The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Alright, thanks to Con for an intriguing case, and I'll launch into it. Just a note at the top: I did alter the sourcing from that debate, removing and adding several, as well as altering the order. Please use the sources as I've presented them in the previous round, and not the ones in that link. Con's arguments break down to three key points: that the federal government doesn't have this authority, that prostitutes are victimized by dangers inherent to the system, and that legalization does not solve for those dangers. R1) States Rights Multiple responses. 1) Let's be clear that the resolution says "should" and not "could." Con is arguing that there's an inherent barrier that prevents the federal government from engaging in this action. That doesn't matter. The question was posed as a "should" in order to explore the outcome of the federal government taking this action. Con cannot simply argue that there are impediments, otherwise we'd never get to the basic question of the debate. He has to show why the federal government circumventing those impediments is actually harmful. He hasn't presented any such harms, merely asserting that the tenth amendment is a barrier and we shouldn't pass it. He'll need to do more than that to win on this point. In fact, I would argue that having the federal government act invites beneficial discussion, as it results in nationwide engagement in the discussion of both prostitution and the duties of the federal government. That discussion, both by the populous at large and the Supreme Court justices, would provide a much needed examination of an issue that has been stuck in the past for far too long, as well as updating views on the limits of federal policy and duties of the federal government for the better. 2) The tenth amendment is incredibly vague. It doesn't afford any specific powers to the states, it only says that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." On that basis, why should we assume that states should have this power? Why shouldn't the power of choice go to the people, allowing each individual to make the choice? Pro doesn't provide any reasoning, he just says that the tenth amendment wills it to be so. That's not enough to dismiss my case as impossible. 3) The vagueness of the tenth amendment has led to numerous abridgments of it, most notably regarding interstate commerce. Congress has actually passed constitutional laws criminalizing prostitution from this perspective,[26] so they have intervened in the prostitution issue before, and as that law is still on the books, they continue to play an important role. There's no reason why that role cannot be reasonably expanded. In fact, it has been before: "federal power has extended into many areas of the economy... The commerce clause has been interpreted to authorize many laws whose real purpose was not truly to regulate commerce between the states but for which it was possible to point out some way in which the effect of the law would or could affect commerce. For example, the Supreme Court struck down California's attempt to legalize marijuana for medical uses and upheld the federal government"s right to outlaw marijuana nationally (even though the California law affected marijuana that would be cultivated and consumed in California and therefore would not directly be part of interstate commerce). The logic was that legalizing marijuana in one state would effect the national market for marijuana and therefore federal preemption of a state's right to decide what drugs are legal within that state was permissible as a regulation of interstate commerce." This shows evidence of how such a law would be regarded by the current USSC, and therefore how a tenth amendment challenge would be ineffective. Moreover, since the tenth amendment has only presented as a successful challenge to new federal laws twice in the last 78 years, and since those cases required that the federal government actually "commandeer" state legislature for its own purposes (something my case is not doing), it seems unlikely that this would be ruled as unconstitutional.[27] 5) Even if you buy that a challenge might be successful, international law would still supersede it. Cross-apply my advantage 2. The basic justice that I talk about there outstrips any potential harms in this disadvantage. The U.S. population would view it as atrocious if states were to randomly eliminate jobs and thus stymie the capacity of their constituents to earn a wage. There is no difference here. R2) Prostitution creates victims and is dangerous All of these harms are ameliorated under a system where prostitution is legal. I've presented evidence that shows this. A. Disease Con's only support for this point is that HIV is common among prostitutes. I agree, it is common, but it's far more common in states like New Jersey than it is in Nevada. Look to my sources [8-12]. They show that disease reduction isn't just a likelihood - it's a certainty. The U.S. system has led to substantial reductions in the incidence of STDs. That's not to mention that, since my policy requires the usage of contraception, it prevents the spread of any STDs that do persist. If disease is the major concern, though, then there are plenty of other jobs that should also be eliminated based on this same concern, such as nursing staff, coal miners, and just workers in general. [28-30] If likelihood of acquiring an illness is the standard by which we determine if an occupation should be legal, then why aren't these other positions put under the same lens? B. Psychological I did address this to some degree in my R2, pointing out that psychological problems accompany the prison sentences that these women get in a system where prostitution is illegal.[6] I would argue that the physical violence they face, as well as the prison experiences, account for the vast majority of the mental concerns, and since both are substantially lessened in the absence of laws against prostitution, it's a big deal. But generally, Con will have to offer more proof than he's given here that prostitution inherently causes these problems. Can prostitution, as a profession, be blamed for past sexual abuse? Can prostitution be blamed for those women who don't have the disposition required for the profession? And, even if it can, is this reason enough to keep the profession banned? It's been well-documented that numerous jobs cause PTSD as a result of various traumas.[31-33]. Is Con suggesting that these should be banned as well? C/D. Mortality and Violence Again, I agree that morality and violence are common among prostitutes. However, it is far more common under a system where it is illegal. Look to my sources [1, 2, 4, 5, and 10-16]. They all provide evidence that a) locations where prostitution is illegal have high incidences of these problems (especially rape), and b) that locations where prostitution is legal have reduced incidences. But again, going back to the basic question, is this reason enough to keep this profession banned in many states? Con hasn't done any work to prove this. There are many other risky professions that are allowed in status quo, and for which we would find a ban to be abhorrent. An example would be a worker on an oil rig, where explosions, fires, fatigue, heavy machinery, bad weather and choppy seas put many of these workers at great risk.[34] Extensive studies have been done detailing these harms, which include many mental illnesses.[35] Oil rigs are male dominated, and despite safety improvements, continue to be a great source of physical risk.[36] Why should oil rig workers be allowed, whereas prostitution should remain illegal? This is going back to my point on justice, which showcases the harms of making such arbitrary delineations. R3) Legalization doesn't solve Con really doesn't put much time into this. He doesn't address my case, instead posting 3 paragraphs that fail to prove anything of note from a fact sheet that provides little more than the outline of a case against prostitution, drawing only limited evidence from two papers that Con himself doesn't cite, neither of which do research to compare countries where prostitution is illegal with countries where it is legal. Again, cross-apply my second advantage, which showcases how keeping prostitution illegal is inherently dehumanizing. The document Con's provided here merely asserts that legal prostitution is dehumanizing without warrants or evidence. He'll have to show that traffickers operate behind the scenes in U.S. brothels, something that I've already argued against in R2 and supported with my source [7]. Having the capacity to report trafficking also does a great deal to prevent this, none of which is at all likely in the status quo.[4, 5, 37] The only evidence that he provides here is is with regards to rape, physical assault, PTSD, all of which I've already responded to. The only point I haven't addressed yet is this argument that "the routine abuse and violence that form the prostitution experience and brutally victimize those caught in its netherworld, and I would argue that keeping prostitution illegal keeps these women confined to that netherworld. Keeping prostitution illegal allows for numerous criminal enterprises to exploit women and further their own agendas, making for the worst possible outcomes. Con is allowing a terrible system to perpetuate itself, while I seek to solve for many of the harms, something my policy will most certainly accomplish. Back to Con. 26. http://bit.ly... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://1.usa.gov... 29. http://1.usa.gov... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://bit.ly... 32. http://bit.ly... 33. http://bit.ly... 34. http://bit.ly... 35. http://bit.ly... 36. http://bit.ly... 37. http://bit.ly...