The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Thanks again to kasmic, really appreciated this stirring debate. What I'm going to do here is crystallize my arguments while providing some counter-rebuttal, going in order of importance through the arguments, and shoring up my arguments against Con's case. 1) Safety I think Con is misunderstanding much of this argument, and I think this becomes clear with his question. No, I'm not suggesting that no law should be enforced if its harmful. I'm saying that if the enforcement of a law does more harm than good, then the law should be removed. No one would argue, for example, that laws against murder do more harm than good, since they prevent countless deaths. I'm arguing that laws against prostitution do. Con grants all of the harms I've stated result from enforcement, so all of the points I made regarding the contribution of police to a lack of safety in prostitution flow straight through. More importantly, though, Con failed to address incarceration and its harms - PTSD, diminished self-worth, severe difficulties with reintegration into society, social withdrawal, interpersonal distrust, etc. - as well as the issue of reporting structures. If the legal system is actually standing in the way of protecting against illegal enslavement, trafficking and abuses of women, then that law is beyond flawed. But even where Con is responsive to my points, he's not doing anywhere near a complete job. Con fails to realize that those same problems (unreported rape and differences in perception) are the same across all studies of this nature (i.e. studies that compare rape rates between countries with legal and illegal prostitution). But even if that's reason to dismiss the point (and it would be reason to dismiss his [3] as well), he's ignoring my other sources [10, 11, 13-15] that also support the same point, many of which look directly at single cases. In either instance, my case is better supported by the data. Con does present a new argument here: that regulations are ineffective at preventing unprotected sex. Sadly for Con, this is just mitigation. What Con fails to recognize is that "The decision and ability to use condoms is a complex one that depends on many factors."Negotiating safer sex can be affected by money, if business is slow or clients offer more money for unprotected sex. Clients may use violence to enforce unsafe sex. Sex workers may use drugs before or with clients, which affects decision making and ability to use condoms. Sex workers may also be targeted by police if they are carrying condoms." [38] My policy at least partially solves for all but the first of these, and yet all of them are major problems in status quo. And, since engaging in prostitution without protection would be against the law, clients will have to offer more money to overpower the legal concerns, excluding more instances of this occurring. I don't expect to solve for this problem completely, but I do solve better than status quo. The reality is that regulations, access to police resources, and legally-run businesses are likely to reduce instances of abuse. This isn't idealism " I supported these arguments thoroughly in R2. That reduction in abuse and rape is very real, as is the reduction in the incidence and prevalence of STDs. Con never challenged those sources, nor the logic behind their relevance. 2) Justice Tossing this argument callously aside is a big mistake. Con has not addressed any of the logic of this argument, dropping the warrants and impacts completely. The dehumanization argument I gave there is reason enough to vote Con, since this is a pervasive problem that affects 1% (1.5 million) of the female population in the U.S. Instead, he asserts that my source says prostitution is a type of slavery. I can't find that anywhere in my sources, and his link doesn't work, so I can't check where he's getting it from. But even if it's true, the idea that prostitution is a form of slavery is absurd in a legal system. These women are entering into it of their own free will and they have the capacity to leave. Neither of those things are true in the status quo. If prostitution is slavery, that's only in the illegal system that Con's endorsing. Yet another reason to vote Pro. 3) Costs Con just grants these arguments, and says they're not significant enough to change policy. I disagree. Practically ending human trafficking and thus the kidnapping and enslavement of women is not a small impact. Providing improved access to better education and health care systems systems and rehabilitation means is no small impact. Con is so concerned with the plight of these women, yet he seeks to close off a route to health, safety, and self improvement that would grant them the capacity to take up other jobs. Yes, this is reason enough by itself to vote for the proposal. With that, I'll get back to the main points brought forth by my opponent. States Rights 1) Feel free to look over his counter rebuttal here and his original point back in R2. Nowhere does he state any harms that result from "undermin[ing] States rights". He agrees that the federal government CAN do this, and so his entire argument is reliant on showcasing the harms of their taking this action, and yet he has completely failed to do so. He hasn't explained why these rights are important to any degree, or why, if they are important, this particular undermining does great harm to them. Con has placed no impact on this argument whatsoever. So even if you're buying that there's a negative effect to state's rights, there's nothing here to pick Con up on. 2) Con's missing the point here. If the people should have the power to choose, then prostitution should be legal. Keeping it illegal refuses them the right to that choice. So even if Con's right and the tenth amendment is paramount, there's a 50/50 chance that it supports my view. 3) Con is basically not responsive to this point. I showed through a case analysis of California's legalization of marijuana that the USSC can and does prefer national law to the state law when it comes to commerce. Last I checked, prostitution was a business. Prostitutes do cross state lines, so there's an effect on interstate commerce, something Con concedes the federal government retains control over. 4) (sorry, just realized this was mislabeled as 5)) Con drops this. The fact that international law supersedes national law is enough to turn this point in my favor. The U.S. must follow basic humanitarian laws, which far outstrip some minimal issue of states rights. Other thoughts Is Con really suggesting that we should consider making coal mining, oil rig work, nursing staff, and numerous other positions illegal? A reasonable reason, from my perspective, to outlaw a type of job is to assess its impact on those who do not consent to be a part of it, even when it's placed under substantial regulation. Prostitution doesn't meet that threshold. Con brings an infinite regression argument into the mix, arguing that my argument could be used to legitimize acting on pedophilia. I would beg to differ. Children cannot consent, ergo they do meet my threshold for illegality. The fact that Con agrees with my sentiment that this is a problem we cannot ignore, and yet makes no effort to solve for it, is an important aspect of this debate. Let's be clear that Con has only run a negative case throughout this debate. He has furnished 0 evidence and made no arguments for the status quo or even for keeping prostitution illegal. He hasn't shown that the status quo has solved, even partially, for any of the harms I've presented. Running an entirely negative case has its benefits, but this is a huge problem when most of my evidence and practically all of his showcases harms to the status quo. These are guaranteed to persist in Con's world. Only mine solves for any portion of those concerns. Conclusions: The major reason voters should be siding with me in this debate is that I'm the only one with any solid offense on the table. The only offense Con presents is this states rights issue, but since it never gets any impacts, since it's unclear and uncertain, since there's precedent agaisnt it, and since the justice point overwhelms it, this argument just goes nowhere. The rest of Con's points have all been mitigation, and none of that has been all-encompassing. He practically ignores my costs and justice points, both of which are substantial arguments in favor of the resolution. Con cannot simply dismiss them by asserting that they are unimportant without addressing my impacts. So even if Con somehow mitigated my safety point into oblivion, it's not enough to win him the debate. But he hasn't done that either. All of his responses simply showcase that legalization doesn't solve completely for every harm that prostitutes face today. But absolute solvency is unnecessary for me to win this debate. I'm the only one who's directly compared status quo to my plan, showcasing that legalization substantially improves on the situation for these women and their clients. Any positive impact here, which affects the basic safety of these women, is enough to vote Pro on this alone. Taken together, my case presents numerous advantages that remain mostly uncontested. We all recognize that the current system is untenable, partially as a result of enforcement itself being harmful, and as such, we must take an action that would ensure that those harms are minimized. That means removing the harmful enforcment, and allowing regulation to solve for many of the problems thatillegality cannot. My case accomplishes these goals. Con's support of status quo entrenches these harms. Vote Pro. 38. http://caps.ucsf.edu... (Yes! There's only one this round!)