The Instigator
baus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KevQuixote
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A career in pornography should be a more ethically respectable one than one in politics.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 55598
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

baus

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
KevQuixote

Con

I accept this interesting debate. Good luck Baus!
Debate Round No. 1
baus

Pro

I shall base my standpoint around 4 key contentions.

#1: Porn pleases those who need it most, by default, whereas politics only pleases those who are most capable of influencing it.

#2: To succeed in porn requires a severe urge to please whilst politics requires a severe urge to be pleased.

#3: Politics and porn are both elitist, but porn's elitism is far less severe.

#4: Pornography is an art whereas politics is a science. A science cannot be ethically respected.

#5: When pornography goes wrong, or corrupt, it affects a few victims severely. When goes wrong, or corrupt, it affects millions even more severely.

I shall not provide proof of these claims just yet and request that my opponent does the same.

My opponent is, however, free to do more than I have done and is also free to attack my contentions.

I will expand on everything in round 3 and look forward to a lengthy debate on the matter.

Round 2, for me, is just to outline my case.
KevQuixote

Con

I would like to thank PRO for the concise contentions, and I affirm that I will do my best to address them in turn. First, I would like to take the opportunity to lay out my case as concisely as I can. I thank PRO for offering me the option, but I will decline to rebut PRO's contentions until the 3rd round.

My case is as follows:

Primary Contention:
I believe that a career in politics is not ethically inferior to a career in pornography. A career in Politics achieves relative ethical parity with a career in prostitution. A career in prostitution, at the very least, achieves relative ethical parity with a career in pornography. Therefore, at the very least, a career politician exists in relative ethical parity to a career porn star.

Supporting Contention 1:

Below I will provide the logic model that provides proof that politicians are the functional and ethical equivalent of prostitutes.

Politician = Prostitute (as opposed to porn star) = X

Represented political constituency = Trick = Y

unrepresented special interest/lobby/Political Action Committee (PAC) = Pimp = Z

vote = cash = Instrument of Consent = Yc

Pork barrel legislation/ineffective political rhetoric/empty promises = fetish services/insincere emotional displays/empty flattery = Services = Xa

Profit = Favourable Political Capital = Zp

The interaction model is as follows;

Z deploys multiple X resources to suit the variations of taste in the market
X deploys into favourable position to intercept Y
Z ensures that competition is reasonably stifled through legal or non legal means
Y is encountered by X
X seduces Y
Y supplies Yc
X supplies Xa
X supplies Zp to Z
Z converts a portion of Zp into Yc and divides it amongst multiple X resources
Repeat process

As you can see in this model, the initial exchange between Y and X (Yc is exchanged for Xa) is indeed an equitable exchange with the consent of both parties. It is only the action of Z which falls outside of consent and appears to unfairly alter the course of the interchange, by stifling competition and inequitably distributing Zp to the overwhelming advantage of Z. Therefore Z appears to be ethically inferior to both X and Y.

Supporting Contention 2:

A career prostitute at the very least achieves ethical parity with a career porn star, however I contend that in most cases career prostitutes actually achieve ethical superiority to porn stars. The work of a prostitute is the culmination of the equitable exchange between two consenting parties and ultimately results in an equal exchange of value. This exchange primarily affects the two principal participants of the interaction, and possibly those most closely related to them. Any negative outcomes of the interaction per se are thus limited in scope.

Pornography on the other hand has an added negative value. It serves as tool of propaganda which promotes the devaluing of human worth and virtue. It degrades and objectifies human beings, primarily but not exclusively women, while undermining one of the key meanings and values of the human sexual act, that being the psychologically necessary emotional bonding between partners. While prostitution can also undermine this same value, it is not packaged exclusively for mass consumption and targeted specifically to exploit a weakness in the human psyche like pornography is. In other words, prostitution does not exist with a dual purpose of being a tool of propaganda while pornography does. Therefore the potential negative impact of pornography is, by design, able to exceed the limitations and mitigations provided in the per se interaction between a prostitute and a client.

With this in mind, I think it is fair to say that career prostitutes achieve moral parity, or indeed moral superiority to career porn stars.
Debate Round No. 2
baus

Pro

I am just going to say something that might seem like a cop-out but is a genuine rebuttal in its simplest form.

Ethical respectability and logical functionality are two entirely separate, independent concepts that should never, ever be mixed unless you want social Darwinism to take place. If my opponent chooses to fuse the two, he has the burden of proof to defend social Darwinism as the correct philosophy of ethics to follow.

As for his second contention, Con has the burden of proof to prove that an emotional connection between partner is an ethical necessity for sex to be rendered ethically respectable.

I shall now further expand my contentions and prove them correct.

C1: Porn pleases those who need it most, by default, whereas politics only pleases those who are most capable of influencing it.

This contention consists of three (s)ub-(c)ontentions

SC1: The only thing that can prevent a porno from pleasing people would be ultimately in the hands of politicians.

SC2: Even the most selfish pornstar is pleasing more people than they legally harm.


SC3: Pornstars give to those who need porn the most, since that's automaticlaly the ones who are seeking it. Politicians merely give to those who can damage their polls the most, which are rarely those who need it the most.

