Prostitution should be legalized in the United States

1.Evidence- a. My opponent's first source is a religious website whose intent is witness and prayer for others. An moral implications (explicitly expressed or not) are invalid due to the intentions of this website. b. The link to my opponent's second and third sources are broken. c. Con's fourth, fifth and sixth sources are blogs powered by wordpress; their content doesn't serve as a reputable source on an empirical scale Conclusion: my opponent's arguments are not empirically sound. 2. Burdens- a. The Pro's burden in the debate is to advocate a vote for the legality of prostitution in the United States, not to reform it in other nations. That said, I do show how a vote for the Pro will revolution the safety and security of prostitutes in other countries through my Canada and Mexico argument. b. The Con has established their burden on economic security; accordingly social or moral implications aren't voting issues. Conclusion: This debate is weighing negative rights and freedom from moral law against economic security. 3. Scope- a. It is my opponent's responsibility to show how the economic issues he argues for are applicable to the U.S. Unless he explicitly shows this link, there is no impact for the economics of prostitution in India or Korea in this debate; he has not done this, do not make that link for him. b. Despite arguing on an economic framework, my opponent makes several moral arguments; gender inequality, unfaithful Korean men and human trafficking (which I cover in my Status Quo argument) are just a few. Conclusion: My opponent's arguments do not conform to the scope of this debate in terms of the U.S., Negative rights or the Economy. 4. Direct refutations- As a brief foreword; my opponent does not make his arguments in a clear format so I apologize if my refutations aren't clear. The following is meant as a response to the whole of my opponent's constructive. a. The problems my opponent poses aren't relevant to American citizens; they are dealing with the social negatives of prostitution in India and Korea. b. The negative impacts my opponent shows are non-unique, they would exist whether prostitution was legal or illegal c. U.S. Citizens have rights and options that Indians and Koreans do not; neither men nor women are 'forced' into prostitution in the U.S. They choose to become prostitutes by their own accord. d. Finally, as prior stated The con's arguments don't deal with the economic issue of prostitution, but of the moral discrepancies. First, gender inequality isn't relevant in this round as both men and women can be prostitutes and the argument of sex trafficking is an emotional fallacy. Second, the moral arguments are exactly what I contend to object in my constructive; we can't make laws just to enforce morality. Finally the appeals to potential consequence are exactly what I warn against in my underview. Not only that but they are non-unique, all the negative things my opponent shows would exist regardless of prostitution's legality; however I show in my second constructive argument how Canada's legalization of prostitution has actually made prostitutes safer and fought sex trafficking 5. Extensions- My opponent made no attacks, so these extensions aren't defensive in nature, but offensive. a. [2]"The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff". Legalization protects prostitutes not harm them. b. The Devadasi argument was one to illustrate the cultural morality which has led to prostitution being illegal in the U.S; the negative impacts Con argues for are a result of India's Caste system, not a result of prostitution. I would expand more, but that would lead me off on a tangent. Conclusion: The sex trafficking argument is ultimately an appeal to fear. In the US, legalization of prostitution would lead to greater protection of prostitutes, and it would exist either way in India due to their caste system.