Instigator / Pro
Points: 1

The Nordic model should be applied regarding prostitution law

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Cogito
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Judicial decision
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
3,000
Required rating
5
Judges
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
The Nordic model simultaneously protects prostituted (trafficked or coerced) victims by:
1) Making it legal to sell sex and this way the vicitms fear no reprisal if they want to report the abuse they experienced to police. This helps to find perpetrators/traffickers and also makes victims less vulnerable to extortion/abuse from policemen as well.
2) Punishes the buyers and this way decreases the willingness to buy prostitutes and as such decreasing the national demand for prostitutes. Ultimately the absolute number of victims trafficked and forced into the prostitution business (as a portion of all prostitutes) is also decreased.
Round 1
Published:
The legal policy to prostitution was always a complex issue, in many countries laws were changing from criminalization, to partly-, or fully decriminalization, tolerance, spatial segregation or even regulation during the centuries and were often reversed after seeing different problems arising from newly adopted policies.
Punishing the client and pimp, while not punishing the prostitute is however a relatively new approach, that provides benefits for fighting criminals and protecting victims of abuse/coerced prostitutes.

As every law, prostitution law has advantages and disadvantages and conflicting interests cannot necessarily be resolved in an equal manner, that is we have to prioritize which values needs the most support when adopting a prostitution policy. Should it support the willing prostitutes, whose wellfare is not depending on the money they receive, the non-criminal third parties, like providers of travelling and location for the business, should it support local residents who complain about the side-effects of prostitution, public health policies against the spread of STIs, the johns (who buy sex), or the abused victims coerced to become prostitutes?

The position of this argument is that the first priority should be the support of abused/coerced prostitutes, and lowering their absolute numbers when deciding over a prostitution law. All other support for other interests are secondary of importance.

Following this logic, how can we best serve the interests of coerced victims and lower their numbers effectively? 1) Prevent their entry and 2) support their exit from prostitution.
1) Punishing the demand, can decrease the total number of prostitutes required in the sector and thus decrease the absolute number of those prostitutes who are coerced as well. This hurts the interest of high-end prostitutes, pimps and johns but serves the interest of coerced victims. If we follow the priority, we value this action as beneficial. Direct policy: punish clients.
2) Providing alternatives for prostitutes to exit this business also help coerced victims to find a way out. This hurt the interests of pimps and johns.
Direct policy: cease persecution of prostitutes, to not fear reprisal when reporting their history to authorities, rehabilitation centres, employment options, helping organizations, translations, education etc.
Published:
You can have this win. There's only 3k chars and Ramshutu already expressed complete incapacity to grasp how audits and legalised business procedures would inevitable work for prostitution.

The only case I can and will make is for legalised prostitution and I'm not going to put in all that effort for Ramshutu to shit on it. This is unrated anyway, I didn't quite realise that when I accepted and also realised that Ramshutu is the only judge just after I clicked accept.
Round 2
Published:
Please refrain from swearing/profanity to keep debates civilized and objective.
So if I understand correctly, you have a problem with the person of the judge and thus you forfeit your side in the debate. What are your concerns with @Ramshutu, can you validate/support your concerns? Do you have a suggestion for a judge who is objective and is attracted to spend time on this topic?
Published:

Feel free to see here how much effort I put into making a case for Nordic Model being toxic and the worse option if you want to liberate prostitutes. It's true, I could have used 32 sources and gone into an essay-like detail every Round but I opted for that instead. Ramshutu found issue with me not exploring every detail. 

