Soothsaying for financial gain should be outlawed

Hi again, Brian, and thanks for the debate. Many apologies for not being able to post sooner -- I haven't been on DDO for a bit and have now just a few minutes left to respond, so without further adieu: You'll notice that Pro has never provided substantial reasoning to prove the resolution. As I've said in the last round, his main arguments were that fortune tellers cannot really predict the future (which he admits may or may not be true); that women use their husband's money (which he admits may or may not be true); that fortune tellers act within shady but legal means (which he cannot deny) and that the government should protect these so-called gullible spenders (which he cannot defend, and I'll prove that now...). First, Pro notes that preachers cannot be considered soothsayers because of laws that protect freedom of religion. I do believe this argument loses him the debate, considering that many religions use astrology and that astrology is not only present but sometimes the root of various religions or social institutions [1] [2]. So, if Brian's point is that these matters of a religious nature should not or can not be outlawed, then astrology must fall into that category and therefore his point is moot considering many cultures utilize astrology as part of their religion (such as gypsys or pagans, for example). Next, regarding government protection Pro says that the government has the right and responsibility to step in and protect citizens from their own gullibility. He cites examples such as failing to provide benefits in other industries as worthy of being deemed a crime. On that note, first I'd like to point out that he ignored my point from the last round in which I explained that many times mediums have to use the phrase "For entertainment purposes only" which eliminates all legal bearing for them to provide concrete and substantial results. Not to mention that this type of industry is different than the ones Pro has mentioned in which something tangible must be exchanged. Second, the government has no business in stopping people simply from being gullible. For instance, if a man wanted to sell his property for $200,000 even though its perceived and listed value was just $100,000... then that's his prerogative if the buyer is willing to spend that amount of money for that product. Similarly, fortune telling is a service rather than a product (as a back massage, for example). If one wanted to charge $10,000 for a back massage and someone was willing to pay for it, then no matter how ridiculous Pro thinks that is, the buyer and the seller have every right to engage in that type of sale. The same logic applies here to fortune telling. The seller must divulge the service at face value and if the buyer chooses to believe or accept what the service has to offer, then regardless of how silly it sounds to others it is still perfectly legal and acceptable. The government's job cannot be to police the world of gullible people. Not to mention that people who spend money on this might not be gullible; they might just have nothing better to do with their money. If a seller offers fortune telling and provides the service of "fortune telling," then regardless of what the seller says, if the service is provided as offered then the seller has done nothing wrong. Whether or not the buyer chooses to buy into the seller's words is up to their own discretion. Now, if you'll notice, Pro's only source simply cited a letter from a man who attends psychics. What does that have to do with anything? He's also pointed out that magazines marketed towards women tend to contain things like astrology readings which again is irrelevant to the debate. Since he cannot prove that women use their husband's or father's money on this type of thing, then regardless of the sex of who believes in astrology more still doesn't really affect whether or not this practice of fortune telling should be legal. Men commit FAR more violent crimes and murders than women on a huge statistical basis -- does that mean we should outlaw guns or knives for men? In conclusion, Pro's points simply fall short to uphold the resolution. In the last round he points out that vulnerable people who "have more money than sense" need to be protected. However, I've explained that many people who utilize astrology do so for religious purposes... and while that may seem unreasonable to a non-believer, it is still perfectly acceptable within the realms of the law. Furthermore, Pro writes that mercenary mediums are making it so entire families have to suffer at the hands of gullible buyers. However, that is obviously the fault of the buyer and not the mediums. If an alcoholic is ruining their family, we blame the individual - not the beer company. If one's attendance at these mediums is hurting their family, then they should take it upon themselves to prioritize their values. If they value the service of fortune telling, that's their prerogative. Also, keep in mind that individual cases of fraud can and SHOULD still be investigated on an individual basis, such as this NY psychic who 'swindled' thousands from her client [3]. This allows for certain cases to be investigated for foul play while not eliminating an entire industry that provides jobs and an entertaining, non-threatening (and legal) service. I know that I've been to the psychic for $10 readings on several occasions in my life; to me it's just for fun and I didn't mind spending the money -- I could have or would have just as easily used that cash to buy a movie ticket which may or may not have provided the same level of entertainment. Bottom line: people need to take financial responsibility for their own purchases. Thanks again for the debate :) [1] http://www.factsbehindfaith.com... [2] http://www.smoe.org... [3] http://www.nydailynews.com...