Prostitution should be legal in each state.

1. A) Yes. It is true that window, escort, and street prostitution take place. But the fact is that these take place in a greater number in a nation that bans prostitution. Also, my opponent fails to detail why these are bad. When most of the prostitution takes place in a brothel in the first place. And also the only way we have these statistics is because we are able to legally gather statistics and regulate instead of having a wild, unergulated, underground market. B) Human trafficking is a huge problem in America too. But the fact is that human trafficking is illegal in the Netherlands and in the United States. So there is no parallel. And the United States has a huge human traficking problem as well. (http://www.humantrafficking.org...) C) My opponent remarks that Sweden's prostitution policy works and is great. SWEDEN LEGALISES PROSTITUTION! They have a system that makes prostitution legal, but punishes johns and pimps. CON believes that Sweden's prostitution policy of legalisation worsks. HE CONCEEDS AND LOSES THIS WHOLE DEBATE!!! This following sentence is taken directly from his source and article: "The goal is to criminalize the demand side of the equation, the johns, rather than putting emotionally and physically imperiled women behind bars." My opponent believes that legalisation of prostitution works! 2. I challenged CON to find a source that said that pimps were friendly. He could not do it. Instead, he gave a cute spiel about how pimps could be your father or friend. The fact is that a pimp by nature MUST be violent. If a pimp was not violent, the prostitute would not pay him her hard earned money. Legalisation puts pimps out of business, common sense tells us, by allowing girls to go to the police for protection instead of pimps. Also, scientific research shows us that the Netherlands and Canada have put pimps out of business. 3. My opponent, spoken like a true Liberal asks, "why legalize something that is highly difficult to tax in the first place?My opponent has, also, sadly lied to you. His "uri.edu" link does not even talk about taxation. The words "tax", "budget", and "deficit" are not mentioned even once in the entire document! His "dw-world" source is the same. I challenge voters to find the opponent's sentiment in his two sources. You will find that each of us have been lied to: the readers and the debaters. Not only, is he evidently wrong on the point of taxation. But he has been dishonest and if I was not an interested and dedicated debater, I would have been punished by falling for this. Please VOTE HIM DOWN! He has not only evidently lost the points, but he has resorted to tricking and being dishonest to us all. This is a voter! Don't accept this from him! 4. A) Yes. Women are controlled in legal and illegal prostitution. This is the very essence of prostitution! However, legal prostitution is no better. Prostitutes are still controlled. The difference is that women are less subject to pimps in legal situations than in illegal prostitution. B) Prostitution has been legal in Nevada since 1902! According to a studying done in 2002, there have been no HIV cases in the state as a result of prostitution. They haven't done a similar study since 6 years ago. But I have found no HIV cases in the past 6 years in Nevada as a result of prostitution. the fact that we have a half a decade gap is not substantial. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. Despite the fact that Thomas Jefferson lived over 200 years ago, the Declaration of Independence is still relevant to modern society. He said the "natural right" of "liberty" "endowed by the Creator" was "self-evident." The fact that they owned slaves is irrelevant. The founding fathers still opposed slavery. This is why they wrote Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution to ban the importation of slavery by 1808, which at the time they would think would end slavery. Also, Jefferson apparently supported liberty. 6. CON has ignored the fact that the founding fathers supported a small government that respected liberty. Instead, he simply mentions that they had slaves, which, I must admit, is true. But as Point 5 clearly illustrates, the founding fathers opposed slavery by banning it by the year 1808 and they evidently supported liberty by writing so and opposed big government by restricting it with the word "not" 24 times. 7. A) Prostitution will reduce if not eliminate pimps as in Canada and Netherlands...and SWEDEN! B) Regulation will reduce if not eliminate STDs like in Nevada, Canada, the Netherlands, and SWEDEN. C) Legalisation will reduce gang violence like history shows us with Al Capone in alcohol prohibition. D) We cannot lose tax revenue, because we are not spending money. We can only gain money. And your dishonest sources do not prove anything with Germany! E) We probably still will see corruption, but it will heavily reduced like in alcohol prohibition. F) We will DEFINITELY see less ineffective enforcement by legalising prostitution, because there won't be any enforcement! Instead, police resources will go to important, violent crimes hurting other people. G) I do not think we should legalise murder. Murder effects unsuspecting victims. -- I didn't use any sources, because these points are already established parts of the debate and because my opponent did not bother to use sources either. Difference is, I DID use sources at one point for these. 8. I did not say pimps could be "barely" eliminated. I did say "bearly", which was a mistake. I meant to say "clearly" eliminated. I did not use "barely" or "clearly." But Canada, the Netherlands and SWEDEN (as CON proves) have eliminated pimps with legalisation. 9. Prostitutes will by law have to pay taxes under legalisation. And common sense shows us that we cannot lose money, but only gain it. Your lying sources for Germany don't prove otherwise either. 10. The fact is that this one time in which a mobster was arrested as a result of criminalization is so small compared to the numerous reasons to oppose criminalization. 11. "Think about it dear reader", history and science is on my side. Drugs and alcohol when legalised whether in the States or in the Netherlands and, then use was lowered. As my "liberator.net" SOURCE stated, despite what prohibitionists state, use is lowered by legalisation. 12. I gave you two examples in history when taking away rights, slowly but surely led to tyranny and genocide. We're already very close to tyranny. Now, violating the Constitution is not so big a deal. This is unfortuante. Look at Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act. If these were the first times the Constitution was violated, it would be incredible and inexcusable, but we have grown accustomed to having our liberties taking away, big or small. If we let more rights get taken away, eventually we will have even fewer. Eventually, we could possibly end up in tyranny and genocide. History proves this. With Nazi Germany, Cambodia, and Soviet Russia. Don't let this happen again. Learn from your history! Keep our rights! + Firstly, I urge my opponent to create no new sources or arguments in the final round, due to the fact that I could not respond. --- Look, my opponent conceeds that Sweden legalisation of prostitution has worked! He loses this debate on that alone and more! Next, CON used dishonest sources, which is inexcusable and unfair and deserves a vote againt him. Now for the benefits of legalisation of prostitution: A) We could get rid of violent pimps. B) We could tax prostitution and gain tax dollars in a time of much debt and budget deficit. C) We could eliminate or reduce STDs as a result of prostitution like done in Nevada, Kenya, or Canada. D) Liberty is a natural, self-evident right and an American vote, despite the fact that...Jefferson had slaves. E) Displace many gang wars F) We must avoid tyranny an genocide like had with the Nazis.