All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

Thanks Con, To begin round 3, Con starts by attempting to move the goal posts. This is a debate about the United States, not some generic government whose basis for creating laws hasn"t been formed yet. Con believes that all she has to do is put forth her idea of how a government ought to be run, however, she doesn"t take into consideration how the United States does run. This misunderstanding may be due to Con being relatively new here, so it"s a good thing we still have two more rounds for rebuttals so she can more directly refute the victimless crimes themselves instead of trying to create a new government order. It should be noted that Con concedes (by not responding) that the government has already legalized certain harms such as boxing, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, and eating fast food, based on one"s right to freedom or there is a revenue benefit for the government. She provides us with no explanation for why these types of harms should be legal but not the others, such as drug use. Instead, Con simply reaffirms her belief that the government ought to hold life above liberty. The problem with this is that this isn"t a reflection of our society. If the government DID hold life above liberty, we would see the things I listed above being criminalized because they harm the individual, this is not the case. The United States is called the "Land of the free" for a reason. The only time this freedom is not going to be upheld is if it infringes on some else"s freedom. This is ALREADY the way the United States operates, I am here hosting this debate to merely point out that victimless crimes don"t infringe on someone"s freedom, there for there is no reason to make them criminal. Con should disagree with me on this and proceed to prove that these victimless crimes do indeed infringe on someone"s free will. If she does not, I win the debate. Now that we"ve stablished that the United States does indeed hold freedom above all else, we can begin examining which crimes do not infringe on another self-interest (freedom). -Victimless crimes- Con has pointed to several examples of victimless crimes that she believes infringe on another persons self-interest. So long as I can prove that this is not the case, I win the debate (justified by R2 philosophy). 1." Drug use " Con provides us with a baseless assertion saying that "the adverse effects of drug use, especially the worst drugs, outweigh the freedom it gives the person choosing to do it." The main reason why this argument doesn"t hold water, regardless of its truthfulness, is because cigarettes are already legal. Nearly 480,000 deaths occur each year due to tobacco use, including deaths from secondhand smoke [1]. When we compare this to heroin, there is an incredibly huge drop. According to the CDC, only 6,235 deaths were related to heroin use in 2013 [2]. Similarly to how the marijuana legalization arguments go, if the government has legalized a more dangerous substance than the one at hand, it naturally follows that the substance in question also be legalized. Even alcohol causes more deaths than heroin. 2. Suicide and assisted suicide. Suicide does not infringe on anyone"s self-interests, while at the same time fulfilling one"s own self-interest. With this reasoning alone, suicide and assisted should be legal. If Con believes that there is some external detriment to suicide besides ones self, she will need to prove it. That includes with sources. -Regular crimes- I will start my rebuttals by first restating the definition of a "victimless crime". "Victim-less crime: A legal offense to which all parties consented too." With this in mind, most of Con"s objections don"t even begin to qualify as a "victimless crime" since there is always one party that does not consent. 1."Child prostitution is a victim-less crime" I was really quiet speechless when I read this. I will trust the judges understand the differences between manipulation/coercion and consent when they vote on this debate. Using Con"s logic, a man could give a 8 year old girl flunitrazepam (roofies) and have their way with her, and still call it consensual because "Consent is consent no matter in what state of mind it comes from. "". This is simply absurd. It is common knowledge that child molestation is a regular crime. 2. "Tax evasion is a victim-less crime because that's what the definitions say it is" I implore Con to skim over my definition a second time. People who make money are obligated to pay taxes on it. The obligation to pay federal tax is, in fact, written down. It"s called, the Tax Code. To be exact, it"s the Internal Revenue Code, which is Title 26 of the United States Code [3]. Just because a federal worker doesn"t have to contact you and inform you that, in agreement for making money, you must pay taxes, doesn"t make it a victimless crime. It"s an assumed consensual agreement made by both parties. Tax evasion is a regular crime. 3."Drunk driving is a classic example of a victim-less crime" Con fails to see that all drivers on the road are assumed to be sober and of a clear mind, capable of performing their operational tasks. When one steps into a car and is not under these conditions, they are automatically violating the self-interests of those on the road. This is not consensual. This is a regular crime. -Moral Values- This is an awfully weak argument. The legalization of same sex marriage is proof that the United States does not base laws off of morality. In Texas v Lawrence, sodomy laws were banned based on the fact that the government doesn"t have a right to decide what consensual adults do in the bedroom [4]. A law obviously made based on the morality of those in charge. What also knocks down this theory of passing laws based on morality, is the fact that morality itself is entirely subjective. The government could think that atheism is immoral, and then pass laws discriminating against atheists. The same could be said for inter-racial marriage or same-sex marriage. This is a faulty system to erect laws upon. Conclusion: Con began by trying to establish a viable concept for enacting laws, however her ideals of survival conflict with the reality of the United States. I show several "legalized harms" to demonstrate that the government is not obligated to protect it's citizens from themselves. In fact, the government accepts this fact and decide to regulate these harms such as cigarettes and alcohol. Unless Con can think of a more viable concept than my own (moral nihilism and the harm principle), for enacting laws and conforming to existing laws, she has no basis to refute my arguments on. Con needs a platform to stand on before she can hold a law up in the air. [1]http://www.cdc.gov... [2] http://www.drugwarfacts.org... [3] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com... [4] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...