Prostitution should be legalized in the United States.

To make this debate have more depth and add an interesting quality, I will also use my oppents value principle "The Harm Principle". Indeed, the principle is articluated by John Stewart Mill, and I will refute each of my opponents contentions and subpoints effectively. Which leads my to my first point. Contention 1: Offense (to contend with oppents Contention 2) My opponent stated that, like it or not, we will offend someone no matter what we do. This is inevitable and undisputed. However, when it is a common moral thread, it is considered immoral. Soliciting sex for money is proven immoral and not just an offense to one, lone person, but many. It would be different if the numbers were fewer. Contention 2: Utility Factor (to contend with contention 3) My oppenent conceded that it is his own personal opinion that "Some like it a bit too much..." Instead of getting the help that sex addicts need, they can fuel their own illness and indulge themselves in sex. But what happens when they do not have enough money for the addiction they need? For these answers, it is logical to look towards similar cases of such addiction, such as marijuanna users. They will lie, kill, and steal to get what they think they need. Why not expect the same from these addicts? As an interesting note, you said that "I will grant to my oppent that prostitution may harm its particpants in albeit inadvertently". But your and mine priciple states that the government can interfere if it comes to harm the public. The source (wikipedia) which you presented states "He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute" This means that he/she can not provide service (public or private) that will cause potential harm to others. Yet you admit that it may. In this, you contradict yourself. You also said society has demonized anything that could possibly exceed the pleasure of prayer. I ask you to present evidence of this statement or else I will have to assume that it is personal opinion and therefore must be stricken from this debate. Contention 3: Constitutionality (to contend with Contention 4) You said we can pursue happiness as we see fit as long as it doesn't hurt any innocent bystanders. This isn't true. People aren't going to be on the sidelines cheering you on while you're (for lack of a better phrase) "nailing some chick in the behind." It could harm both you and her, and as a consumer paying for a good/service, you are entitled to the quality of service and if you get an STD (which is highly possible)...let's just say it's not good. "To deny these rights in any way without sound reason is unconstitutional and is unfair." That may be true, but there is a reason, personal safety (STD's, mainly). You also said, "Prositution between consenting adults infringes upon no one else's rights and this much is beyond dispute." It may not infrige upon others right's, but what about the participants? This, again, falls under quality of service. ARTICLES and AMENDMENTS (I won't copy what you said, but I'll label and argue them.) Article I, Section 10: You can not prove a verbal contract, which most of them are. Article VI: The judges have agreed to illegize prostition and make it "the law of the land." Amendment IX: You have to prove the illegalization of prostitution as "Misconstrued" for this to be a valid point. Amendment X: You're right, prostitution is not mention in the Constitution, which means that it is reserved for the states to decide. In Nevada and Rhode Island, there ARE prostitution brothels. Since these are already legalized, these DO NOT fall under this debate. In the 48 other states though, it is illegal and this amendment says they have such power. Amendment XIII, Section 1: I fail to see relevance in this. Please explain more. Contention 4: Pontential Rebuttals (to contend with Contention 5) No child will be considered for prostitution Unlimited prostition (especially unregulated) will most likely spread STD's, whether or not you care to believe it. Sexually promsicuous people are not exchanging a service for money, so they can not be regulated because they are not a business. When you pay for it, it's not an ordinary circumstance. NOTES: Alcohol DOES have known medical uses. Ethyl alcohol is used as a pain reliever. The reason it was used in drinks is to add flavor and people are instructed not to indulge enough to become openly drunk, for that is illegal. QUESTIONS: Who's the one victemized when an STD is transferred? Is this a victemless crime?