On the other hand, look here:


Do you see Ramshutu's vote? That's what happens if I put legit effort in.
Round 3
Published:
I don't see why those votes would be considered biased in either cases. In the Nordic model debate, both sides used unclear goals, didnt started the debate on a common value, used various sources, interpretations, but ultimately your opponent had more tangible evidence in the form of statistics. In the religious debate he gave very similar evaluation as the other voters.
Besides, can you suggest an expert to judge on our topic?
Forfeited
Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Don't care
Round 5
Forfeited
Forfeited
Added:
--> @bsh1, @blamonkey, @Virtuoso, @semperfortis
Dear debaters, are you interested in a friendly debate about the most appropriate prostitution policy laws, talking about legalization, Nordic model and such?
Instigator
#14
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
Thank you very much! Wonderful, I will ask them.
Instigator
#13
Added:
--> @Cogito
There’s a few individuals that do more serious and structured debate; it maybe worthwhile PMing them for a direct challenge. There’s Blamonkey, Bsh1, Virtuoso, and Sempafortis who may potentially be interested.
Judge
#12
Added:
--> @Ramshutu, @RationalMadman
It seems you two have a long lasting grudge, its not my job to pick a side or bring peace, I just want to test my opinion in an objective debate.
I have seen the previous Nordic model debate and decided to add my researched views to that topic, trying to elucidate the issue in a relatively simple and easy-to understand way and test whether there are supported counterarguments for me to consider changing my viewpoint.
I found that the debate was not well structured at the start, the two sides need to speak the same language built on the same debate principles to get a constructive debate. First of all is the arguing power to understand.
RM: can I ask that do you accept that there is a power difference between the argument types below?
1. opinion only
2. opinion with logically cohesive interpreation
3. opinion, interpretation and anecdotal evidence
4. opinion, interpretation and anecdotal evidence validated by authorities
5. opinion, interpretation and scientifically reviewed evidence
6. opinion, interpretation and statistically robust and scientific evidence
Instigator
#11
Added:
--> @Cogito
See what I mean?
Judge
#10
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
You won't succeed in deluding me into the idea that you're right and I'm the delusional narcissist. over time, as the site grows and you become just one voter amongst many, your power to delude me and prey on me will dissipate. You will pick on someone easier as you're a sadistic predator by nature and I will be left in peace.
Contender
#9
Added:
--> @Ramshutu
No, it isn't. Also, your entire RFD was making your own arguments against mine. The rebuttals you raised, my opponent never did.
Contender
#8
Added:
--> @Cogito
RM is mostly just paranoid: https://www.debateart.com/debates/697
Basically, RM has a tendency of going down side tracks, opinionated tangents and semantics rather than throwing himself head first into the arguments in good faith. I tend to not award debates for toxic behaviour, or arguing in bad faith.
In the old Nordic model debate he essentially ignored his opponents core point about legalized prostitution increasing human trafficking - claiming it wasn’t true based on no evidence- despite his opponent saying it was true, providing a source that shows it was true. Data trumps opinion, thus he lost. This is the same sort of error he makes in many debate
As a result of these types of issues, I award votes against him sometimes; and rather than trying to improve, he launches into accusatory tirades, personal attacks, etc (its not just me though - he does it with most people who are critical)
Judge
#7
Added:
--> @RationalMadman
I'm afraid not, but that's an issue, I will hide the rating mode setting for the debates with the judges
#6
Added:
--> @bsh1, @DebateArt.com, @Virtuoso
Is this rated or not? It's a judge debate.
Contender
#5
Added:
--> @K_Michael
If the prostitute is not coerced due to debt, physical force, drugs, threats, poverty (e.g. he/she is a golddigger or a high end willing prostitute), then of course this law would hurt her finances. This is one side of the scale, on the other side the law protects victims of abuse. Now, we have to prioritize which we value more in the society:
A) supporting the interest of willing prostitutes, whose wellfare is not depending on the money they receive, or
B) we support victims of rape and abuse, who are coerced into this business.
Its a choice.
Instigator
#4
Added:
--> @Cogito
And if the prostitutes aren't forced or coerced? How is that justice?
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
Think about it as an illegal activity, in which only one side can be persecuted. Alternatively you could think of an illegal dog fight, in which the tamers and the audience is punished, but the dogs are not. It punishes the powerful actors (johns, pimps) and leaves the vulnerable actors (prostitutes) a safe route to exit or report to the police.
Instigator
#2
Added:
--> @Cogito
How can it be illegal to buy sex but legal to sell it? I heard that Denmark is giving autistic people federally subsidized sex encounters with prostitutes. This is how the autistic people get STDs.
#1
Judge
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Concession by Con in R1