Public Nudity Should Be Legalized

I will go through the various contentions brought forward by Con against my case in this round. Con's case has some major flaws: in particular she does not address many of my arguments directly and they count as dropped so far. I would encourage her to address these in the next three rounds or I will win automatically because my points will be extended cleanly through. C1-C4: Dropped by Con so far. She has not addressed any of my affirmative arguments. Until addressed these dropped arguments count as concessions. Con's Opening: Con compares legalizing nudity to legalizing cocaine, arguing that both would have negative long term consequences. I think that cocaine should also be legalized and no argument has been made for it being a negative because bare assertion, so this analogy carries no weight. Con also asserts that there are nudist colonies and that people who wish to be naked should remain there. I am supportive of nudist colonies, and all voluntary communities centered around common values, but this is not grounds for restricting nudity in other private areas. Con asks us whether we would want our children to see naked people. This is irrelevant to whether something should be legal. I would not want my children to see Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, but that is not grounds to call for a ban of the film. Con then asserts that this would lead to an increase in sexual crimes. No evidence to back this up is given during the opening, so I will address it in more detail later. However, consider taking this argument to it's logical conclusion: if people are allowed to go outside, they are more likely to meet people they don't like and get into fights. Therefore, everyone should be kept in cages to reduce fighting. Clearly we cannot restrict people's actions on the basis of what they might due unless the threat is immediate. Sexual Harassment of Women: Con arbitrarily asserts that sexual harassment would increase 20%. Why exactly 20%? It is impossible to forecast. In any case, Con's assertion that men would take advantage of this is not backed by any kind of evidence. A woman who didn't want to take this risk could simply continue wearing clothes as usual, as I am sure most of us would. Just because something is legal doesn't mean everyone has to do it. Additionally, a private employer could restrict nudity if it became a problem. Most workplaces already have dress codes. Sexual Harassment in Children and Teens: Cross-apply everything from the above argument. Schools would almost certainly implement dress codes. Public and private schools alike already have dress codes almost universally (though it should go without saying that I question the legitimacy of public schools in imposing such rules). There is no evidence to back the claim that nudity would raise those figures if it were even permitted, and those that went naked would be undergoing those risks voluntarily. A solution in both instances would be to properly punish such behavior (although I will add that several of the bullet points don't constitute legitimate offenses according to the theory I outlined in Round 1 which wasn't contested). Conclusion: Con's argument is based entirely on assertion and guessing about what might happen. The potential risks can be mitigated by policy changes that would obviously occur (although few policy changes would be needed because they are mostly already in place). The potential risks Con cites only apply to individuals who voluntarily undergo them.