Instigator / Pro

The Nordic Model Should Be Adopted


All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
Sources points
Spelling and grammar points
Conduct points

With 1 vote and 2 points ahead, the winner is ...

More details
Publication date
Last update date
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Con
~ 274 / 5,000

The Nordic Model says that buying from a prostitute is illegal, but selling as a prostitute is legal.

I'm adopting Wrick-It-Ralph's debating form.

R1: Opening Arguments
R2: Rebuttals to R1 Only
R3: Rejoinders
R4: Interrogation Questions
R5: Answer Questions and Conclusion

Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)

So, there are two main contentions here proposed by pro. The first relates to the case of illegal prostitution. Pro states that if prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are less likely to report abuse and violence in scenarios without fear of prosecution - offering a causal reason.

Likewise, pro offers a benefit of the Nordic model over fully legal - specifically he offers a very simple to understand causal reason: that when Johns are less willing to engage in prostitution: with legal prostitution, there’s more market, to be fulfilled by trafficked women.

This fact is supported specifically by the source (which itself sources science direct).

Cons response is basically to mostly concede the first point: though con argues that the position is about “rooting out abusive Johns”.

Con makes a lot of hay here about pimps “clamping down,” though his point is a bit laboured and a bit of a world salad and isn’t particularly cleat. This may make his fully legal plan better than pros; con seems to be arguing that were prostitution legal, then brothel and pimp owners would not act harshly or violently - where as in pros plan they would.

This seems a bit of a stretch, and is not supported by any solid data or sources for that section, which is odd : as this is pretty much the central benefit of his plan over his opponent; and he appears to source everything else.

Quite honestly, it’s particularly unclear how the auditing and whore training fits in; just block quoting information about “an audit” is not itself an argument - and I’m at a loss as to how beneficial “whore training” could or would be other than cons hypothetical benefit.

While I can happily buy the councilling could be beneficial - it doesn’t strike me as unique to legalization: and whilst I’m somewhat willing to believe the hold of criminal gangs would be alleviated by full legalization, there are doubts (due to trafficking issues), so I can’t weight this particularly strongly, even though I think I should accept it as true.

However con doesn’t cover the increase in trafficking in legalized countries (supported by a source), which is a clear major negative of cons plan compared to pros.

Con covers this later, and argues without any sources, that the gain in trafficking is because people report it more. Con argues that pro is “lying”, and this claim isn’t true. In cons source related to trafficking one pointed out:

“Evaluations have found that regulation of prostitution creates a façade of legitimacy that hides sexual exploitation, and that brothels can “function as legalized outlets for victims of sex trafficking.”

The source material for pros claim clearly preempts cons claim here imo, and while I would have accepted a counter source, none seemed to be provided by con - who relies mostly on say so. Whilst I could have accepted it if con had not supported the contention with a pretty solid source, cons counter claims is already covered.

I can’t really consider the point dropped; as it’s a new point raised when the debate rules said it was supposed to be rejoinders; making it near impossible for pro to respond even with the forfeit.

So given this, con offers a weak benefit of his model over pros. Pro offers a major benefit over cons.

It’s near impossible to really weigh the impacts of both: that should be down to debaters to do - and despite literally saying so in every debate, without clearly weighed impacts, I have to use my own intuition. In this case trafficking itself is a specific and clear harm in pros case - given that con doesn’t do enough to really sell me on the lesser impact of pimping in his case, or quantify the harm it has : I have to side with pro. Arguments to pro

Conduct to con for the forfeit.

Note: I would have scored the source point to do here - the source was excellent and particularly thorough: but I don’t think that in the context of the full debate that a four point swing was earned.

Note: the questions do nothing for the debate, they are literally pointless from a voting point of view a I wouldn’t use them again.