The US should decriminalize prostitution

The harm principle gives individuals the freedom to pursue their own view of the good life unless their actions harm an unwilling person. Under that framework, slavery isn't protected because a slave owner impedes the ability of the slave to choose the direction of their life; slaves lack self-determination. Mill states: "he [the slave] forgoes any future use of it [his liberty], beyond that single act [selling oneself into slavery]." [Con's 2] Mill continues: "he is no longer free; but is thenceforth in a position which has no longer the presumption in its favour, that would be afforded by his voluntarily remaining in it." [Con's 2] In other words, a slave cannot choose to stop being a slave. The moment an individual becomes a slave, she loses the entirety of her ability to choose the direction of her life (i.e. she loses her capacity for self-determination).In R2, Con argued that sex is not allowed by the harm principle. But as I said in R3, sex is nothing like slavery. Voluntarily having sex preserves self-determination; slavery doesn't. When you have sex, all the options you had before are still options during and after sex. But once you become a slave, every option you had before disappears. Instead, the slave owner decides what you can and cannot do. Every available choice is determined by the slave owner, not by the slave.In R3, Con loses the debate immediately in his first paragraph by dropping my argument that sex is sometimes rational. Con argues that sex is sometimes irrational ("it's perfectly reasonable to imagine a non-rational entity (e.g. a schizophrenic) with free will justifying sex with any of these reasons"). I agree that sex is sometimes irrational (e.g. in the case of a schizophrenic). But lots of sex is between rational entities with free will and that sex is often rational. Context matters. Sex is sometimes irrational and sometimes rational. Con offers no argument otherwise. This dooms Con's entire case. Remember, the entirety of Con's argument rests on the assumption that sex is always irrational. Also, note that Con can't turnaround and argue otherwise now, because I will not have a chance to respond. For that reason alone, you can vote Pro.I do not understand the rest of Con's rebuttal in R3. Let's go through it step-by-step. Con starts by comparing sex to the act of drinking water: "if one is drinking water, he cannot be simultaneously drinking milk"; "in the actual act of sex, one cannot do anything but have sex." This isn't true. You can mix water/milk together and drink them simultaneously, and you can have sex while listening to music, watching a movie, talking on the phone, making a movie, and all sorts of other things. You can also voluntarily choose to stop drinking water and start drinking milk, and you can voluntarily choose to stop having sex and do something else. There's no limit on your liberty there. You can still choose the direction of your life. Con continues: "if one is having sex, one is wholly unfree to choose to not have sex at the same exact time as he is having sex." This is true. It's also just a convoluted way of stating the law of non-contradiction: "you can't do both X and not-X at the same time." This is an underlying fact that applies regardless of the choices you make. Con says this is a limit on freedom. If the law of non-contradiction is a limit on freedom, it is a limit created independently of any choice that any human makes. It is a limit that pervades all of existence. Most importantly, it is distinctly not a limit created by the act of having sex. It is therefore irrelevant to our discussion about the harm principle's specific application to sex.Next, Con says a bunch of unsubstantiated stuff (which also happens to be blatantly untrue): "in any slave camp, one is able to decide how to act, look (to an extent), speak, etc." By definition, specifically the definition of slavery used by Mill in [Con's 2], slave owners decide the choices available to their slave. If the slave owner decides a slave is not allowed to do anything but lie in bed all day until the slave dies, the slave must lie in bed all day until he or she dies. That is what it means to be a slave under Mill's definition of slavery. If a slave owner says the slave must pick a specific piece of cotton first, the slave must pick that piece of cotton first. The slave only has discretion to the extent permitted by the slave owner. Up to this point, I follow Con's argument, even though it's largely invalid. But the next paragraph is complete bullsh!t. I do not even know how to make sense of it. Con writes: "the difference between a slave and a free man is that the slave is unable to live qua man." I do not know what this means. In my understanding, the difference between a slave and a free man is the capacity for self-determination and the capacity for choosing the direction of your life. This is also the understanding held by Mill. Con elaborates: "he [a slave] is not able to exercise his rational faculties in all situations... if this is true, then irrationality is the basis for slavery (and therefore philosophical suicide), and therefore any irrational act is, in itself, a denial of freedom." I am still confused. First, if a slave cannot exercise his rational faculties "in all situations," why is "irrationality" the "basis for slavery"? Just because a slave can't exercise his rational faculties "in all situations" doesn't mean a slave never exercises their rational faculties. Con even admits as much. If a slave owner allows it, a slave can choose which piece of cotton to pick first; this is an exercise of one's rational faculties.Second, if irrationality is the basis for slavery, why is "any irrational act" a "denial of freedom"? I do not see how Con makes that leap. Even if irrationality is the basis for slavery, that doesn't mean all irrational acts deny freedom. That's a logical fallacy. [4] Even if both slavery and sex are irrational, that doesn't mean both deny freedom. Irrationality itself is not a denial of freedom. Indeed, the fact that slavery denies freedom has nothing to do with its rationality or irrationality. Slavery denies freedom because by definition it means not being free. Slavery denies freedom because by definition it means doing whatever your slave owner tells you to do, regardless of your own desires. In contrast, sex does not deny freedom. When you have sex, you still get to follow your own desires, follow your own view of the good life, and make self-determinations about the direction of your life. Sex is awesome; slavery isn't. For all these reasons, and because Con's argument is a bunch of convoluted bullsh!t, vote Pro.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...