The United States Federal Government should legalize prostitution.

I don't really know what my opponent expected to see in the previous round. Not every constructive round has to include new arguments. I made my case clear in R2, and I planned to use the remaining rounds to clarify it and rebut my opponent's arguments. So I don't see why Con starts off the round saying she's sad. Nor do I comprehend why she says that "he only really gave me 1 round to rebut", as she started her rebuttals in R2, specifically attacking my case. She had this round to engage in counter-rebuttals and defend her own rebuttals. She chose to do scant little with it, failing to even conclude her points, but that is not my fault. Remember, though, that this is Con's final round, as she must not post any rebuttals, argumentation or conclusions in the final round due to posting her opening arguments in R1. OV1. I was pointing out a concern with Con's sourcing, since it forced me to search several sources for the quotes she chose. That confusion didn't prevent me from finding everything, but it did require extra time and effort. It was a suggestion, not a reason for judges to vote. My sources are credible (not "creditable") because all of them provide evidence that supports my assertions and warrants, showcasing that I'm not simply pulling numbers out of the air and that the harms and benefits I'm citing are real. Like it or not, neither of us is an expert in this field, and our involvement in this debate makes us biased. We need external sources to support our claims. That's how sources are meant to be used. Con used a few sources in this fashion, but it's interesting that my opponent chides me for "using other people's work" when she directly quotes several opinionated people to establish her own arguments. OV2. I'll quote Con directly:"Goverment should offer more organization's that help women who are postitutes. They should be teaching them business ethics, how to build a resume, interviewing tips and mentoring them along the way. This would get more women off the street's and get them to start working on a 'buisness' not, and educational real job. "I see Con arguing that they'll "help women", and some of what they'll actually do, but I've already shown in my rebuttals that programs that do these things exist in status quo. Con isn't explaining anywhere how she's improving on what they do, making them more readily accessible, or generally how she's doing anything that actually changes the world we live in. If they are the same as current programs, they're redundant and therefore unnecessary, unhelpful and actually harmful, as they increase costs and expend more police time. If they're different, Con had to take the time to explain how they differ. She didn't do that. Con doesn't take any extra time to explain her case here, and thus judges should assume redundancy. The rest of Con's responses aren't particularly organized. I'll put her quotes in italics and respond to what little there is to address below. Pro wants to argue that my point's are invalid, yet he only made 1 main argument in R2, as in the other round he didn't. So I really didn't have much to rebut, other that his critique on my own point's. I'm not sure what debate Pro is reading. I posted 3 separate advantages in R2, labeled Safety, Justice and Costs. Con failed to respond to the second and third advantage, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. She also never touched the points made in the first advantage, merely expanding on her own arguments and focusing on attacking the way prostitution is in areas where it is illegal, which paradoxically is the position she's supporting. Con could have used her R2 to attack my case, but failed to even address my plan, let alone the advantages that supported it. The lost opportunity is on her. I did provide much evidence as to why it is 'torture' and also explained as to why it's considered torture. Because they want to enter the business, but can't leave because they are afraid at to what their employer's will do. The employer's are holding them against their will, thus torture. If you had read my argument's you would have seen that. It seems Con is continuing to ignore the realities of my case in favor of attacking the straw man that is status quo prostitution (which, again, is a part of her case). Being unable to leave a pimp or brothel is partially the result of their inability to approach law enforcement. I solve for that by legalizing prostitution and thus removing the fear that they will themselves be arrested. Being held against one's will also results from allowing criminals to run these brothels and act as pimps. I solve for this by driving these abusive pimps and brothels out of business, requiring that they adhere to extensive regulations that they either cannot afford or will be incapable of meeting. I solve for it again by ensuring that a legal industry is monitored regularly, creating numerous safe options for prostitutes to be hired. These are all part of the case I posted clearly in R2, and yet Con has consistently ignored the argument, as well as the warrants and evidence from Nevada and elsewhere in the U. S. that demonstrably supports it. I'm not sure why Con has been consistently determined to ignore large swaths of my argumentation, especially when she had almost 8000 characters remaining in this round. All of my rebuttals beyond the overviews have gone cold dropped. All 3 counter-rebuttals have also been dropped. All of my conclusions went dropped. They join my case, and at least 2 of my advantages, though the Safety advantage might as well have been as well. It's bizarre that I don't have to put a single ounce of ink on any of these points in order to win them. But what's utterly baffling to me is that Pro's entire case is yet another set of advantages to my case. Only in my case is the violation of rights seen in status quo removed. Only in my case is morality returned to the occupation of a prostitute. Only in my case is human trafficking better policed and perhaps even stopped. It's very simple: these are huge harms that exist in status quo, those harms are largely the result of prostitution being illegal, and thus legalizing prostitution solves for a large portion of these harms. Con has completely failed to respond to any of the analysis behind these claims, and thus her entire case is turned against her. Normally, this is where I'd insert of a whole bunch of "even if you're buying this" statements, but I can't for the life of me find one point Con is winning against me. She chose to use her final round in attempts to nitpick on minor points I made in R3, and thus has practically conceded this debate to me. I appreciate the debate, but I can't help but be upset to see how it turned out.