Resolved: Prostitution should be legalised

Kind of rushing this since I'm really tired, so it will be what it is.Defense of my Argument:P1:All of Con’s points here will be addressed in depth later this round.P2:Con says he agrees with this premise, so at this point I just need to rebut that legal prostitution provides more harm than good, and therefore helps/protects people.P3:All of Con’s concerns regarding rape or assault becoming a workplace hazard can simply be fixed with regular inspection of brothels or the prostitute simply reporting it (like most people should when they get raped). Also, you must account for the fact that pimps would never report a rape when prostitution is illegal, so even if there is a slight increase in rapes being reported during prostitution, it’s still beneficial to have it legal.Con accepts that regarding disease, other professions are at similar risk via their work such as miners. However, his whole basis on why it’s fine for miners to be at risk for diseases, but not prostitutes, is because mining is a useful profession. However, as shown through the decrease in things such as rape and STDs, legal prostitution can be considered a “useful” profession. Also, how does on dictate what’s a useful profession and what isn’t? Con’s simply being biased because he subjectively sees one profession as useful, but not another.Con tries to defend his source that lacked any evidence, saying that by my logic all sources are useless and by defending the writer’s acclaim. I’ll first re-address the lack of evidence. As mentioned last round, all that was stated regarding the matter was, “And, contrary to the common claim that the brothel will protect women from the dangerous, crazy clients on the streets, rapes and assaults by customers are covered up by the management." This source lacks evidence that’s it’s occurring. Had the author given examples, statistics, or any real reason to believe it, it could be considered a legit source. However, it lacks all of that. As for Con’s defense of the author, simply due to his research and former profession, he is committing the logical fallacy known as appealing to the authority, which means (1):1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.3. Therefore, C is true.It doesn’t matter how great the author is, she made a bare assertion without evidence to back it up. Con in turn, took the her word for it, and used it in his argument. For this reason, I urge voters to dismiss this as evidence of any kind.Con then dismisses my bank fraud analogy. I’ve already demonstrated he has no evidence to support brothel cover-ups, so I shouldn’t need to defend this, but I will anyways. His only point on the matter was essentially that banks are necessary, yet brothels are not. However, that simply ignores my whole point. Just because certain institutions in a profession are flawed it doesn’t mean all should be banned.As for the john who may get infected with STDs due to prostitutes dodging it. He ignores my point that the brothel could be held responsible if one of their prostitutes passes down an STD, like in Nevada. Also, the john could use a condom which would dramatically decrease the chances of them getting an STD. Con mentions how condom wear cannot be enforced. That would be a fair point, except if both parties agree to do it without a condom, they essentially agreed to sex without a condom (just like any other time two people agree to sex without a condom). However, if condom wear is required, it gives the women more ground to protect herself. Plus from the STD statistics I provided showing how prostitutes have a lot less STDs when it’s legal, we can see it works.Con goes on to say that the fact Victorian prostitutes reported less STDs than the rest of the population is irrelevant, because the population as a whole have seen STD rates increase, perhaps due to legal prostitution. However, there’s no proof of any correlation, but there is strong evidence that condom policies and STD tests have led to less Australian prostitutes having STDs. (2) He does suggest, it could be due to prostitutes no reporting STDs. However, that’s just speculation, but in places such as Nevada where the brothel is punished for STDs being passed and tests being dodged, we’ve seen STDs drop dramatically and other examples I provided in my opening arguments which Con didn’t even touch. (3) Not to mention, Australian sex workers are known for wearing condoms a lot. (2)Con then brings up how johns pay more for condoms not to be used, so therefore its coercion. That’s ridiculous though, because that’s how almost every job works. A lot of people hate their job and would quit, but they stay simply because they need the money. No one’s forcing them to stay, so they obviously feel as if they should. Same thing applies with requiring condom usage. For example, if a waitress shows a lot of cleavage and flirts, she’s more likely to get a higher tip. She may not want to do it, but she decides it’s worthwhile for the extra money.Con then points how Dutch prostitutes working without a condom is a personal choice, but they could do that when it’s illegal. However, that’s not true, since as Con mentioned many johns will abuse prostitutes who insist on a condom. But, when it’s legal they are more protected under the law (which is why STD rates are low among Dutch prostitutes, compared to where it’s illegal).Con then mentions that although STDs can be caught early, it’s preferable for them not to be passed on. I agree, in fact, I already provided evidence in many countries/states where prostitutes have lower STDs in legal areas than where it’s illegal. Therefore, this point is essentially irrelevant. 1- http://www.nizkor.org...2- http://www.scarletalliance.org.au...3- http://www.huffingtonpost.com...P4:Con first starts off defending the Swedish model by providing a link to an article, which is a broken link to what was supposed to be a study by the Swedish government. The problem with this is, no one can verify this source and there’s a good chance the Swedish government may want to manipulate data or disregard evidence in their study that would make their policy look bad. Also, there have been numerous studies by objective sources and plenty of prostitutes who have admitted to the fact they are have to take riskier clients (which I stated last round). (4)Con says that I can’t attribute a drop in rape due to legal prostitution, due to a weak correlation. He mentions 1 in 6 women are raped, but as I pointed out earlier, many women don’t report rapes. However, I did provide evidence how in Rhode Island (among other places where prostitution is legal) rape has dropped, despite no other crimes decreasing or no other s states of similar population seeing the same drop. (5) Con never even rebuts this study or others I provided on rape dropping when prostitution is legal.Con points out I did cite the study which said rape would drop 25% if prostitution was legal in the US. That could have destroyed my case, but I provided actual evidence of legal prostitution dropping rape rates, which Con barely touched or didn’t respond to at all.Con says it’s a red herring for me to mention that only 80% of prostitutes interviewed said they wanted to leave. However, that’s not true. Everyone knows that a large sample size is needed for reliable data, and we don’t really know how many were interviewed. For all we know the person doing the interviews picked 5 of the most depressed looking prostitutes and 4 of them said they wanted to leave. Also, Con admits that they can leave their job, which means they are choosing to stay, which defeats Con’s whole point.Con then raises concerns again how brothels are more protected under legal prostitution, but I already said police can do regular inspections of brothels.4- http://gup.ub.gu.se...5- https://business.baylor.edu...Rebuttal 2:I have successfully defended my case and since Con dropped his 1st argument all I need to do now is prove that the increase in human trafficking would be insignificant when compared to the large decrease in things such as rape.Con makes a fatal mistake here, by thinking that 80% of prostitutes would still be raped under legal prostitution. I’ve already shown real examples (such as Queensland and Rhode Island) of rape declining when prostitution is legal, including among prostitutes.