Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

For my last post, I’ll start with the framework debate, then address how I have won through that framework in two crystallizing points.Framework DebateUltimately the framework debate comes down to which frame through which this round should viewed. Extend my points from round 2 about why simply truth-testing analysis is an insufficient model. Instead, look to my model. I posited in the second round that if I can show that current forms of pornography that are currently considered legal should be considered acts of pornography, then I have fulfilled my burden. My opponent made little attempt to defend his own framework, and I’ve already shown why my framework is sufficient and his own is insufficient. I’ll show how I’ve fulfilled my burden and should win this round in two crystallizing argumentsOne: The Inherency InconsistencyI spent much of my last round addressing how the disanalogies that my opponent has put forth all rest on one presupposition: that porn has an inherent manifestation. Look to his second round contentions. In all of these he asserts that “porn acts as X, prostitution acts as Y”. Once again, I’ve shown how this isn’t the case. Porn does not have an inherent manifestation. Additionally, prostitution doesn’t have an inherent manifestation. My opponent has constructed these two as having a rigid structure. The reason my opponent has constructed these rigid structures is so that he can claim that they never cross. But, as my opponent later admits, there is no inherent structure to porn. Porn doesn’t require the institutional structures that my opponent claims it does. In addition to this, I argued that prostitution doesn’t require inherent structures. In fact prostitution can, and does, manifest itself in analogous ways to pornography. None of these disanalogies are even disanalogies, they aren’t unique to porn at all. In response to this he says “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.” Three responses: 1) Let’s be frank, he kicked the argument because he conceded that it wasn’t consistent with his case. He realized it undermined his arguments so he took it back. 2) He’s framing this as an act of grace that he kicked it, but it’s actually a win for me. He admits that this contradicts his case and drops it in hopes that I drop it as well. I won’t. 3) Even if he kicks it, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t affect him. I can just address it as my own argument, he can’t pretend like this version of porn doesn’t exist, I can still address it as a counter example to all of his other disanalogies. As for his categorization argument: I agree that this debate should be about the type of porn that is commonly thought of. However, this doesn’t allow my opponent to simply grant inherent structures to porn. The type of pornography that is central to this discussion does not require any of the institutional structures that my opponent has addressed. My argument is that any of the institutional structures that current pornography uses are variable. This debate cannot be centralized to variables, it needs to be centralized on fixed aspects of pornography. These fixed aspects are what makes prostitution analogous to pornography. At its most basic level, pornography of this type consists of people being paid to have sex with one another. This is considered legal by the law, but it is prostitution. This is where I have fulfilled my burden. The current type of porn that is considered legal is actually prostitution at the most fundamental level. Two: My Affirmative CaseFor starters all my arguments are distinct, grouping them all as one doesn’t do you any favors. They aren’t like my opponents disanalogies which all lie on a single false premise. I’ll show why his single response doesn’t stand, and actually doesn’t address the other contentions. His responseIt basically comes down to his opposition to me using prostitution as a metric. He said that I presume that “all acts of sex involving money are prostitution until proven otherwise”. First of all, let me show his own definition of prostitution that he provided in round 2 as follows“Prostitution: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money.”So no, actually I’m comparing porn to the very definition that my opponent has provided. You can take two things away from this: either my opponent is admitting that his own definition provided for prostitution is bogus (in which case he as set forth a bad debate and the win should go to me) or that I actually am fulfilling both my own framework and my opponents given definition of prostitution (in which I should also win this debate). Secondly, I’m not sure how I’m not fulfilling my own framework. I showed that because current legal forms of pornography are people getting paid to perform sex acts (given the current legal definition of prostitution, and my opponents own definition) current forms of legal pornography are actually prostitution. Therefore, his critique of my metric so-to-speak fails, and since he grouped this one argument against all my case, his refutation against my case fails. Just for clarity, I will talk about why this argument fails in respect to my constructive contentions.Contention One: Here he boils my argument down to something that it isn’t by claiming it is simply “If you film porn its still prostitution.” Look back to my argument in round 2, and you’ll see how this is a false conflation of my argument. The argument is as follows: 1) The porn that we’re talking about at its most basic level is the exchange of sex for money 2) Given my opponents own definition of prostitution, porn is prostitution. 3) Simply because you film this transaction of money for sex doesn’t make it not-prostitution. Conclusion: Filming prostitution and calling it “porn” doesn’t make it non-prostitution. He clearly is falsely applying my argument, and you should vote Pro.Contention Two:This is mostly what he attempts to address in his single refutation, and I think I’ve already sufficiently addressed it. Extend my points under “His Response”Contention Three:Remember that this argument is as follows: Current legal parameters (as well as my opponents own definition) of prostitution aren’t concerned with who receives the sex act and who receives the money. If I were to buy a prostitute for my opponent, it is prostitution all the same. So the question you need to ask is how my opponent’s response addresses this point at all. The answer: it doesn’t. As a matter of fact, he doesn’t address it whatsoever. This is a win my case. Regardless of how many parties are involved, sex for money is still considered prostitution. Therefore: Current forms of pornography are prostitution even though the actors don’t pay one another, they are paid by a third party. ConclusionDon’t let my opponent get away with simply dismissing the inherency problems in his case. The fact is that the institutional structures that he claims aren’t needed for pornography: they are variable. When we arrive to the core of pornography it is someone getting paid for sex, especially involving money; the very definition of prostitution that my opponent provided. Therefore, my framework burden is fulfilled. Current forms of pornography are actually just filmed prostitution. Because I have fulfilled my own burden, and kept to my opponents own definition of prostitution better than he has, I strongly urge a vote for the Proposition.