The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

Thanks again to Con. Just to start, I"d like to apologize for referring to my opponent as a "he," and will from now onward refer to her by the correct pronouns. I'm going to focus here on rebuttal and counter-rebuttal. Overview: OV1. It"s difficult to determine where Con"s points actually come from, as she quotes from many of her sources but doesn"t actually show where they come from. In most cases, her sources leave something to be desired as well, including using two large listings of quotes from a separate debate site (none of which can be directly verified, and all of which are based on the opinion of select individuals), and 4 dictionary references that do little to nothing to bolster her arguments. These fail to support her case. OV2. Con"s case is problematic. She talks about implementing new programs, passing "stricter law"s and making sure these law"s are inforced", but it"s unclear what those new programs are, what new laws she wants passed, and how she plans to beef up enforcement. In each of these cases, more red tape, more police time, and increased costs are guaranteed, so my cost advantage just becomes larger. However, I ask that judges take the vagueness of these policy changes into consideration, as it is impossible for me to evaluate their effectiveness and harms without knowing how they would be implemented. I) Rights violation/morality Con says prostitution is "torture," but the only support she provides is that clients are allowed to engage in practices that "are acts of power and violence over the female body." Multiple responses. 1. I solve. Note that Con is describing harms that are taking place in the status quo, harms that any prostitute has to endure without pursuing police action afterward, as doing so would implicate them. Only in my case are women protected from these harms by regulations, improved reporting structures and better law enforcement. Con"s assessment of morality is also based entirely in the current system, which she is doing little to nothing to address. 2. These are paid acts, and if the prostitute consents to have a john engage in these acts, then there's no harm. Con simply asserts these harms without recognizing that some women may accept these risks, just as other workers accept various risks in their lines of work. 3. Con recognizes that many of the women who become prostitutes do so because "they need money, they are unable to get a job, and there"s no possible wayto earn money" beyond prostitution. Note that this requires that these women either not earn a living, leaving them destitute, or engage in an unlawful practice that necessarily puts them at great physical risk without any recourse or way out. She doesn"t provide an alternative to them beyond a claim that the government can "offer more organization"s that help women" and basic job searching skills, both of which are available already.[24-29] Con doesn"t state what she"s adding, so all she"s doing is making these programs redundant. Thus, she"s causing far greater harm by allowing the status quo to perpetuate itself. 4. Cross-apply my justice point in response to Con"s morality arguments. This all functions as a principle upon which prostitution is moral, contrary to Con"s assertion that it doesn"t have any. A dishwasher has the same principles behind them. The only difference is the type of work involved. Forced labor is immoral in any case. 5. Con asserts a difference between how washing dishes and prostitution are viewed without explaining what that difference is. All she"s shown is that they"re perceived differently. However, it"s unclear why they"re perceived so differently. I would argue that that perception is couched entirely in the way it"s presented, which means that illegality creates much of the animosity.[30] II) Human trafficking Again, multiple responses. 1. I solve. Con does absolutely nothing to improve upon the enforcement system in place. Legalizing prostitution is not the same as legalizing human trafficking. All of these men, women and children continue to fall into the hands of traffickers in the status quo. Only my policy ensures that these prostitutes feel safe in going to the police, drives the criminal enterprises that run them out of business, and increases funds and time available for police to enforce laws against human trafficking, as well as adding enforcement through regulation. 2. I solve. Criminalizing prostitution is what causes brothels to turn to underage and forced labor, since they are already engaging in an illegal practice simply by pursuing prostitution as a line of work. Under Con"s case, criminalization continues, as does the illegal practices she describes. My case forces these organizations into the light of day and makes them thoroughly accountable. Driving it further underground, as Con has supported, would merely increase the incentive for brothels and pimps to engage in human trafficking. 3. All of the details on child pornography are off topic, but since Con brought them up, the human trafficking that brings many of these children to this country continues unabated in Con's world. Onto Con's rebuttals to my case. CR1 and CR2) Law Enforcement and the Prison System Con makes the unsupported claim that legalization will result in a higher rate of prostitution. Even assuming it"s true, any associated harms are entirely reliant on the physical and moral harms she states being accurate. However, as I"ve shown, those harms are either ameliorated, erased, or turned completely by my case. The job of a police officer is to ensure a safe society through enforcement of the law. Con has to show how legal prostitution actually harms society. It"s unclear from Con"s definition why police need to protect these women from themselves, as they are entering into a legal working contract with full knowledge of the consequences should be barred from doing so. All of the harms Con cites here are based on the current system where their trade is illegal " murder and abuse don"t continue under my plan, and all the harms that extend beyond the trade are reduced. In fact, much of Con"s rebuttal seems to be predicated on many of the harms in the current system persisting through legalization. But I"ve already preempted these concerns. Pimps who beat and rape their prostitutes will be run out of business by regulations, and those that aren"t will be turned into the police by their prostitutes, who would now have an open line of communication with law enforcement. It"s possible that some won"t due to persistent fears of retribution, but that seems far less likely under my case than it does under Con"s, where protection of law enforcement is practically non-existent. CR3) Abuse and Violence Con states that increased prostitution "would just make it much easier to abuse these women. Legalizing this would mean it"s okay for the abuse and violence to go on. But making it illegal, would make it much harder to take advantage of these women." Con's own sources contradict these unwarranted assertions.Prostitution is illegal in both Minneapolis and St. Paul, and yet the problems Con cites there persist.[31] All of the sources Con cites show the tremendous abuse they suffer in a system where it"s illegal " they're all direct harms to keeping prostitution illegal, otherwise known as her case. In other words, Con's evidence is all showcasing harms to her own case. But I've taken it several steps further. I've shown, and am continuing to show, that the illegal nature of prostitution in other states has caused many of these women to avoid getting appropriate counseling and medical care due to concerns regarding discrimination, two of the very thing Con suggests would help.[32] In fact, "Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police", showcasing how illegalizing prostitution has only made things worse.[33] I am the only one in this debate who has presented what the situation actually looks like in states where prostitution is legalized or decriminalized. One need only look at my sources [8 " 11] to see just how effectively legalization reduces these harms, not a one of which Con actually addressed. Conclusions: The first thing to notice here is the many drops. Con straight drops two-thirds of my case, including my justice point and my costs argument. Extend both " the justice point is by far the strongest on the principle debate, and the costs point presents many real world benefits to my case that Con cannot garner. She also drops all of my STD analysis, extend that. It"s a real world harm that spreads well beyond prostitutes and only my case will effectively reduce it. Most glaring of all, though, extend my case. Con spends most of both rounds attacking a straw man (i.e. prostitution in the U.S. today), making unwarranted and unsourced claims about what legalization will do (often in direct contradiction of my arguments, which are bolstered by both warrants and sources), and generally fails to address what my plan actually entails. As a result, most if not all of her arguments don"t even link to my plan, and her whole case falls. Even where Con attempts to be responsive, she simply fails to address many of my arguments. The fact that law enforcement will have more time to devote to other crimes goes dropped, as does the reality that prisons will experience substantially less overcrowding. She drops the psychological harms of imprisonment, which have broader implications in society. She drops all the reasoning for why my plan will reduce rape rates and all types of abuse, making workplaces safer for prostitutes. These are all huge advantages to my case. Back to Con. 24. http://www.mmp.org... 25. http://seattleops.org... 26. http://hips.org... 27. http://bit.ly... 28. http://bit.ly... 29. http://bit.ly... 30. http://bit.ly... 31. http://bit.ly... 32. http://bit.ly... 33. http://bit.ly...