Prostitution should be legalized in the United States

0. Overview- a. I want to remind all readers that my advocacy stems from a standard of negative rights. I do not claim negative impacts will not arise as a result of voting pro, I argue that protecting negative rights is more important. b. I don't care how my opponent advocates the con, however I do urge that they advocate the con within the scope of the United States. They have not made the link between India Korea and the US, and if a link is made in their next speech it isn't viable. 1. Sources- a. Drop, flow this argument Pro. 2. Cross-application- a. This is a Slippery-Slope fallacy, an appeal to fear based on potential consequences. b. Even if it wasn't a fallacy the argument begs itself; both exist in the Status Quo, and this argument requires the existence of one to fuel the other. 3. Gender inequality 1- a. The Canada precedence proves my point here. b. Slippery slope. 4. Gender inequality 2- a. Appeal to popular belief; just because it's illegal now doesn't make it ipso facto wrong any more than slavery was right when it was legal. b. Even if it is wrong, that isn't grounds to make it illegal; it violates personal autonomy by imposing moral law. 5. Caste System- a. All these negative impacts stem from the caste system, not from a combination of that and prostitution. b. Men are forced into similar situations because of the caste system. This is another appeal to fear stem from a neotenous desire to protect young girls; the fact is voting con won't help them whatsoever. 6. Canada 1- a. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy; Canada is right next to us, we share a very similar culture and saying women don't engage in prostitution in the U. S. is nothing more than a cheap way to reject the pro. b. My opponent ignores the fact that Canada's precedence has worked. Prostitutes not have the means to protect themselves c. Finally, realize that all negative impacts my opponent suggests would come with affirmation still exist when voting con. Prostitution won't just disappear, but voting neg will help protect them. 7. Canada 2- a. Brothels are legal in Canada[3]. b. The price can be negotiated so long as the negotiation takes place in a brothel[3]. The public communication law is to keep prostitutes from standing on a street corner hollering out to every person they see drive by. c. This is an appeal to popular belief, just because prostitution is commonly seen as being immoral doesn't mean that making laws against it is valid. d. Any income inequality argument must be ignored. All major studies conducted on the matter recognize that the income gap is a result of personal choice; men naturally tend to gravitate towards higher paying jobs (construction, business, technology) while women tend to gravitate towards lower paying jobs (childcare, food industry, design/art)[8][9][10]. e. This argument is ultimately an appeal to fear which ignores the pro's premise of protecting negative rights. Con concludes by claiming that this is a risk we cannot take; there is not argument against prostitution except "something bad may happen. " [8] goo. gl/ciWLk [9] goo. gl/DM6Hz [10] goo. gl/NIeT2 8. Conclusion- a. I want to preface this conclusion by urging you all not to listen to new arguments in the next round since I am unable to respond to them. If anything Con writes hasn't been stated in a prior round ignore it. b. The issue of negative rights still stands. regardless of what may happen, we cannot stand to allow laws which stem from individual moral belief. c. The Con has failed to bring adequate refutations; at the point we realize this is true, there can no other vote than or the Pro. Also, I realize my opponent has made several attacks on my character during this debate. Whether these stem from frustration or legitimate concern, I must urge you all to use your own objective sense. This isn't a sweet tea social, it's a debate. Certain claims will step on toes, but those claims are not malicious in nature.