Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

First, some refutation:FrameworkI am going to offer an alternative weighing mechanism. The crux of this debate, and the reason that it is often raised, is in the case of legality and morality. 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. Why you should prefer my framework: Simple truth-testing calculus misses the spirit of the debate, especially with the “more alike” criteria my opponent has offered. This form of “truth-testing” calculus also provides insufficient conclusions and requires an additional, unstated weighing mechanism. Let me explain: If this debate was about whether a tomato was a fruit, the decision criteria offered by my opponent would be insufficient. Botanically, a tomato is in fact a fruit (shocking right? ), but for all culinary purposes (the main function in which we use a tomato) it’s characteristics are considered that of a vegetable (and the Supreme Court considers it a vegetable). Following the tomato example, we would be unable to decide whether the tomato was more “like” a vegetable or a fruit because we are not told whether we should consider botanic likeness over functional likeness. This would require an additional weighing mechanism, which the Con does not offer. My weighing mechanism is better because in defending pornography as not prostitution, the Con is implicitly defending the status quo. I will be arguing that MOST FILMS we consider legal porn are actually forms of prostitution. More on this later. Contention One RefutationMy opponent basically lists every conceivable difference between pornography (in the broadest sense) and prostitution (in the most specific sense). To this I would argue that this again misses the point of the debate. There will always be differences between porn and prostitution, but that does not mean that forms of porn aren’t analogous to prostitution. Still, I’ll address these “disanalogies” line by line.1) This begs the question. The entire debate is basically centered around whether I can film an act of prostitution and basically legalize it by simply filming it. I would argue that prostitution can have a camera involved without it being considered legal porn. There is nothing inherent about filming a crime that makes it less of a crime, and I’ll get more into this in my constructive points. 2) Once again, this begs the question. The only reason that there is a contract involved is because it is considered legal and is regulated. 3) First, this isn’t true of all cases of pornography. There are several porn companies, some of the most popular in fact, where the director is the actor and cameraman, they simply find someone who needs money to pay for sex and they film it and sell it as a legitimate business. This common form of pornography completely destroys this entire example. The one filming is in fact creating incentive for the other to have sex with them. The only real difference between this is prostitution is that it is filmed. Also, you’re point 9 contradicts this point.4)This is similar to number 3. As I’ve already pointed out, the recipient of sex doesn’t have to be paid in pornography either, this not unique to porn.5) Many actor/directors basically solicit a prostitute for the actual sex act and then sell the video to make some money (why not? It’s legal! ) Also, you’re point 9 contradicts this point.6) This is again similar to numbers 3 and 4. This isn’t inherent to pornography. The director/actor is in fact paying the other to have sex with them. Also, you’re point 9 contradicts this point.7). Once again, my opponent shows some level of ignorance of the porn industry (which isn’t entirely a bad thing). There are very popular porn adult webcam sites where those watching can actually tell the model to perform this or that sexual act via webcam or the internet. 8) It does if you film it and sell it.9) This is where my framework comes in. I will concede that not ALL porn is prostitution, and I don’t think that any rational person would argue that, nor is that the debate. Additionally, this specific case of pornography would contradict your own definition that you’ve provided about the intent of the sex act. In this case, the sex act was in fact intended for pleasure, the filming was not necessarily intended for commercial use, yet it is still considered porn. This shows that not only is your own definition of pornography insufficient, but it has created internal inconsistencies in his own case. Contention Two RefutationThis claim is basically the same as No. 9, which I already pointed out creates some internal inconsistencies in his case. I will extend the point I made in response to No. 9, that this is why my alternative framework is preferable. Concluding RefutationOverall, in refutation I have argued that the contentions my opponent has offered aren’t really contentions, just examples. The fact that he says “The force of this argument here is that since pornography is such a broad category…” actually proves that all of his assertions about “what porn is” actually aren’t inherent assertions but just different manifestations of porn. He is asking for it both ways: He wants you as the adjudicator to accept that porn is extremely broad and has many manifestations while also arguing that there are certain factors that are inherent to porn that prove it is not prostitution. Constructive CaseContention One: The Camera. http://www.youtube.com... As my opponent pointed out in his first example, there seems to be some obsession with the camera as some inherent difference. I think that the video I posted really illustrates the point that there is nothing inherent about the camera that makes an act of prostitution suddenly legal porn. As with any other crime, simply filming a crime and distributing and selling the film of that crime does not negate the crime that took place. This is an act of prostitution. Contention Two: Engaging and Acting False DistinctionWe call the participants in the sexual activity in porn “actors” or “actresses” because we hold them on the same level as someone pretending to do something for the camera. However, this analogy actually falls apart because if we were to film someone molesting a child, that video could be considered evidence of a crime. Similarly, if we film a woman accepting money from a man in exchange for sex, we have in fact filmed an act of prostitution. This is the case of most popular porn videos. If it were the case as in CSI where the actors were PRETENDING to sell drugs to one another, the film would actually be considered real commercial media. However, in the case of porn, the participants are not pretending to have sex with one another, they actually are committing the sex act. They actually are committing prostitution. Contention Three: The Third PartyMy opponent has pointed out that in the case of prostitution, the one who pays the prostitute is the one who is receiving the sex act. This, my opponent argues, is not the case in pornography. First, I’ve already shown, this is often exactly the case in pornography. Additionally, I would like to point out that it is in fact the case in some acts of prostitution that the one receiving the sex act is not always the one that is paid. The Con has contructed prostitution as simply a bilateral arrangement, when in fact there are often several parties involved. Similar to porn, I am paying someone to have sex with someone else. However, if this act were not filmed, it would be prosecuted under prostitution. If I were to pay two people to have sex with one another in a hotel for me to watch, it would still in fact be considered prostitution.