CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
In a Western society based on capitalism and with Constitutionally protected civil rights including freedom of religion it's pretty much inexcusable to tell people they just can't have sex for money. Granted you could still regulate it, and tax it. You could put health requirements and licensure requirements in the way. You certainly could block the underaged. But to outright say no, this can't be legal, is bogus. Heck, we're willing to allow pornography to exist as a part of free expression, and a wide variety of sexual preferences, and to let the media blast sex sex sex on shows and movies and commercials, but we're not willing to agree that two consenting adults can make a deal involving the bedroom.
Furthermore, the fear women will be coerced and controlled and abused really isn't technically all that different from the chances a smaller business partner will be taken advantage of and overpowered by a bigger one. When Trump hires small business men and then refuses to pay them and thwarts their legal action by having an army of bigger better lawyers just so he can win it's not really all that different from a lady finding out her knight in shining armor is a pimp who just wants to have his way or make some money from her and then cast her out broken when done. Yet, we allow that in business, don't we? We even elect that orange pimp to be President.
I believe prostitution should be legal, but surely there should be safeguards in place to ensure that the women aren't being forced into it. For one example, one could ask privately if they are being forced into prostitution by others and make it clear help is available. Since prostitution is often forced upon the prostitutes by others there must be safeguards to prevent exploitation. There would, after all, be strict legal requirements that such women would have to adhere to anyway.
I agree entirely, however in addition to legalizing alcohol it's manufacture and sale was also regulated. Prostitution would require regulation to protect both the sex-worker and the soliciting party. I would suggest that such regulation include safeguards against women being forced into the sex-trade by coercive third parties seeking to make a profit.
I believe those things will WASH themselves away when it's legalized.. The FIRST to go will be the pimp. They'll be called landlords. Next would be the sex slavers. They'll call them employment counselors... The john will be called the guest..
By the way, WHO is gonna be the regulators??? The blue haired pinched noses???
So what's to stop, for example, an abusive husband from forcing his wife into the sex-trade through violence? Will he decide against such actions simply because prostitution is legal?
I don't know what a "blue haired pinched nose" is, I tried googling it to no avail. Obviously the government would regulate it, who else? On the side of regulation which protects the consumer, one could think about preventing STIs, for example AIDS, from spreading through prostitution. Or one could think about prostitutes that rob their customers (common) or those that drug their customers and harvest their organs (rare). There is also the issue of blackmailing married clients. Of course such an industry needs regulation for the benefit of both consumer and provider.
"The same thing that stops him from forcing his wife to work at Boeing or Apple."
I don't understand what's stopping this either. The wife's free will maybe? When the victim is broken down by years of abuse and feels they can't even leave their abuser I'm not expecting them to suddenly exert their free will when their abuser forces them into a job.
Yes. Adultery is legal and porn. Theres nothing wrong with a woman doing this for someone and getting paid for it. In fact it would probably be a better choice. Pimps are so negatively stereotyped as beating women and being manipulative but this Isn't always the case. Cops kill a lot of blacks unjustly but they never made being a cop illegal. Factuals.
How about men ;) lol I assume you are consistent. Can you actually justify morally why a woman or many of a sound mind should not be a prostitute assuming if prostitution is regulated?
I wouldn't say drink is evil per se, its just how it is used and the effect that it has. If people come to clearly see the negative impact that it has then they don't need convincing, they tend to avoid it naturally.
I agree. If you take away a persons choice then you demonstrate to them that they cant be trusted. However some choices are not ours to make. I cant choose to shoot you in the head and expect there not to be dire consequences.
Why the hell should prostitution be legal, so the rate of sexually transmitted diseases could go up. Or should it be legal so people who aren't man enough to go get a girl to have sex with can pay for it. Wow so yes it should totally be legal....NOT
For the same reason drugs should be legal. That is, because your body is not the property of the state, and -- provided you aren't hurting anyone else -- it is up to you what you do with it.
