year, if they don't get it then they lose that amount. E. ) False, as I've proven in point #1. F. ) False, ineffective enforcement will still be ineffective as the Legalization of a thing like Prostitution do not change detective skills, skills as an officer. G. ) My opponent has taken a cheap cop out here and has not addressed my true question. 8. ) As opposition, I am not going to assume in a debate. It is your job as the debater to proofread what you say, otherwise I will take it as I read it. 9. ) My sources are not liars. Common sense tells us if people don't pay, then we don't get money. Simple as that. 10. ) . http://www.usatoday.com... I point to that article from May of 2008. Mobsters are still arrested for Prostitution. 11. ) Facts are on my side dear reader, Drugs and Alcohol are different from Prostitution. Common sense tells us more people drink and does drugs today then when Legalization happened. Common sense also tells us that too many people will not let such an enticing offer go by as I've proven in my last three arguments. 12. ) My opponent is going off-topic here, making you also think that not legalizing Prostitution means we are heading towards tyranny. My opponent is trying to give this huge speech on freedom that has no point here in order to try and sway you, do not allow him to easily trick you. My final points: My opponent has been blinded by a simple argument and lost sight of the debate. My opponent seems to think "Haha, I have found a huge flaw in your debate and you will lose despite the fact you have refuted most of my points. " I pointed out with Sweden that I supported the bans on the demand side with prison sentences. I never stated anywhere that I supported Legalization of Prostitution. I ask you to remember this dear reader: THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT THE LEGALIZATION OF PROSTITUTION IN GENERAL. Nowhere in my opponent argument did he bring up about harsher prison sentences for human traffickers, the demand side, etc. This debate is about the Legalization of Prostitution in general. The harsher prison sentence for the demand side of Prostitution is an entirely DIFFERENT debate and what my opponent is proposing I lose on alone should not be taken into account due to my having proven him wrong here. Also note, since my opponent did not bring up harsher prison sentences for human traffickers, etc at any point then this debate should be judged upon my opponent points about why Legalization of Prostitution is good, and why Legalization of Prostitution in general is good along with my refutation of said points. My opponent is making the same mistake like everyone else but Sweden by proposing the Legalization of Prostitution without such harsher sentences on the demand side with harsher prison sentences of such. In nowhere has he proposed anything like Sweden has, so therefore take the arguments as they are. Do not let my opponent attempt at trickery try to fool you. I have explained my so called "dishonest sources" above and shown my opponent is now trying to sling mud in desperation in order to make his points look better. I ask you dear reader to take my final points into account because they are the truth of the situation. Do remember my opponent agreed with that article, and therefore conceded most of his points due to the bottom of the article which he ignored. I have refuted points A-F my opponent makes here. I've shown better grammar, sources, conduct, and arguments. So therefore, I ask you to vote for the truth, common sense, justice and the facts. So therefore, I ask you to vote