Prostitution Should Be Legalized

I have NOT conceded on moral grounds. It seems that my opponent is grasping at straws, not only proclaiming victory in a delayed argument, but consistently having to leave in snide remarks and comments at every opportunity. I believe one of the political parties did that last November...I forget which one, and I forgot how the outcome came out, but I DO remember that their mascot was an elephant... Anyways, back to debating. {quote}Simple, the organized prostitution rings (OPR) can be taxed. So when a customer comes to buy sex, he will obviously pay up and it will subsequently get taxed - just like any other store. Imagine a grocery store. And instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts. How will the tourist revenue do anything but soar?{endquote} Haha. Funny. Wrong, but funny. If this were a humor contest I might concede right now. But its not. If my opponent had had the thought or respect to fully read my argument, or to check out the source I listed, he would had read that prostitution as a business is NOT taxed. The only income Nevada receives from organized prostitution rings is from the licensing fees. Prostitution on a larger scale would NOT mean more revenue. And because they are not taxed, Nevada can only profit from more and more brothels opening up - except these brothels would be opening in other states, taking away from Nevada's revenue. Not to mention, "instead of vegetables and watermelons, you have boobs and butts." I disagree but nevertheless understand the concept of prostitution, but to depict women as merchandise and groceries, at least in my opinion, goes to far. And I wonder if some of the other voters feel the same way. Maybe we have lived with this idea of prostitution and let it be. But could you let prostitution spread, and along with it, the moral depravity necessary to degrade a woman enough to have no qualms with equating them to GROCERIES? Picture this. Your daughter, sister, mother, or best friend, degraded to a grocery. Devastating if she is a prostitute, but this might be from the fact that prostitution exists. In other words, although she might not be a prostitute, she might be treated as one, with men being reinforced for their behaviors. Back to the economic arguments, however. Competition, competition. "Legalizing something and making it industry does NOT necessarily mean Vegas will suddenly lose their prostitution industry." True, perhaps. But my opponent does not stop at a rebuttal, but goes as far as to make a preposterous counterclaim that Nevada and the prostitution industry might benefit from such competition. Thinking about this just requires us to take a step back from it and analyze the situation objectively. As possible CONSUMERS, we would be excited for, as my opponent puts it, "glamorous interior scenery, good prices, and/or temporary places to stay for the night". But from the perspective of the BUSINESS, all competition does is force you to sacrifice profit, directly to the opposition, or also from advertising and other techniques to bring customers through your doors. Next, my opponent speaks of an entire potential for jobs. But I speak of another spread. The spread of a plethora of STDs. HIV, AIDS, anyone? How about herpes? Gonorrhea? Chlamydia? The clap? Crabs? Which would you prefer? It should be noted that currently, Nevada has stringent guidelines on STD testing and prevention, requiring the use of condoms. And as Nevada is the only state to legalize OPRs, this has not been a problem. But in a state that is maybe too liberal and does not require such guidelines, STDs may spread like wildfire - to children of the infected, to the prostitutes, and to the patrons of such services. My opponent will probably rebut with two things: 1) People should be able to choose if they want to have an STD. Is this really a question? If a baby cries to hold the knife, a parent has an obligation to keep it from them. Just like this, the government can protect people from themselves. 2) The guidelines can project onto the other states. Maybe for some. And temporarily, the job industry might spike, with inspectors and prostitutes getting jobs. But these guidelines will not last. Nevada is a strictly controlled and regulated bubble. When this bubble is popped, then extortion and lies will come out with the industry. Inspectors would be paid off by ambitious OPR leaders, perhaps to retain the eligibility of a popular prostitute. And this is only one example. Allowing prostitution would open a floodgate for more crimes and headaches across the U.S. I would like to note that my opponent has made no arguments of his own. Even if he prances off in his semi-delusional state in a "successful" rebuttal of my points, he would not have won this debate. He is trying to change the status quo. He is trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prostitution business should spread out of Nevada and Rhode Island. If he merely responds to my arguments in Round 3, he will not have fulfilled this burden of proof, and would therefore lose this debate. Thank you. I await my opponent's argument.