I shall now explain that ehther it's the amount of disposable income one has to purchase a porno, or the rights that individual has to ither produce, retail, or watch porn is all in the hands of politicians nad it's up to them to prevent this pleasure from getting to people who need it the most when they can't get laid. It's the law of benefits nad welfare that determines how poor 'poor' is and it is the laws regarding porn production, acting and viewing that would regard the resictions on an individual to see a porno. Therefore, politicians would be the only possible people to blame for a lack fo pleasur ein this scenario. However, no pornstar can truly prevent a politician form their pleasure, nor limit the politician's ability to give pleasure. If the politicians loses their job due to past career in porn, or having an affair with a pornstar that only proves that the ignorce of the political world has such prejudice against pornstars whereas the porn community woudl happily accept a former politicians with open arms.

Even the most selfish pornstar, who steps on many toes to get to be as high ranking as they are. Who backstabbed many colleagues to outshine them in videos, who mad elove to the director to get that scene of the film, is still pleasing many people far beyond their death and nothing can stop that except for politicians outlawing the porno and rendering it illegal to view or rendering the economy too stagnant to incentivize the retailers of it.

On a final, the disabled, socially awkward or those with any physical deformation of th egenitalia can now wnjoy this pleasure wihtout having to seek a partner that they'd immensely struggle to have sex with and pass on their defective genes to the child of.

My point has been made here. Onto contention 2.


C2: To succeed in porn requires a severe urge to please whilst politics requires a severe urge to be pleased.

I will now prove how the end result of porn is always pleasurable to others than the porn-star, or porn director whereas the end result of politics is always pleasure to the self.


Politics:

Pleases current colleagues to not get a bad reputation > Pleases superiors to get promotions > Pleases newfound colleagues to not tarnish their reputation > Pleases superiors until they are where they want to be > Gets money from superiors (rendering them less happy) > Smiles at superiors hoping to make up for the physical via emotional means of politeness. > Everyone envies their position, even civilians > Any laws made can later be terminated or amended meaning the pleasur eof those receiving the benfits of this plitician's laws are no longer able to receive it.

Even the President who supposedly "pleases the voters" can regard his/her voters as his/her superiors in this scenario.

Pornography:

Pleases current colleagues to not get a bad reputation > Pleases superiors to get promotions > Pleases newfound colleagues to not tarnish their reputation > Pleases superiors until they are where they want to be > Gets money from superiors (rendering them less happy) > Winks sexily at their superiorrs who enjoy the free porno clips via physical pleasure combined with emotional satisfaction of having been a part of that person's success > all viewers do not envy the 'poor little whore' and, instead, just enjoy what they're seeing. Any penis envy is outdone by the distraction of the physical pleasure being so intense. > Pornos will last for many generations, even if made illegal in one nation, the internet and proxies exist to bypass the evil of politicians for the sake of pleasure > Generations of pleasure

Onwards...

C3: Politics and porn are both elitist, but porn's elitism is far less severe.


Politics and porn both have elitism. There's poeple considered to be blessed with political talent, as wella s thos ein porn who, when starring in a video are automatically seen to 'bless' that video.

Nevertheless, due to the fact that pornstars don't need qualifications whereas politicians need many it automatically makes the elitism in Politics based heavily on educational background (something which one has very little say in during their life). This is already severely unfair but then again so is judging porn-stars by their looks and libido, which are also not helped.

The killer attack is on the fact that the power gap betweena top pornstar and a nooby whore in the indiustry are minimalistic. Both can functionally do the same things with their bodies but one is more likely to be a chornic viagra taker, or silicon junkee. In the both are as capable of pleasing viewers as there all kinds of fetishes out there for all ages and body types. Politics, on the other hand, requires poepe of a certani accent, background and viewpoint with only a very narrow room for variation.

The elitism in politics is so immense that two high-rankers' flip of a switch can send a nuke whereas the bottom of the pile are slaves to paperwork and making their boss coffee.

#4: Pornography is an art whereas politics is a science. A science cannot be ethically respected.

Politics works on researching what works, gaining results, analysing data and concluding what the voters want every election. It's a science based on psychology.

Pornography has biological, and psychological aspects to it but , in itself is a magnificent art that turns every cell of the human body into an essential paindrop upon the canvas that is the porn image, porno flick or porn full-length film.

There is an ethical attachment to art, there is no such thing with science. Science is merciless and devoid of ethics. the only time it bends to ethics are if its peer pressure to by people of other professions in society (to whom the polticians are slaves).

I worded conctnation 5 wrong, it was a back-up to prevent attack son child pornography and human trafficking:

#5: When pornography goes wrong, or corrupt, it affects a few victims severely. When politics goes wrong, or corrupt, it affects millions even more severely.

I apologize for the wrong wording in round 2.
KevQuixote

Con

KevQuixote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
baus

Pro

baus forfeited this round.
KevQuixote

Con

KevQuixote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
baus

Pro

baus forfeited this round.
KevQuixote

Con

KevQuixote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by KevQuixote 2 years ago
KevQuixote
Understood. Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by baus 2 years ago
baus
Just to let you know the #5 was supposed to be listed as a sub-contention as a back-up in case you went into child pornography and prostitution.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
I wanna hear the reason for.

Maximizes happiness? Aren't in power? So much want to kno
No votes have been placed for this debate.