Resolved: Prostitution should be legalized

Rebuttal Prostitution will still happen My opponent states “For the first time in this debate, we've just heard my opponent contest that making prostitution legal does not mean more people do it. ” My opponent, where in my argument did you see that statement? My opponent I am actually arguing the opposite. My opponent has failed to adequately defend his point. As he stated “I think my opponent might still be confused about how this argument fits into my case. ” And I can assure you I still am. You have to understand that if I do something and it works for me, if you do the same thing it might not work for you. It is not about being awesome it’s about facing the facts. For instance I may go over to a person and say “you idiot! ” and that person don’t react in any way, but you may go over and say the same thing and the person gets all aggressive and angry. So my point still stands what may work in New Zealand may not work for the other two hundreds countries. Safety My opponent states “If never being safe due to the nature of work was a justifiable reason for banning anything, we should ban everything. ” While this is true, my point is that legalizing Prostitution doesn’t make the prostitutes safer or no anyone in any industry. Be it mining, fishing, agriculture, banking, truck driving, serving in the army. Tell me, what obligation can stop a person who is mining from dying? Or stop a person in the army from dying? Or stop a truck driver truck from turning over? My opponent it doesn’t matter what angle you look at it from, no regulation cannot stop a person from being raped, or murdered. There are tons of laws and everyday persons are being murdered, persons are stilled being raped. So my opponent safety has nothing to do with prostitution being legalized. I am glad that my opponent agrees with me that in prostitution one party may be dissatisfied. My opponent states that “you can generally assume that both parties were happy, whilst with crime you can generally assume the opposite. ” My opponent, are you aware of the word that you use: “generally ASSUME. ” If assuming was a justifiable reason for anything I can generally assume that all secular artistes are demonic but does that prove that they are? My opponent assuming something is a very dangerous thing to do. For it does not guarantee the fact. I am happy my opponent agrees that no one is safe. My opponent states that “prostitutes are particularly vulnerable because unlike everyone else, they can't go to the police if something bad happens to them. ” My opponent does the fact a person can go to the police if something bad happens to them makes them safe? If they were safe my opponent there wouldn’t be the need to go the police in the first place doesn’t it? My opponent also states that “the law is there to protect everyone” but my opponent tell me one person that the law has protect? The mere fact that people keep on going to court was that they have been harm hence they were not protected. If a person backs you up in an alley one night with a knife or gun, tell me what law can protect you in that case? You stated “Finally my opponent says there is no evidence that legalizing soft crimes can prevent harder crimes. ” My opponent I did not say that there is no evidence, so do not misrepresent my point. You need to also bear in mind that there are also evidence that state otherwise [1] [2]. So my opponent your argument has little or no justification. Role of the State I can see that my opponent admit that human trafficking is linked to pornography. But my opponent ignore the fact the pornography is different from prostitution. My point was not because human trafficking is linked to pornography therefore make prostitution illegal. It was that because of the profit that could be made from pornography and that those who get entangled human trafficking are prostituted, it’s then videoed, and sold the public. The fact is my opponent is that pornography involves the media while prostitution does not. As you had stated it’s a privacy issue. Prostitution is providing sexual service in return for payment and pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual matter, hence they are different. Pornography is not always linked to sex and money but prostitution is. Therefore there is no inconsistency due to that fact. My opponent it better you say that pornography and prostitution share some but not all elements as already established. And the mere fact that there is an exception proves that point for physical contact is not the only exception. Yes I agree that my Government thinks that pornography is ok. My opponent who says that all government accepts pornography as moral? By the way on what basis is pornography moral? I believe that pornography should also be banned however we are arguing about prostitution not pornography. I already asked you a question and I will ask it again, how does one measure the idea of being moral? Accepting that pornography is ok doesn’t mean that you accept it as moral. Look at it this way, I may not care what people wants to do with their bodies, but that doesn’t mean it think it is right (moral) does it? You might say that if I say something is ok doesn’t that mean I think it is right? However that is not the case. For I may say it right for people to choose to do what they want to do but it’s not right for people to choose to do prostitution. My opponent you stated that “If you steal from a bank - even if you do it in secret - it's the bank's business. ” My opponent it seems you have misinterpreted my point. I said if I chose to steal from a bank that is my private and personal business. You also stated that “Getting others out is different from getting the government out. The government needs to control others to prevent them from interfering with our private affairs - and prevent us from interfering with others - if we are all willing. This is the principle on which privacy law is founded. ” I am confused as to who you want to get others or the government because in an earlier argument you stated “sinceprostitution is so private and there are no spillover effects on others when it is managed and regulated correctly, why should the government even care? ” seems like you want the government out to me. However no matter what law there is we cannot keep others out. Human trafficking You stated “My opponent thinks you can make money through human trafficking. ” Again my opponent you misinterpret my point. I didn’t say anything about making money through human trafficking but making money through prostitution. All that you stated in (R3 Para. 1) is non-sequitur. It is a total misinterpretation of my point. You stated “So the reason why you can make money off trafficking is that prostitution is illegal, not that it's legal. ” That was not what I am saying I am saying that people smuggle persons and turn them into prostitutes because the potential is there to make an enormous amount of money from prostitution. Hence my point still stands. My opponent makes a good argument in stating “If prostitution is illegal, police need to find and discover underground networks to trace back that did the smuggling. ” So my opponent if prostitution is legal who says that the police will not do the same thing. I am sure that no nub skull trafficks humans, those who traffick humans are aware of its implication especially when prostitution is legal. They reason why they keep their identity as secrets is because they don’t want to get caught not because police won’t listen to prostitutes. My opponent prostitutes will always be victims whether they are entangled in human trafficking or not. I am left with little space to adequately defend my point however it was a good debate. Vote con! [1] . http://www.prostitutionresearch.com... [2] . http://sisyphe.org...