Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized

Rebuttal I will rebut my opponent’s arguments and also defend my point. Prostitution will still happen My opponent tends to discredit my argument by saying “My opponent's argument basically boils down to this: stealing still happens, so let's make that legal too. I'm not saying this is a reason to make it legal.” Then what are you saying then? Even if you take that approach it still doesn’t add up to it being legalized, you cannot escape validity of my argument. Why? You stated that “The reason I make this argument is because all the counter-arguments to prostitution rely on prostitution actually being reduced as a result of criminalization, which all the evidence indicates it isn't.” I can also argue the same about stealing, because the idea is that stealing will be reduced as a result of it being criminalized, and it is evident that it isn’t. And the fact is that stealing comes in different form but it is still stealing. The thing is that you are arguing from a different aspect. Safety and role of the state has nothing to do with prostitution being legalized. Why? The resolution state that Prostitution should be legalized. Now my opponent your role is to tell me why prostitution should be legalized and not what should come after it is. You made mention about your country, but the fact is, my opponent, there are about two hundred countries in the world, and New Zealand is only one. Therefore it cannot speak for the majority. While it may be so in your country it may not be the case in another. Another thing is, the reason why you can make reference to you own country is that it is regulated. And that my opponent, is a different aspect. Regulating prostitution is different from legalizing it. Safety It seems as if you are saying that prostitution should be legalized because prostitutes are not safe. But that is hardly the case, for whether it is legalized are not, prostitutes will never be safe due to the nature of the work. You stated that “If my opponent wants me to draw a distinction between other crimes and prostitution, I would be able to give several, such as the fact that prostitution does not have a victim and that no party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Having said that, my point is that prostitutes are better off when they are safer.” While you make a good point about no party being dissatisfied, we cannot be fully sure of this in all cases. You have to be careful when you say outcome. What if one party contracted a STI? I can say that is an outcome, and no one will tend to be satisfied with such an outcome. The next thing is that you also make a good point that prostitutes are better off when they are safer, but my question is how to one measures the idea of being safe? Once you are vulnerable to your life being threaten in one way or another, you are not considered as safe. Some persons say safety is freedom from harm, and prostitutes are more vulnerable to being harm due to the nature of the work. Furthermore, there are many persons who are being raped and murdered besides prostitutes, regardless of what law is there, whether they catch the criminal or not. So my opponent it is safe to say that nobody is safe whether they are prostitutes are not. You made mention that a "soft crime" can actually prevent a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime.” This is a very good point however is that really so? My opponent that’s an opinion because in any case you are saying let prostitution be legalized with the HOPE of it preventing a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime. Reason being we cannot be sure that this will be the case. Role of State My opponent states “The state decided long ago that people ought to be free to use their bodies sexually to make a profit - this is why the pornography industry exists.” But is my opponent aware that the pornography industry is also linked to human trafficking? Those persons who get entangled in human trafficking are sometimes the very persons you see in these pornography movies and films. You mention about money be added back to equation but I can also argue the same thing about stealing because persons also steals money and it can be added back to the equation. When you mention having a consistent and coherent moral code, moral in what sense? I want to know what you consider as being moral. The issue of moral varies from country to country. What you view as moral in New Zealand may not be what others view as moral in other countries. Some persons defined moral as related to human behavior especially the distinction between good and bad right or wrong. What if people have this view that prostitution is not moral because that is not the right way of going about having sex, in a sense that sex was not to be exploited or exchange for cash but rather for procreation through the art of pleasure. Being that said how is it that we measure what is right from what is wrong? Until that can be done, the state can do little or nothing to regulated prostitution in some cases. Because what the State determine as right or wrong may not be what the prostitutes themselves determine as right or wrong. For instance that state will say that “persons below the age of 18 cannot be practicing prostitution” but others disagree with it and due to the nature of their situation they chose not to obey it. While my opponent makes a very good point (I honestly cannot deny it) in stating “Prostitution is a privacy issue, because it concerns things done in the most private of all possible spaces. Government regulation over what we do on the internet, which is somehow also considered private, is not allowed - so then why is regulating prostitution allowed? Almost all of privacy law is about getting others out of our private lives - the only major exception is prostitution.” But he cannot deny the fact that stealing is also a private issue. If I work at a back or in an accounting department if I chose to steal that’s my personal and private business, no one else needs to know that. However that doesn’t makes it right does it. Being that it’s private my opponent has nothing to do with it being legalized. If I decided to privately steal from a multi-billion dollar company why should the government even care? Human Trafficking Why does human trafficking happen? My opponent rose a very important question in the attempt to answer it however he failed. This is not an issue of whether or not prostitutes smuggle themselves but that person smuggle people and turn them into prostitutes because there is the potential make an enormous amount of money from it. And the reason is because prostitution is legal. You made a point in your earlier argument about how prostitution can be reduced. My opponent made mention about warning signs the police can come across in order to find out if human trafficking is going on somewhere. But there is another part to that argument, I can argue that when prostitution is illegal, once police identify that prostitution is occurring somewhere then investigation can be done to find out if human trafficking is behind it. The thing is when prostitution is legalized it is more difficult to detect if human trafficking is behind it or not because its legal so police has no right to question a prostitute about her work. My opponent states “Prostitution is only a tiny fraction of human trafficking that happens in the world” However my opponent whether is tiny fraction or not the fact is my opponent is still a part of it. You made a very good point (again I cannot deny it) in stating “But even if this were somehow the prostitute's fault, the solution is not to ban all prostitution just because some people do it wrong.” But there is another part to that statement. The solution is not to legalize prostitution because some people do it right. Because some people do not smuggle prostitutes is similar to legalize stealing because some steal from the rich and give to the poor.