Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

My roadmap for this round will be Framework, Refutation, and then finally some rebuilding of my own case. Framework My opponent has basically opted for both frameworks (strange). I would argue that you look to my first round argument and see why the truth-testing calculus my opponent offered was bad for the round. In summary, my framework offers the best way of weighing this round (and my opponent doesn’t refute that). Furthermore my opponent does nothing to show HOW these two frameworks can coexist. I extend my argument of why you should prefer my framework, along with my critique of his framework and ask that you disregard his framework in favor of mine, since my opponent has done nothing to defend against my refutation of his framework. Refutation My opponent is insistent on defending his disanalogies, but I think that I pointed out a critical premise in all of these arguments. My opponent insists that there is an “inherent structure” to pornography. In fact, he argues that due to these inherent structures of pornography, these exclude prostitution. However, as I pointed out in my last round, my opponent is asking for it both ways. All of his examples lie on the premise that porn has an inherent structure. Then, in his final and 9th point, he throws this premise out the window. Actually, as it turns out, porn DOESN’T have an inherent structure. This undermines all of his so-called disanalogies. After pointing this out, my opponent confirms his abandonment of his critical premises and argues that “Well actually, there are two categories of porn, one where actors are paid, and one where the actors are the ones filming”. But why should we stop there? Why not simply split porn into an infinite amount of categories, since porn is so broad. He argues that that’s not the center of the debate, but in all reality this outlines the problem with his entire defense. The truth is that there is no inherent structure to porn, which my opponent admits. As my opponent said earlier in this debate “…pornography is such a broad category…” I think that this adequately answers his “disanalogies” since they depend on a premise that my opponent himself has denied, as well as extending my line-by-line refutation from round 2. So yes, there is an internal contradiction if you claim that there are inherent institutional practices to porn, and then proceed to define them all away at will. So what does this internal contradiction tell us? That there are no inherent institutional practices to porn. All of the “institutional structures” that my opponent is touting are really just different ways in which porn CAN manifest, not ways in which is MUST manifest. This is an important distinction that my opponent has ignored. By ignoring this distinction, my opponent has also ignored the critical underlying theme of pornography: Porn actors are getting paid to have sex. Underneath all of the “institutional structures” this is the critical point. In the case of prostitution, one OR MORE people are paid to have sex. Whether they have sex with the buyer, or someone else is irrelevant in the case of prostitution. It is still considered prostitution. The only time it is considered porn is if you film and produce the copy of the film. There are no other inherent conditions to porn, as my opponents arguments show. On the most basic level, porn is in fact prostitution being filmed and produced and therefore legalized. In the most common cases of porn, where the director is paying two “actors” to have sex with one another, this would be considered prostitution if not for the camera. If that same person hired two people to have sex with one another while he watched (with no camera), it would in fact still be considered prostitution. Rebuilding Given this refutation, it seems that the only inherent difference between porn and prostitution is the fact that it is filmed and produced (remember that my opponent has essentially agreed to this by defining away all supposed “inherent structures”. Now I’m going to talk about why simply filming prostitution does not negate that it is prostitution. It is porn, but it is also prostitution. Contention One The Family Guy video is in fact satirical. But my opponent misses the point. The video illustrates porn and prostitution at their most fundamental levels are in fact the same thing. In BOTH cases, a person is paying another person to perform a sexual act. Whether it is on the buyer himself (which I pointed out is actually a very popular form of porn) or on other person, it is still considered prostitution UNTIL it is filmed and produced. In response to this point my opponent makes a lot of bare assertions about the porn actor. Despite what he says, it is in fact the case that the actor is selling his or her body to the director (which is also sometimes the other actor) who is then using it for sexual acts. This is prostitution. As I pointed out before, I could buy a prostitute for friend, and it would still be considered prostitution even though I am not personally receiving the sex act. It doesn’t matter who receives the sex act, the fact is that the person is being paid to perform a sex act. Contention Two 1) 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. If I pay a woman for sex, it is prostitution. If I film it, it is then considered porn. This porn is nothing more than filming an act of prostitution. In fact, this is why this form of porn is so popular. My opponent pointed out that I didn’t adequately answer the fact that many who would watch porn wouldn’t engage in prostitution but this misses the point. For one thing, the reason that this type of porn is so popular is BECAUSE it so closely simulates prostitution, and second I’m not arguing that watching porn is prostitution, rather engaging in porn is prostitution. 2) Here he goes again into his “inherent structures” of pornography which I’ve shown (as well as my opponent) aren’t inherent at all. 3) Many acts of prostitution are also idealized, this isn’t unique to porn. In addition, this also isn’t an inherent structure to porn since amateur videos are also porn. Contention Three He doesn’t really answer this at all. The fact is that if I were to pay someone to have sex with someone else, it WOULD BE PROSTITUTION. It is only once I’ve filmed it that it is considered porn. Once again, this proves my point that at its most basic level, without all of the “inherent structures” (which I’ve shown aren’t actually inherent at all) porn in all reality is prostitution. Concluding Remarks Refer back to my framework. I have shown that current forms of legal pornography are actually simply acts of prostitution that have been filmed and produced. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden as the Pro. Think of the most common form of pornography, where the director pays two “actors” to have sex with one another. If the director were to do the exact same thing, but not film, the action taking place could be charged for prostitution. It is a person taking money to perform sexual acts. Prostitution does not specify whether the other person is paid or not, taking money to perform sex is prostitution.