The US should decriminalize prostitution

Re: Self-determinationMy opponent says that "When you have sex, all the options you had before are still options during and after sex", but this is untrue, as I have shown in my last round - having sex destroys your ability to choose to not have had sex. Assuming that Pro's framework is correct (i.e. assuming that actions which limit one's range of options can be justly regarded as immoral), and assuming that I have shown that sex does limit one's options, then I have fulfilled my burden of proof by showing how Pro's arguments leads directly to my conclusion. In response to my argument that having sex precludes not having sex (and the example I gave of drinking milk or water), my opponent claims that "You can mix water/milk together and drink them simultaneously", missing the point completely - my original example, if charitably read, obviously assumes that one would have to choose between drinking one or the other. Because of my opponent's misrepresentation of my argument, this specific rebuttal fails. He then starts to attack my argument on an arguably more reasonable basis, saying that "You can also voluntarily choose to stop drinking water and start drinking milk, and you can voluntarily choose to stop having sex and do something else." This, however, also misses the point, since the future paths open to a being do not influence the fact that his options are destroyed in the act of having sex. A man cannot both have sex and not have sex simultaniously, and, thus, if he chooses to have sex, he gives up the ability to not have sex while he is having sex. My opponent's response to this is that, since the law of noncontradiction applies to all things, it is not specifically relevant to sex, and therefore is somehow irrelevant, even though he has just accepted that it is applicable to sex as well as to all the rest of reality! If he does accept the applicability of the Law of Noncontradiction to sex, even if it doesn't exclusively apply to sex, he still recogizes that sex falls under its domain, and therefore my argument is completely relevant.Re: Round 3My opponent accepts my premiss that sex can be irrational in nature. He ignores, however, a vital part of my argument - that, if sex can be irrational, then that means sex isn't necessarily rational, and, as such, no part of sex is, in itself, rational, making it necessarily ir/non-rational (and thus making any rationality involved in sex something that is wholly outside of sex itself, and thus irrelevant to the issue at hand). This is exactly the argument I made previously, and, since my opponent has essentially ignored it completely, the premiss that sex is irrational has been upheld. Re: The Definition of SlaveryQuote: "If the slave owner decides a slave is not allowed to do anything but lie in bed all day until the slave dies, the slave must lie in bed all day until he or she dies."Is it not true that, even in such a situation, the slave is still free to choose between alternatives? Can he not disobey and be shot by the slavemaster? Even if this is an unpleasant choice, it still is a choice nonetheless, and therefore, as I have argued, since no rational man would consider such a situation anything but slavery, slavery must involve something other than the restrictions of choices in general - the only thing left, then, is that slavery is the restriction of one's ability to make rationally-guided choices. My opponent does not address this chain of reasoning at all.My opponent says that "Just because a slave can't exercise his rational faculties "in all situations" doesn't mean a slave never exercises their rational faculties", but this ignores the bigger picture - even if the slave can make low-level choices such as which piece of cotton to pick first, he is not able to excercise rationality overall - any attempt to rationally act outside of the dichotomies set forth by the slavemaster will be punished. My opponent then tries to criticize how I connected slavery with sex by saying "Even if both slavery and sex are irrational, that doesn't mean both deny freedom." This, though, misses the point yet again - if, as I have proven, slavery is only slavery because it strangles rationality, then the essence of slavery is the restriction of rationality - if this is so, then anything that partakes in the restriction of rationality is, by definition, slavery. If I then show that sex restricts rationality, I have shown that sex is equivalent to slavery, and, since Mill, the theorist of my opponent's framework, clearly states that slavery can never be justified and should never be allowed by the State, sex must always be criminalized (thus, naturally, leading to the criminalization of sex for money).In other words, the argument I have been advocating throughout this debate says this:Slavery should always be outlawedSex is equal to slaveryTherefore, sex should always be outlawed.Q.E.D.Given this, I have upheld my BOP beyond a shadow of a doubt, and have thus won the debate.