There ARE some people who can't get laid, unless they buy it.. They're in a wheelchair, or they drool.. Why do you wanna prevent them from getting some??
Emotionally damaged, vulnerable or traumatised women with low self esteem get drawn into the sex trade. They are then used as objects and degraded and as their situations worsen they become trapped with little prospect of finding a different way of life. We need to treat our women better than this, for the sake of our mothers who gave birth to us and for the innocence of our daughters.
As long as prostitution remains ILLEGAL, it will remain in the sordid underbelly of America that you so clearly described. Yes, we DO need to treat our women better. I'm open to suggestions. We've tried keeping it illegal, and we have the results we have. Do you think cracking down HARDER will change the results??
But, if LEGALIZED, there's no reason to think that it wouldn't become a glamorous and well paid profession..
Pinched nosed blue haired people told us how dangerous alcohol was. It wasn't.. They told us how bad pot is. It isn't.. They told us how bad gay marriage is. It isn't. They told us how bad pornography is. It isn't.. I can go on, and on, but you get the picture.
It's time to move beyond the patriarchal myths of the past.
Those blue rinse old geezers were right about the alcohol. It destroys lives and wrecks families.
As for the porn, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. That's between you and your conscience.
I will concede that I would prefer a brothel to be carefully monitored and the woman protected from violence. However, a government capitalising on this sends the wrong message in my opinion.
The best solution is that girls are supported, respected and loved throughout their lives so that they grow up to be dignified women who know their worth and are good role models. At the very least if they choose to sell their bodies they should know that they have the potential to be a whole lot more than that.
Yes, around 10% of the people have a problem with alcohol.. That means 90% don't.. In a free society, should 90% of the people be punished because of the actions of a few?
My argument is NOT about what's right or wrong... It's about what HARMS society and what doesn't..
Think of what it would do for the flourishing of society if that 90% stopped considering it as punishment and instead did it out of love to support their fellow man. That's the thing about society, we're all in it together. What harms one harms us all.
It depends on the mind-set we bring to the situation. If we say "well I'm gonna do this now because you're too incompetent to do it yourself" Then that will probably not be helpful.
However if we say "this is something you're struggling with and I'm gonna stand by you in solidarity" then this is more likely to be of genuine help. There can be a thin line between these but ultimately it means we have to know the nuances of our intentions very accurately and genuinely understand the situation the person is in.
Well no , they had an opinion regarding alcohol based on the abuse of alcohol, alcohol does not destroy lives many people enjoy a social drink and that would be the majority .
Regarding porn you say because something is legal doesn't make it right ?
What makes it right or indeed wrong ?
Some women see selling their bodies as an economic necessity and how can they be ' a whole lot more than that " if they have very limited options ?
One of the key problems with alcohol is denial. Many people will be unaware or unwilling to consider the negative impact it has on their life. It may in fact contribute to their existing problems in a great many subtle ways. Furthermore, they may not understand the way alcohol has effected the ancestors that have come before them.
As excon has pointed out, something is wrong if it causes harm. It may be a subtle harm or contributing to an existing harm but it is still harm none the less.
The fact that woman are in such a position to begin with, shows that something must be done to stop them from be oppressed in such a way. If you took all of the money that was used to brew alcohol, and to treat the health issues that alcohol causes and you redirected it to help these people who are trapped in difficult circumstances then think what a difference it could make to society.
I don't accept what you're saying regards alcohol , the majority of people enjoy a drink as in a glass of wine with a meal or a couple of beers with friends and it's no problem .
It's obvious your gripe is against alcohol but you're tarring every drinker of alcohol with the one brush which is grossly unfair
Just because you enjoy something, doesn't necessarily mean its good overall. The heroin addict probably enjoys his heroin. Anyway its not the alcohol in of its self that is the problem. Its more the way it is used and how it contributes to that persons development that is key.
By good overall I mean the sum total effect that it has on society.
