Public Nudity Should be Legalized

REBUTTAL 1: You haven't provided any contention when I pointed out that your comparison with pink hair is not the same taboo as public nudity. REBUTTAL 2: 1) the problem with referencing other major social changes in the past, is that you have failed to mention that a "social norm" status can only occur over time, rendering that "forbidden fruit" argument with additional problems. Furthermore, the belief that "every man is created equal" is not a valid comparison to "public nudity should be a right. " 2) nudist colonies are segregated because they affect other people in society who don't want to see nude people. Those who want to be in the company of other nudists are comfortable and accepting of being nude and an infinitesimally small percentage of the population lives in these colonies. This very small majority of people who want to live nude in public places should not trump the wants and desires of the general public. REBUTTAL 3: 1)The argument that clothing restricts blood flow and flexibility is a very poor reason for legalizing public nudity. Loosely worn or stretchy material will not interfere with flexibility or blood flow if that is a concern. Exercising and practicing yoga while wearing shorts or stretchy material will serve to increase blood flow and flexibility far better than just absence of clothing. 2) your first source has literally nothing to do with proving whether or not clothing is a good environment for pathogens. I read the entire page and the information shown is all about "typhus". "Typhus is a bacterial disease spread by lice or fleas. " What does this have to do with showing whether or not clothing is a good environment for pathogens? Nada. . http://www.nlm.nih.gov... Your second source is the only one relevant. However, as the source claims "But a washing-machine is just one of many germ-laden objects that you encounter in a given day. Handrails, ATM's, refrigerator handles, and telephone sets among others. " . http://abcnews.go.com... Just because laundry machines are germy, doesn't mean we should outlaw clothing. Even more disturbing than germ-ridden laundry machines, is the fact that our toothbrushes have a small trace of poop and germs on them. It's been confirmed on Mythbusters. If this small trace of poo'ey germs in contact with our mouth doesn't significantly affect us, then outlawing clothing for reasons these germs might be on our clothes doesn't make any sense. . http://dsc.discovery.com... REBUTTAL 4: I never stated that I was unhappy, just pointing out that you are adding additional criteria to satisfy problems that you hadn't addressed. 1) whether or not only a fraction of people decide to be nude doesn't negate my health concerns or costs of providing disposable protectors on public transit or a confusing sub-system of laws that citizens would need to know and abide by for each business. 2) the chances of contracting a disease, no matter how small, is a valid concern. I wouldn't want to sit my naked bum on a bloody toilet seat from someone HIV+ no matter how small the chances of me contracting it are. 3) You argue that being nude in public is a personal freedom. However this does not address the fact you are impeding on the freedom of others who do not want to see other people nude in public. Laws serve the purpose of limiting certain freedoms that are harmful to the well-being of society, and public nudity is currently illegal for that reason. REBUTTAL 5: "The point isn't that being "whacked in the face with a penis" is good, but that it shouldn't be seen as overtly bad and sexual. Children shouldn't inherently see evil in sexual organs, they are a natural part of life, and everyone has them. " 1) You haven't offered a defense on why this would not happen. My argument wasn't that it was good, but that it would happen given that it is likely we have all bumped into another person sometime during our life and especially children in crowded areas. This is inherently a bad outcome that would not be negated by nudity being a social norm, especially if the children and its parents don't believe in public nudity and are fully clothed and the person that bumps into the child is nude or has a history of child molestation. 2) nobody is saying that children should see evil in their sexual organs, but they should realize that some people use their sexual organs for evil (molestation of a child). The source you cite is "nudistamerica. org" and is clearly biased in favor of their own subjective beliefs. Again, I'll reference my example of how public nudity will not result in heightened self-esteem: "Many overweight or ugly people try to hide their bodies with sweatshirts or strategically patterned clothing. Some parents would force their children to be naked because some parents are controlling and make their kids do what they want them to do, regardless if the child wants to. If an insecure child is made to walk around naked, they would only feel more shame and be less likely to report sexual harassment. " REBUTTAL 6: "You take my statement out of context. If there was some old man 'stroking his jiffy' at some kids, that would be public indecency, which I do not aim to legalize. If some guy was following a group of children, and is obviously sexually excited, he would be noticed immediately and reported to the police. " You fail to recognize that easy access to naked children will cause increased pervert activity like some old man "stroking his jiffy at some kids. " You also failed to address the fact that children, pre-teens, and teenagers who are underage will be able to roam around naked, open to sexual exploitation by observing perverts and scumbags without explicitly obvious sexual exploitation. This argument was not properly addressed. In my last round I said: "That is wrong on so many levels. You are promoting a law which makes it legal for perverts and scum bags to legally view children naked. What would stop them from staring at little kids? Again, you want a law that makes it OK for children to roam around naked for anybody to see, even perverts. " Again, you want to legalize public nudity for all ages. Toddlers, elementary school kids, pre-teens, and otherwise for all of the general public to see. IN CONCLUSION: You did not address 1) the fact that clothes provide a barrier to bodily fluid transferred diseases and 2) have added additional criteria to your arguments (public transit sheet protectors, business deciding their own laws on the subject, ect,. ) and have changed criteria "public nudity is a right" to "public nudity should be a right" and 3) I have countered all of your arguments with reasonable and logical evidence. On top of this, the burden of proof is on you to convince why public nudity should have its current illegal status to be changed to legal. All of these evidences show why I should win this debate and why public nudity should not be legalized.