Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

The roadmap will be framework, AC, NC. Framework 1. I accept and meet the burden proposed by the AC framework. 2. However, I don't think the NC and AC framework are mutually exclusive, so this debate doesn't ultimately come down to the weighing mechanisms at the top of both cases. The truth-testing standard and the legal standard are both interrelated, so we can try to impact to both in this case. AC Look to his contention one. 1. The Family Guy video disingenuously conflates porn and prostitution. Porn and prostitution do differ in intent; while intent isn't the sole factor in comparing the two, it is nevertheless important. The porn star isn't selling his or her body to the other porn star; rather, he or she is selling the product of that sex act for the visual purposes. 2. Porn and prostitution are structured differently institutionally. That is, going into the making of a porno, it is clear that both sides are producing this particular act for the purposes of creating a visual product. In the case of the Family Guy video, the guy didn't intend to make a porn; he only brought along a camera because he knew hiring a prostitute was illegal. This is begging the question here. Now onto contention two. 1. This argument is circular. It has to assume that porn is prostitution in order to suggest that filming it is filming a crime. 2. As mentioned in refutation #2 on contention one, porn is structured inherently different than hiring a prostitute. In prostitution, the only concern is the sex act, when or where. Prostitution involves many considerations, namely the director, staging, who the actors are, etc. (I imagine there's a lot more, but frankly I'm glad I don't know what they are. ) 3. I recognize that porn actors aren't "pretending" to have sex, that certainly isn't my argument. But there is a heightened reality present on a porn set that isn't present in an act of prostitution. Prostitution is the act, down and dirty. Porn is an idealized fantasy that to some degree is inherently "unreal," even though it is an actual sex act. Contention Three: 1. I'd say most of the time people are seeking out prostitutes for themselves, so I think the most real world example isn't when people are buying a prostitute for a friend. NC First, an overview. As to the internal inconsistency he sees in my case (with disanalogy point #9 under my contention one), I'm going to refute this mainly by establishing two categories of porn discussed in my case: 1. Porn where the actors are paid. 2. Amateur porn made without either party getting paid (i. e. having sex with one's boy/girlfriend or spouse and filming it for personal purposes or free distribution. I don't think my opponent would deny the second exists. I also don't think he can argue it is prostitution, since no one is selling their body. This means three things: 1. That pornography and prostitution are not inherently alike. The fact that porn, which is the visual depiction of (actual) sex for arousal does not have to fit prostitution says something about the differences between two acts. 2. But I imagine my opponent will want to talk more about how the porn industry (i. e. where people are getting paid) and prostitution are alike, not free/nonpaid porn. So I won't continue to harp on free/nonpaid porn, as it is a secondary point to the real discussion here. 3. Thus, there is no internal inconsistency, since I was not addressing porn as a whole but a particular type of porn different from the one we've been discussing the most about. However, I will now move on to the porn that this discussion is about, namely porn where the actors are paid. Go to my contention one. Group his arguments against my one and two disanalogies. 1. His first response again begs the question (like he did under his own contention two), since he's assuming it is a crime in order to make the "a crime that's filmed is still a crime. " 2. Both of these beg the question in that they presume that until a camera is brought into the equation, an sex act of this type is inherently prostitution. This is flawed analysis. The point that should be addressed is how the institutions that exist now are analogous or disanalogous. You can't just opt for "prostitution until proven otherwise. " Plus, as mentioned in some refutation above, several considerations go into making a porn, since the goals of a porn star and a prostitute are different. Now onto his refutation of my third disanalogy. 1. In the example he provides, the porn director is still getting paid, and the other actor isn't paying him, s/he's paying the porn company which then in turn pays here. 2. The porn director isn't paying just so he can get laid (though, of course, I won't deny that's a benefit to him), he's doing it because he wants to produce a product. Another key difference in considerations between porn stars and prostitutes. 3. This ignores the main force of the argument, which is that the porn stars aren't incentivizing each other to have sex; they're only doing it because "it's the job. " A prostitute actively has to be incentivized to have sex. Onto the fourth disanalogy. 1. I will concede that in some cases, especially in those cases of free/amateur porn, people aren't getting paid. Look to my overview at the top of the NC rebuilding. 2. However, since my opponent wants to talk about the majority of porn cases, then we are looking at those instances when both actors are paid. Thus the point still stands. Fifth disanalogy. 1. This is just an assertion. Yes, it's possible a porn director might do this, but it doesn't seem to make sense at face, especially since. .. 2. As I mentioned in my refutation of the AC, there are significant institutional structures that differ prostitution and porn. Since prostitution comes with its own legal risks, it wouldn't make sense for an actor/director to seek out a prostitute since there are plenty of people willing to do porn. The method he suggests doesn't practically make sense, and I don't see any evidence for it. 3. I don't think he adequately responds to the distinction I make about the people who would want to watch porn. The fact that most people who watch porn probably wouldn't hire a prostitute or be on a porn set because the intent of porn is to watch it from afar says a lot about the difference in participatory actions in both institutions. Sixth disanalogy. 1. First of all, it's not the director/actor paying the other actor; both actors get paid by the production company, not like a prostitute who gets paid up-front. 2. This ignores the main point of my argument. Yes, I'm aware people are getting paid for sex; my point is that the sex is used for different purposes. One is for immediate pleasure, the other a reproduceable product. Seventh disanalogy: 1. I concede that this is an existing option within the porn industry. However. .. 2. Since we're talking about the porn and prostitution industries in the most typically understood since, the types of examples you'd opt to are when an already-filmed porn is being watched via computer by someone who isn't an active participant. Thus the force of this argument still stands; one counter-example doesn't undermine this. To the eighth disanalogy. Yes, this would be true if you filmed it, but that ignores the point of this argument. A typical act of prostitution is one person paying for sex that they then have in a solely interpersonal act. Porn is filmed and then distributed via the internet for all to see. That's the difference I'm making, and this goes ignored. I already addressed the ninth disanalogy at the top of my NC rebuilding. From this we can conclude I'm impacting to both framework structures, in that I'm showing how they're different on a truth-testing calculus and I'm showing how both institutions as they exist now don't fundamentally contradict in terms of legality.