The heroin addict was an example of someone who enjoys something that's not good. This is to demonstrate that enjoyment is not equivalent to good.
There are many ways it effects the majority's development. Most go unseen and unrecorded. Its only the ones that end in domestic violence, depression, liver disease and homelessness etc. that we pay attention to.
The heroin addict is not a fair example as it's talking about an addict which has no bearing on this topic . Enjoyment can be equivalent to good as in the many social drinkers who have no problem with alcohol
Now you state it affects the majority's development and you base that claim on what ?
The total good is difficult to define let online measure empirically. Its something that philosophers have debated since forever. A popular definition these days is human flourishing. This means the conditions must be favourable for people to realise their greatest potential.
The heroin example was meant to show how something that feels good can actually be bad. We can follow our base desires and cravings or follow our higher good be it artistic, intellectual, spiritual etc.
I stated that the majorities development will be affected, actually every individual will be effected because every cause produces an effect. This may be minor in most cases but there will still be an effect.
You said ......I stated that the majorities development will be affected, actually every individual will be effected because every cause produces an effect. This may be minor in most cases but there will still be an effect.......
You haven't proved your point it's merely your opinion ;again heroin is a poor example because you follow it up with your statement that 'we can follow our base desires and cravings etc ,etc , thus one again lumping social drinkers in with heroin addicts which is unfair .
You still have not understood my point. My point was to demonstrate that feeling good is not identical to actually being good. Heroin addiction was simply an example which proves this.
The point about cause and effect was not an opinion, its an argument based on logic. Every cause will produce an effect. If there is an effect on individuals there will be an effect on society.
I have understood I just cannot understand why you are using addiction as your example as it makes no sense , I'm disputing your point as in what do you mean by ' being good ' when applied to social drinkers ?
Yes again I get your last point as in you're making out the effect on society is negative which again I disagree with .
I should say that I'm quite the hedonist.. The reason I don't drink, is NOT because I'm a teetotaler. It's because it doesn't make me feel "good".. But, I'm all FOR feeling good. In fact, I believe that feeling good is GOOD for you.
AND, if feeling good is good for YOU, it's good for SOCIETY..
I do agree that when something is good for you it often does feel good to. However, sometimes something can feel bad but be very important for your personal development.
Also as mentioned in the heroin example. The addict would say that the feeling is the best thing they have ever experienced but I'm sure we would agree that it is not good for them.
These points should demonstrate that hedonism is false.
Nahhh... It depends on what itch you wanna scratch. If, every time I wanna have some fun, I scratched my "pinched nosed" self, I'd NEVER have any fun. But, if I wanted to scratch my kid self, I'd let myself go..
Frankly, I think having fun is BETTER for you than NOT having fun. To me, that demonstrates that hedonism is GOOD.
I'm NOT talking about cravings or drugs.. I'm talking about eating that piece of coconut cream pie that you KNOW is bad for you.. I'm talking about lavishing the butter on your pancakes when you KNOW it's not good for you.. I'm talking about diving off the 3 meter board when you KNOW you could die..
The food one might not be so good because you could just be feeling a bit bored and decide to eat junk food, basically comfort eating.
However, your immune system could need the boost in energy. You have to know the difference.
The diving one, you could be challenging yourself to overcome fears and take necessary risks. Which is a positive thing. However you could be feeling a bit crazy and frustrated with things in life and do it just to go a bit berserk, which is a bit more of a troubling reason.
Totally disagree with you , a social drinker can enjoy a few drinks without harming himself or others and I would hardly call that a 'hedonistic lifestyle'
Again your persistence with the point about the heroin addict makes no sense as I agree it's not good for them but what has that got to do with social drinkers ?
I'm not sure where you're going.. I don't LIVE for other people.. I LIVE for ME. I don't HAVE to be social with people.. They HAVE to be social with me.
I'm a lot like Trump in that regard. I don't think you'll find a hedonist that isn't a bit narcissistic.
