All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

Thank you Con for the response. I will first address Con's case and provide rebuttals where needed, then move on to reaffirming my own case -Con's position- She starts off by stating that " Anything that harms our individuals is something that we should act against. I think the value of the combination of life, happiness and survival is much more important than the value of freedom, and that we have a duty to promote these values to the fullest." This does seem reasonable taken at face value, however this simply is not the case of the reality we live in. I preempt this argument in my last round by stating a number of "legalized harms" that the government already acknowledges as something they can't prevent. Be it for revenue purposes or simply ones own right to their autonomy. If we are to utilize Con's train of thought to decide which laws to enact, then one ought to criminalize the use of alcohol, cigerattes, nearly every physical sport, and unhealthy foods like fast food. I think it's rather evident that Con's basis for enacting laws is far to restrictive and would lead to absurdities, which completely go against ones self-interest. If Con truly is for "life and happiness", allowing people do serve their self-interest would indeed be the best route, regardless of the harm done to oneself. Throwing survival in her beliefs hurts her case because america is not a utilitarian government, and doesn't go out of its way to make sure everyone lives an optimally healthy life. -Who is the Victim- Con believes that a victim is an individual who has been "acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent". Although this is essentially the dictionary definition "victim", it would not be proper to enact laws based on this definition. As I stated in my previous round, doing this would lead to absurdities such as criminalizing the use of alcohol, cigerattes, nearly every physical sport, and unhealthy foods like fast food. The definition is FAR to over-encompassing to used as a legal basis. I however offer an alternative solution to the definition of the word "victim" for legal use, and that is "that which goes against ones self-interest". It would also seems that the United States government has already taken a similar train of thought. That is why the use of alcohol, cigerattes, nearly every physical sport, and unhealthy foods like fast food are completely legal already, because people have an interest in these things and the government couldn't hope to enforce it. Instead they regulate is and profit from it, in turn, further helping society as a whole. Indeed, these "harmful" activities indirectly benefit society due to someone needing to have a job and spend money to do these. -Defending ALL victimless crimes- Con is correct, I deliberately set this debate up for me to defend ALL forms of victimless crimes. I must defend against any contention she makes against any and all victimless crimes. That is of cource, if they are indeed a "victimless crime". Per my definition of victimless-crime, "A legal offense to which all parties consented too." She can not call child prostitution a victimless crime. The age of consent is usually 18, sometime 16 in the U.S [1]. Since a child does not posses the mental faculties to understand the decisions of sex, having sex with a minor is considered rape. Everyone knows rape is not a victimless crime. Drinking and driving are not victimless crimes either. The drunk driver never considers the self-interests of the other drivers on the road. There is no agreement between drivers that the risk is accepted. No rational driver would consent to someone driving drunk to begin with. Tax evasion does not qualify as a victimless crime. People are obligated to pay their taxes when they make money. It is an agreement that has long been kept between the worker and their government. If this agreement is broken, criminal action can be taken. Parties that purchase drugs from their supplier are indeed victimless crimes. Both parties self interests are being met and the assumed risks are accepted by both, much like in a boxing match. If the government ought to criminalize "any and all drug use" then it only follows that alcohol be done with entirely [2]. Obviously, this cannot be done (see prohibition). -My affirmation- Since Con has failed to demonstrate a coherent thought process to base laws off of, I believe my position of allowing self-interest to flourish, coupled with the harm principle, stands firm as the logical choice for deciding on what laws ought to be erected. Best of luck to Con! [1]http://www.ageofconsent.us... [2]http://www.drugabuse.gov...