US Prisoners Should Have Access To Prostitutes

QUESTIONS2. "The prison system of the united states separates criminals based on the severity of their crimes.[1] This means the 10% of criminals who have longer sentences, will generally be sent to different prison than the white collar criminals."It seems my opponent is associating the 'out in a year' people with white collar criminals, which is not necessarily true. However he does inadvertently raise the point that the 10% and 90% could be separated, and he uses a source to back up this idea of separation (he posted it in the comments, fyi). Two things about the source, first, it is a wiki, which is ironic given that my opponent criticized me earlier for faulty sources. However I accept the source, as it undermines the point he raises. While he never specifies where in the source he draws this information from (also ironic, as I have seen him criticize other debaters for this practice), I believe I have found where, under 'security levels'. "In various, but not all, states' department of corrections, inmates reside in different facilities that vary by security level.."[1]What this means? In some instances, the 90% are perfectly liable to be raped by those who have been in for a while. Therefore my contention of AIDS being spread back to society holds, though it is slightly diminished.C. I understood you, I was saying that the validity of your third contention relied on the validity of your second contention, which I'd already refuted. (not super-important but I just wanted to clarify)DISAGREEMENTS"Would like to note the realistic approach my opponent takes here, while in a few paragraphs states the argument is hypothetical."I didn't say hypothetical, I said could and should. By showing the costs of treating AIDS, or as you put it, 'being realistic', I showed that this 'should' be implemented, due to the fact that released prisoners are often in a bad way, economically. A. "While I do believe that AIDS*(or any disease) is a heavy financial burden, it's not relevant in that regard as a "death sentence" for that is primarily a healthcare issue."It is of course relevant. It means that unless you're wealthy, AIDS is going to take your life earlier than it would otherwise end. You don't have to call it a 'death sentence' if you want, but we all have to recognize that a recently released prisoner with AIDS is not likely to survive.PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGALIn my previous round, I made an argument for why this wouldn't actually be hypocritical, and then I made an argument for anyone who still thought it was hypocritical. My opponent has not addressed that argument, and simply restated his earlier contention. Therefore, voters can consider that argument dropped.As for the Native Americans and African Americans, my opponent waives away my argument saying 'cultural differences' and 'affirmative action was a thing'. True, it was a thing, and still is, but it's not just for black people, it's for all minorities[1]. So really, it's like saying Native Americans: 2, African Americans: 1. Additioanlly, the 'cultural' differences don't change the fact that both minorities have been mistreated, but only one compensated with tax breaks. Therefore my earlier point about hypocrisy with Native American tax breaks is preferable to nobody having tax breaks still stands. "Do you know how much distrust that would generate with the people? With the prisoners?"I believe that as long as the government very clearly explained why this wouldn't be hypocritical, like I have, then there wouldn't be any issue. And even if some people still thought it was BS, is that enough to stop this? Is that what you say to someone who's getting raped hundreds of times a year in prison, "Sorry we didn't want to upset people"?COST AND REALISTIC APPROACH"For instance, we SHOULD give Americans the best healthcare possible for free and stop everyone from ever committing a crime again. But can we do that? No."True, but we can stop the spread and death toll of AIDS, and stop massive amounts of prison rape. There isn't a solid parallel between the example offered by my opponent and the proposition at hand.1. SpendingA) "It would benefit more people and people of better societal standing to spend that money in other areas." What, $5 a year? I chose that number because it would hardly make a dent in anyone's pocketbook. Everyone would still be free to donate to their favorite charity, or support their local businesses. B&C ) Both of the contentions found here are repeated in different sections, therefore I won't be rebutting these.D) "..government sponsored prostitutes. Would never fly."Would is pretty much the same word as could, especially in this instance. This gets back to could and should, and what is right. Just because it would be hard or unpopular, does not mean it shouldn't be tried.2. Society and politicsA&B) So is that what we're going to tell the people getting raped? Sorry, the politicians were afraid to stop you from getting raped. Again, all they would have to do, in order to get some people on their side, is argue and defend their position as I have.THE PROBLEM SOLVED1. In my opponent's first contention, he contradicts himself. First, he says rape goes deeper than loneliness, then he says masturbating will be enough to cure the loneliness and stop the rape. I agree that rape goes deeper than loneliness, but, and this is the important part, I think it goes deeper than that in cases outside of prison. I say this because the situations in and outside of prison are very different, and so are the rape rates. Outside of jail, the rape rate is 286 per 100,000[2], whereas the rape rate inside jail is 5,000 per 100,000[3][and previous source]. This would suggest that the added feature of extreme loneliness is what forces such a high rate in jail. I say this because of the following:On the outside you've got those creeps that are interested in feeling more powerful than their victim, and we see the kind of numbers they rack up.But in jail, the number is much higher, and there's the difference that they spend many years alone from the opposite sex. Logically, this added factor will then play a large hand in the increase of rapes. This loneliness has led to a culture that is very comfortable with rape as a necessary thing, adding to its widespread occurrence. Prostitution would wipe out that loneliness and that necessity. MORE 'FLAWS'1. "If a prisoner has AIDS, he would not get a prostitute, and keep on raping." Already refuted."If you could test and give him an AIDS infected prostitute, why not just have timed test for AIDS and separate the AIDS prisoners from everyone else?" Because this would not solve the problem of rape.2. "You'd need at least 1 for every 2-3 prisoners to not get a high infection rate." Not sure where you pulled this number from, I'm pretty sure you have nothing to substantiate this claim with. 3. "The amount of pay you'd need to support a prostitute for getting infected with STD's and if she sued, would be ridiculous." Make her sign a waiver before she takes the job.4. "General cost of lodging, food, and pay for a prostitute would be more than a prisoner's cost." You seem to be operating under the assumption that the prostitutes will be living in the prison. That would not be the case. I told you that if you had any further questions about my proposal, that you should ask before joining. Any confusion that arises out of your not doing that is your fault. 5. Again, just explain this stuff to people. If society gets riled up with the idea you're suggesting, just know that it is to prevent rape and deaths related to AIDS, and it will lower the recidivism rates.6. "What about gay men or women?" Gay prostitutes are a thing.And if you mean, will this deter them from raping, of course it will. Would you rather have sex with someone who is resisting or not into it, or someone whose job depends on being good at sex?7. "What about those who deny the prostitutes? Would they be forced?"No[4].THE CASE FOR WHY NOTThis section was just my opponent restating his earlier arguments, which have already been refuted, therefore I have nothing to say here.PROOF HE'S REQUESTING1. "That "handlers" would stop abuse of prostitutes or not abuse them."A prisoner would not abuse because they wouldn't want to lose their special privilege. If a handler abused, it could be reported to someone else. 2. Already refuted.3. No clue. But I have shown that there are some very simple ways to raise funds, and I have already mentioned that instead of covering all the jails/prisons in America, they could just prioritize on a few if it came to that.IN CONCLUSIONI encourage you vote for me, because:I have shown rape would be reduced by the implementation of this.I have shown that it would make the lives of prostitutes better.I have shown that it would reduce the spread and death toll of AIDS.I have used far more, and far more reliable sources than my opponent, who only utilized a wiki, which he only ever put in the comments.My opponent has been very arrogant and condescending throughout the debate.Thanks for reading. Vote Pro.Sources:[1] https://www.aclu.org... [2] http://americanprogress.org...[3] https://www.google.com...[4] http://www.google.com...