Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

Since this is the last round, I"m just going to go straight for voter issues and clarifications. The order will be framework, the "Inherent Structures" debate (which involves the NC), and the AC. Clarification: Framework Debate 1. If you look at my first line of refutation to his framework, I accept and meet his burden of proof. So he doesn"t need to extend it as a benefit for his side, insofar as I impact to his framework. 2. He accuses me of not showing why both frameworks are compatible, but at the same time does no work in establishing why they are incompatible. I agree that his can effectively show the round in tandem with mine. Part of his framework involves mine, since Therefore, I would argue that if I can prove that Pornography is akin to Prostitution enough that forms of currently legal pornography (and usually the forms that come to mind in this debate) should be considered prostitution, I have fulfilled my burden. This weighing involves a truth-testing mechanism, insofar as one must confer the validity of the legal status of porn against the illegal status of prostitution. 3. Even if you don"t buy this argument, I"ll impact to both framework structures, so his framework superseding mine isn"t a voter here. With that in mind, let"s move on to case. Voter #1: Free vs. Paid Porn 1. He tries really hard to impact my ninth disanalogy where I talk about how some porn isn"t paid, as it in his mind brings up some contradiction in my case. However, I kicked out of this in the last round. I recognized that since this debate wasn"t about two people filming themselves having sex and putting it up on the internet (which my opponent has to admit isn"t prostitution, since no one is getting paid at all) but instead about porn where the actors are paid. Thus, since I"m not trying to impact that argument out, you ignore it, and it can"t be used against me. 2. This categorization argument he makes is weird. Since this debate, as he recognizes in his framework, is about the type of porn typically understood (i. e. porn where the actors are getting paid, since for the analogy to hold to prostitution that is the case), he himself recognizes that there are different categories of porn, and that for the purposes of this debate we just have to focus on one. Which means" 3. All of my points of disanalogy are still relevant, insofar as they address the inherent institutional structures of the type of pornography we"re talking about, i. e. where the actors are getting paid. Thus, he can"t dismiss these away, insofar as they are relevant to the type of porn this debate has been about. Extend all of my points of disanalogy between prostitution and porn, since they address the institutional structure of the type of porn we"re talking about, and thus are relevant to the debate. When I said things like "there are institutional structures to porn," when using the word "porn" I wasn"t talking about it in the abstract (since I kicked out of the free porn category) but rather the type of porn focal to this discussion. This is the first voter issue, since this blanket argument against my disanalogies don"t hold, and through this I impact to both framework since the disanalogies apply at a truth-testing level and a legal level. Thus, you"re still voting on the negative case, insofar as my points of disanalogy stand and apply to both frameworks. Voter #2: Affirmative Case Group all his contention arguments together. 1. I brought this up in my last case, and he didn"t really address it: all of his case arguments are premised on this assumption that "all acts of sex involving money are prostitution until proven otherwise. " (1) That"s an unwarranted belief within his case, so you won"t vote on it which means his contentions fall, and (2) begs the question of the debate. Effectively, this logic ignores any weighing mechanism, meaning he can"t impact back to his own framework, since the operating presumption behind the case isn"t the weighing of porn"s qualities against prostitution"s, but rather analyzing porn through the lens of prostitution. This isn"t weighing, it"s an applied analysis, and it"s not how his framework was set up. Thus you flow his framework over to my side of the debate, since I"m actually doing a weighing analysis instead of presuming one as the standard against the other. 2. He refutes the circularity argument I make against his case (where I tell you that his claim, "if you film a crime it"s still a crime" presumes that porn is prostitution and thereby a crime) by saying No, this argument doesn"t have to assume that porn is prostitution. It actually shows that porn is prostitution given the accepted definitions of prostitution. This is non-responsive. (1) It still assumes prostitution is the metric here, which again undercuts the weighing proposed in his own constructive, and (2) doesn"t address the logical fallacy within the statement. Let me reword it, though replacing the word "crime" with "porn": If you film porn it"s still prostitution. I take that the absurdity of the statement is plainly relevant; thus his contention arguments, especially contentions 1 and 2, fall. Conclusion Considering both frameworks in tandem, these are the voter issues simplified: 1. Since my points of disanalogy still stand, as they apply to the institutional structures to the type of porn we"re talking about, you have eight reasons to see how porn and prostitution aren"t analogous in the way we"ve been talking about. This impacts to both framework structures, thus you have two reasons to vote PRO. 2. I"ve effectively shown the operative principle behind his case, namely "prostitution until proven otherwise," is question-begging and doesn"t uphold his own framework. Since I"m the only one doing a comparative weighing instead of a presumptive analysis of porn, you look to the PRO since I"m upholding his framework and he isn"t. The other circularity, namely "crime is still crime even if it"s filmed," is still invalid thus you"re looking to the pro.