In the United States, prostitution should be legal.

First, (1)As I know, approximately 2-third of Nevada only allow prostitution in USA. So, of course you and I cannot easily found the evidence presented there that legal prostitution in the united states is harmful to the overall, mostly secular, society in the United States. This thing are not effective objection against opposition of allowing prostitution because USA still prohibit prostitution in the most area. So, we do not know the effect of allowing prostitution, and we cannot deal with this problem related to this topic yet. Your pointing is missed. (2)Public benefit means the profit of the more individuals. Of course, public benefit is often the second hand profit and individual right is often the first hand profit, but if the public benefit still bigger than private benefit, we should seriously consider these things. If the rights conflict each other, we cautiously think what rights are greater than others and we should choose the greater one if we cannot guarantee both of them. Do your bill of rights order you should not deal with this problem to this way? In addition, although the example of 'http://seattlepi.nwsource.com......' shows 'the courts have shown an outright disrespect for the dignity of women in other much more recent laws.', it cannot justify 'to refute the idea that criminalization of prostitution is somehow done to prevent indignity.' First, it is a only one example. Although you can show me more examples, I cannot still have conviction it is the major trend in the USA judges because I don't know the percentage of this case than the whole case related with the dignity of women. Second, in this case, the attitude of supreme court should be changed first, not allowing prostitution that can do more violate the dignity of women. Your country should not mess more the dignity of women because of the attitude of judges. 'Who does society tend to view with a greater amount of dignity, she who obeys the law, or she who breaks the law? Some of the stigma and loss of dignity for prostitutes stems, not from the act, but from the law.' No, as I have mentioned before, 'The use of a woman's body solely for the purpose of sexual gratification does not treat them as a person. This lack of respect dehumanizes both prostitute and client, and this situation can violate the dignity of both sex.'. Not only law but also the act can violate dignity of women. In addition, I cite more arguments from the site. (http://www.idebate.org...) 'The legalisation of the ‘Bunny Ranch' in Nevada did not prevent the majority of prostitutes from continuing to work outside of the licensed brothel, and remain dependent on pimps. This is because brothels are more expensive environments for prostitutes to work and clients to visit. Rent, health checks, and security, are some of the costs which make it uneconomic for some prostitutes to be employed in brothels. In Britain, where prostitution is virtually prohibited, some prostitutes use private apartments, whilst others work on the street. Legalisation of prostitution does not remove the street market, or the dangers associated with it. The dangerous street environment is generated by simple economics, not legal controls.' Because of this, if your country allow prostitution in the whole country, the violating dignity of women can be more serious and can do more happen. http://menstuff.org... With nearly 1/4 the married people in the US participating in intercourse outside of marriage I hardly think we can consider faithfulness a fundamental aspect of American society. I would also challenge my opponent to describe how it might be possible for a prostitute, short of rape, which is not generally paid for, to actually cause a violation of the rule of marry? Isn't a larger part of the responsibility to maintaining that law of marry on those who are actually involved in the marriage?> I agree your opinion in this part. 'I could also read this argument to say that it is or should be unlawful or at least wrong, to participate in intercourse outside the bounds of marriage. It is difficult to be sure because within the bounds of marriage could apply to either no intercourse before marriage or no outside intercourse after marriage. Either way, in the United States women are not expected to wait for marriage to engage in intercourse. Nearly half of girls age 17 have had sex, but don't marry until the mid 20s. This was taken from: http://marriage.rutgers.edu...... Therefore this standard of virginity at marriage is not fundamental to American Society.' But, prostitution is not only a virginity problem. It is also the problem of the dignity of women. Do you really think virginity and dignity are the same mean? 'Pornography is legal. This means that it is legal for a woman to have sex in front of a camera for pay, but take the camera away and it is illegal.' But, I want to know more USA have NOT ANY restrictions of allowing pornography. I want you elaborate this. In addition, even if pornography is legal in the current situation, I don't think it is the reason of agreeing allowing prostitution because the pornography can also be illegal because of the same reason. If not, there are more reasons can be existed. First, What make you think morals are the extension of religious belief? Even though, if prohibiting prostitution is only based on moral and religious reason, if you still argue prohibiting prostitution is wrong because of these reasons, you have a serious mistake. Because, you didn't say why the religious belief and moral reasons that support prohibiting prostitution are wrong. Of course I think you can say 'As I have mentioned before, religion and government should never mix.' But, this reason must need more detail explain. In addition, don't you think 'individual right(freedom)' are also based on these mentions in the 'Declaration of Independence' - That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - Don't the 'creator' mean 'God or holly existence'? How can you explain this without the effect from religious belief to the government? So, What is the exact mean of 'religion and government should never mix'? Finally, as I have mentioned before, I already showed you an example of Nevada in this writing against your argument to the way of dealing with the prostitution. And, I agree to 'Certainly there will always be those that operate a business in an illegal manner. There are illegal day cares even! All business are vulnerable to this.'. But, most of other jobs cannot be compared as prostitution in the aspects of human dignity because most of other jobs do not basically violate worker's dignity unlike prostitution. I can show you the reasons to the final round in my turn. I'll wait your final reply in this debate.