Prostitution should be illegal.

First, I'll discuss Con's misrepresentations. Then I'll rebut his arguments.1. Con misrepresented the studies I cited.Con claimed: "Your stats are coming from illegal prostitution." This is incorrect. The studies I cited discuss prostitution in countries where it is legal. [1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Many of these studies compared countries before and after legalization. By evaluating conditions under both legal and illegal prostitution, the stats I cited were fair and accurate.2. Con misrepresented my "human trafficking" argument.Con claimed: "Human trafficking is the distribution of sexual acts by humans.” This definition is wrong. The studies I cited earlier defined human trafficking as illegal forced labor and commercial sex exploitation. These studies showed that such forced labor and commercial sex exploitation has increased in countries where prostitution was legalized. [8] These studies also showed that human trafficking increased as a result of legalizing prostitution. [9] Con dropped these points and completely ignored the studies I cited.Human trafficking -- illegal forced labor and commercial sex exploitation -- is bad. It poses serious health issues for women and girls worldwide, weakens the rule of law, and may even compromise international security. I explained this last round. Con dropped these points too.To reiterate: human trafficking has increased in countries where prostitution was legalized. Because legalizing prostitution will likely increase human trafficking, prostitution should be illegal.REBUTTALS1. Consent is not a defense.Con claimed: "If a person chooses to act a certain way, knowing it can be harmful, that's their choice." Though factually correct, this claim has no persuasive value. The whole point of criminal laws is to determine which "choices" are acceptable to society. Murder and rape are a "choice." Victims can even consent. But that doesn't make these acts less criminal. Likewise, prostitution. Just because women "choose" to prostitute does not mean prostitution should be legal.There is no amount of "consent" that makes a crime acceptable. If someone consents to murder, that doesn't make the murder acceptable. The murder is still a crime. So too with prostitution. There are many "choices" that are illegal. Just because something is a "choice" does not mean it should be legal. Prostitution may be a "choice" sometimes but that doesn't make it acceptable. Nor should that make prostitution legal.There are other problems with Con's "choice" argument. For there to be a "choice," there must be "informed consent" and "alternative options." Neither of those exists for prostitutes. Nor would they exist if prostitution were legalized. Most prostitutes were sexually abused as children. [10] Homelessness is cited as a primary reason women become prostitutes. Additionally, immigrants -- especially Central American women -- are often forced into prostitution when smugglers steal their money and threaten deportation. Finally, many women are violently beaten until they "consent" to prostitution. [9] Legalizing prostitution won't change these conditions. So most of the time, prostitutes only have a "choice" between two evils: deportation or prostitution, violent beatings or prostitution, homelessness or prostitution. Prostitution under these circumstances isn't a "choice." Would we say that a concentration camp survivor who collaborated with the guards to get food and stay alive had consented to his abuse? Would we say an enslaved African in the Americas who became a house servant had done so voluntarily? Of course not. To say there was choice there is absurd. And prostitution is no different.There are two points here: (1) consent is not a defense to a crime, and (2) prostitutes don't have a "choice" because they don't have realistic alternatives.2. Legalizing prostitution doesn't decrease violence against women.Con claimed: “I can guarantee there are less women beaten in areas with legalized prostitution than illegal prostitution.” How does Con guarantee that claim? With nothing. Con literally provided no evidence or source for this claim. In fact, I provided evidence showing the exact opposite. Take a look at references [1] [4] [6] [7].Con claimed: “Studies have shown that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes.” To support this statement, Con cited a single study from 2004. But Con misrepresented its findings. The study didn't say that legalized prostitution decreases the rate of rapes. The study made gave a potential result based on a regression analysis. The regression model analyzed the correlation between the availability of prostitution generally and rape rates. The model had a significant likelihood of error. First, it relied on the wrong definitions of homicide and rape for the countries analyzed (this fact was admitted in the study). Second, it did not consider unreported rapes, which tend to be more common among prostitutes (this fact completely skews the data). Finally, given all these factors, the error rate is probably around 50%. [11] That means the study's prediction is a potential result, not a guaranteed result. Thus, the prediction has little if any persuasive value.Ultimately, the study concluded: “[T]he analysis seems to support the hypothesis that the rape rate could be lowered if prostitution was more readily available.” Under that analysis, the study noted “[i]t is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by 25%.” The keywords in that conclusion are "seems," "hypothesis," "estimated," and "could." The study's conclusion rests on conditional language. This fact highlights the study's high error rate. Furthermore, the study did not consider the extensive catalog of violence that prostitutes face which I discussed earlier.Con's source was from 2004. We now have concrete evidence showing its prediction was wrong. Compare Con's single source with the multiple studies I cited. These studies showed that violence against women has not decreased in countries where prostitution has been legalized. [1] [4] [6] [7] In fact, in many brothels with so-called “safety policies,” violence has actually increased. The studies I cite give hard facts. Instead of making sketchy predictions based on sketchy regression models, they provide empirical evidence of what has actually happened in countries where prostitution was legalized.Because Con's source is outdated and faulty, and multiple recent studies prove Con wrong, Con cannot win on this point. 3. Con's other arguments are sexist and unsupported by any evidence. Con said prostitution helps men find a sexual partner. This statement is profoundly sexist. It suggests "men are entitled to sex" and "women are just sexual objects." Both these premises justify violence against women and thus cannot be used to justify legalization.Con said legalization will decrease the spread of diseases. This argument was unsupported by any evidence or study. Thus, it should be dismissed outright.ConclusionCon has provided no evidence for the vast majority of his claims. Those claims should be dismissed outright. The single relevant source Con offered was outdated and faulty. Recent studies also proved this source wrong. An overwhelming amount of empircal evidence proves concrete harms result from legalizing prostitution. Legalization caused a dramatic increase in human trafficking, a point Con conceded. Evidence suggests legalization would not decrease violence against women. Studies have found that legalization can increase violence against prostitutes. And prostitution causes unavoidable psychological harms, another point Con dropped. On balance, all these harms far outweigh any speculative benfits from legalization. For these reasons, prostitution should be illegal.[10] Diane Post, "The Legalization of Prostitution: A Violation of International Law," 2010.[11] http://www.stat.uni-muenchen.de...