Legalized Prostitution

I will add correct citations from now on (my mistake). Firstly, con attacks my source that, though it is 20 years old, is simply saying that AIDS is a big danger to the world, which I doubt con would doubt. However, the World Health Organisation has recent data to agree with me that AIDS is a big problem, as it was 20 years ago [1]. From source 1 he also says that the number one cause of transmission is vaginal sex, which I do not doubt and which does not change the debate that if legalising would help or hinder prostitutes. He then goes on to attack my second source which simply states that prostitutes have a lot of STI"s. Is he seriously saying that prostitutes have less STI"s than normal people (even the street walkers who have sex with anyone without a condom? ). The fact is whether the source is self-reported or not it is simply giving evidence to a fact, prostitutes have more STI"s than the average person. Con then attacks Wikipedia for being unreliable, here are the sources that Wikipedia article was based on: . http://goo.gl... . http://goo.gl... . http://goo.gl... Not only are they done by professionals, two were paid for. Moreover, the only idea the Wikipedia article was showing was that prostitutes suffer increased physical and psychological abuse, will con deny this when he goes on to describe the horrible lives of prostitutes? He then dismisses all my other sources as they have no citations and are in the comments, mind you in real life debating a judge always gives the speaker an extra 15 to 30 seconds to finish his arguments. His first point is a long quote from the source giving 10 reasons to not legalise prostitution (I guess I was right in my prediction). It says prostitutes did not choose this lifestyle. Which I would like to say I AGREED with. He says women do this as "survival strategies" which I also said; he says 72% don"t do it voluntarily which I also said (when I said 89% do it for a means to an end). This entire point is simply a long description of the status quo, which I have already done. Con makes no argument how keeping prostitution legal will change the status quo whereas I have shown to you in my previous points how legalising it can allow the state to have an opportunity for change and with a strong police network can give prostitutes the choice to leave when they like. Con brings no point to the table apart from that prostitutes do not choose prostitution, which I agreed with. Con then reiterates his previous point of how violent crimes will persist, completely ignoring my point in the process and giving no response to it. For this I would like to refer to a source con disregarded as it was in the comments and uncited. [2] First I would like to repeat my initial point of how legalising prostitution gives the state an opportunity to be able to stop violence however doing nothing will simply continue the awful status quo that even con has spent many characters describing. First of all, the mechanism of this motion involves both legalising prostitution and also investing into a police and investigatory department which will look into all accounts of prostitution violence and abuse. By leaving it illegal, con is simply disregarding all prostitutes lives in a damnation of violence and psychological abuse. Back to my source, it shows how in Germany, articles cite sources from the few illegal sex workers to paint a distorted picture of sex trafficking as an increasing problem when in reality it is decreasing [3]. This source consistently highlights how crony journalism and manipulating statistics is used by some articles to show a distorted image of prostitutes. This article also shows how in America the prostitution laws were described as "it"s just one big federal entitlement program, and everybody is more worried about where they"re going to get their next grant". In this free market state can you really trust the state to attempt to help the people over the money. His arguments of America become meaningless because it is simply an economically orientated law. What we as the motion are doing is really trying to help the people which means we aren"t doing this for the money and any money made can be used for extensive investigatory and police programs. Through this we put the people and the prostitutes who we are trying to help first and the money second, something con does not understand as he cites sources from America. Con then goes on to say that STI transmission would not drop as a result of legalising prostitution. He explains this by saying prostitutes will not be willing to use condoms. I understand this is the case, but I can guarantee that not one illegal brothel will make all prostitutes wear condoms ever however I can say that some legal brothels do. [4] This describes one case in which a real prostitute describes her experience in a legal brothel unlike a biased professor she actually has been there. She says "we use condoms for all our services " including condoms for blow jobs and dental dams for cunnilingus". I agree with con that many prostitutes would be willing to ditch the condom for more money however that will stay the case by keeping it illegal. The status quo will never change by keeping it illegal however I have shown you one case of condoms being strictly used all the time. Even in legal brothels this may not be the case, however through legalising it and using law enforcement agencies we can truly enforce a situation of diligently used condoms. Con also extends this by saying child prostitution would not decrease and sex trafficking would not decrease. But the fact is, it won"t when authorities are simply doing this for the money which con is quick to cite, but it will when authorities do this for the betterment of the people. I have shown this to be the case in the previous round of New Zealand where you have a situation in which trafficking decreases and child sex workers decreases when authorities remain on top of the situation. Of course it probably is still a problem even in New Zealand and I can"t say in certainty that on average legalising decreases trafficking or child workers in the entire world. However, what I can say, on principle legalising prostitution works when the state actually cares about the people and are willing to implement a system with the correct policing. He then disregards my point about how this actually helps prostitutes as his characters are running out. Maybe if he didn"t spend half his essay on unnecessarily long quotes he could respond to my fourth point on how this helps the prostitute. He then defends his source by saying it has citations unlike mine, which do not increase the reliability of a source but instead increase its cohesion in an essay. What con has done in his response is simply this: Attacked sources that were defending statements like "AIDS is bad" and "Prostitutes have more STI"s than a normal person on average" or because they were uncited. Con has disregarded my point under "The Prostitute" in round 1 and has ignored my mechanism of liberal laws juxtaposed with rigid controls. He has jumped on his broken point of how violence will continue however I have clearly showed that if you carry out this proposition like it should be and can be done then the benefits heavily outweigh the negatives. I beg you to think about the lives of the prostitutes who con would leave in abuse and violence just because of a flawed opinion in which con disregards any attempts of progress for prostitute's as it hasn't worked in some situations which I have shown as economically orientated. We CAN help the lives of prostitutes who are coerced and abused, but if we keep it illegal and unregulated than we will truly have failed humanity. For these reasons I beg you to propose. [1] = www. who. int/gho/hiv/en/ [2] = . https://goo.gl... [3] = . http://goo.gl... [4] = . http://goo.gl...