US Prisoners Should Have Access To Prostitutes

On the Questions] NOTE I linked a wiki because it's common knowledge. This isn't something that I do not need factual, verifiable proof of a scientific study for. There are multiple levels of prison in accordance to the crime committed. This is how the system works and was stating it in general. I honestly didn't even need a source for that seeing as how the topic was prison-based. "What this means? In some instances, the 90% are perfectly liable to be raped by those who have been in for a while. Therefore my contention of AIDS being spread back to society holds, though it is slightly diminished." Well it meant that there are different prison systems for different levels of crime. Also the assumption that the 90% is innocent is baseless if you make the point of recidivism. I was just pointing out that that people who get out of prison within a couple of years will not have the tendency to rape "due to lack of sex". C) My opponent just wasted the best opportunity he had. There was no proof, no logic, and no link to rape being caused by lack of sex. The statement of "I already refuted that" is being dishonest. Here is the quote he is referring to: "Offering prostitutes to inmates would nearly wipe out prison rape. The reason most inmates turn to rape is because of years without sex. In their desperation, inmates turn to people of the same gender, something they wouldn't ordinarily do. Understanding of this desperation and loneliness by other inmates makes gay rape much more acceptable, often being dressed up as a status type of thing" -Pro Again, there is no logic or proof in that, just a baseless assumption that lack of sex would cause rape. I think both I and the audience will agree, that's oversimplifying a very complex subject(rape). -This eventually leads into everything else, which has it's own problems show below. [On Disagreements] A)"If you want, but we all have to recognize that a recently released prisoner with AIDS is not likely to survive." -Pro I agree with the logic that anyone with a disease has less chance at surviving. However again, universal healthcare would be the better option here. [Note] Pro really just had to link a statistic on disease deaths from prisoners being released. That would have been hands down the easiest way to explain the point better than "people with disease have it harder" and appealing to the audience that most likely have their own problems in life.. [Prostitution is Illegal] Again, the hypocritical argument of another hypocrisy makes all hypocrisy ok is invalid. I don't have to argue the difference between African American and Native American compensation. It's irrelevant. The point was that both were compensated and if you wanted to make the assumption that one act of unfair compensation by comparison is ok then any hypocrisy is, you are wrong. "I believe that as long as the government very clearly explained why this wouldn't be hypocritical, like I have, then there wouldn't be any issue. And even if some people still thought it was BS, is that enough to stop this? Is that what you say to someone who's getting raped hundreds of times a year in prison, "Sorry we didn't want to upset people"?" I can sum this up to naivety and the appeal to emotion fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org... It's naive to think that the American public would ever support prostitution and appealing to emotion to support an unproven system because people are being harmed in the current one. [Cost and Realistic Approach] A) Missed the point. The money could help more people spent elsewhere. D) Already refuted(I'm repeating myself here). 2. My opponent tries to make an appeal that because people are being raped his system is therefore the best one and the only one we should use. It's a fallacy. [Problem Solved] 1. My opponent has not proved why people are raped in prison and keeps making baseless assumptions, presumably influenced by his societal position. NOTE: This is the third time he has not proved why people commit rape in prison and chalks up a very complex subject to his baseless assumption that it is due to lack of sex and loneliness. Example: "On the outside you've got those creeps that are interested in feeling more powerful than their victim, and we see the kind of numbers they rack up. But in jail, the number is much higher, and there's the difference that they spend many years alone from the opposite sex. Logically, this added factor will then play a large hand in the increase of rapes. This loneliness has led to a culture that is very comfortable with rape as a necessary thing, adding to its widespread occurrence. Prostitution would wipe out that loneliness and that necessity." [More Flaws] 1. My opponent assumes that separating people would not prevent rape or the spread of AIDS through rape. He is wrong. 2. My opponent is right. I have nothing to back my claim up with, this was a parody that shows neither does my opponent have reasonable scenario. 3. My opponent suggest making a prostitute sign a waiver so that if the system treats her unfairly she cannot sue. 4. My opponent does not explain how prostitutes would be paid/supported through this system. 5 My opponent makes the rather naive assumption that people would care about prison rape and would implement prostitutes because of it. 6. My opponent rather naively thinks that a prostitutes job depends on how good they are at sex. This is odd because he just listed homeless statistics in part 2. 7. My opponent then confirms that the system being non-mandatory would not prevent rape to it's utmost efficiency. (IF the belief that rape was due to lack of sex was true, it is not). [Proof requested] 1. My opponent is again, naive. He thinks the reporting system works, which is utterly shocking given that rape goes on because it does NOT work. This applies to both inside and out of prison. Note: Wow. 3 My opponent has "no clue" how much this would all cost nor any idea of implementation. Basically his idea is admittedly to be fantasy in a fantasy world. In conclusion:*(Mirror) My opponent did not show that rape would be reduced because of this or the cause of rape to be "lack of sex". My opponent did not show that this would make prostitutes lives better.*(and I'd argue there would be more risk in working at a prison as a prostitute than on the streets). My opponent again makes assumptions that because A works then B C and D would, without proving A. I do not need sources. It is simply not required in this debate for the Con side with the arguments provided. I probably have been arrogant and maybe condescending, I'll admit that, however I don't think that really changes the counter's brought up in the least. ------------------------------- My conclusion: Pro did not provide proof or logic that rape in prisons was from a lack of sex. Pro did not support his claim that the prostitutes would be fine under a report system. NOTE: One that does not work for rape already, hence prison rape existing in the first place. Pro provided no realistic outlook for the system as far as economic impact was concerned. Pro did not provide a reason for the American public to accept this system of any other or to support it over another system. ---------------------- Thanks for reading, Vote who you want to vote for.