The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,119 times Debate No: 26310
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




This debate regards whether or not there is a legal incongruency in having prostitution be illegal why pornography is legal.

This debate should both address whether or not there is an analogy between the two actions as well as the potential harms/benefits that come from one over the other.

If you accept the debate, say "yes" in the first post, or something to that effect. Then, with round 2, the actual argumentation will begin. DO NOT use this first round to argue; wait until round 2.


I look forward to this debate. Yes. In the great words of Rafi: "Consent. You heard it, you're a lawyer."
Debate Round No. 1


So I suppose I'll structure this debate in typical contention format. There's no real standard to be set, insofar as the question of the resolution is a case of logical equivalence, not of harms, although harms can be debated here.

The implicit weighing mechanism, then, is a simple truth-testing calculus. If I prove the analogy false, CON wins. If not, you presume PRO. More broadly, one might say if I show the two acts to be more unlike each other than alike, then you would go CON; if not, PRO.

Because I don't like logical incongruence, I negate the statement "The only difference between prostitution and porn is a camera and a contract."


Pornography: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. (via Merriam-Webster)

Prostitution: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money. (Again, via Merriam-Webster)

Contention One: Though prostitution and pornography fall under the broad umbrella of sex acts that involve currency exchange, there are multiple points of disanalogy between the two.

1) The first difference is there"s a camera involved.
2) The second difference is there"s a contract involved. (Yeah, I know, this is a dick move, but I think the fact that the statement above openly admits differences between porn and prostitution says something.)
3) In the case of pornography, it is two actors getting paid for having sex; they do not pay each other. Neither of the porn stars are incentivizing each other to have sex. In prostitution, the typical action taking place is one person paying someone else to have sex with him/her, which means one of the parties is involved is creating an active incentive.
4) In prostitution, the recipient of sex is not getting paid.
5) In the case of pornography, its purpose is visual stimulation, in the sense that porn"s inherent design is to watch sex from afar, not to actively participate in a sex act. I think the fact that a significant majority of people who watch porn probably wouldn"t want to be on a porn set says something about this disanalogy.
6) In the case of pornography, the sex act being filmed is entirely utilitarian. That is, the porn star isn"t getting paid to sleep with someone to pleasure the other porn star; rather, the act s/he is participating in serves the purpose of making someone else stimulated far away. Simply put, porn is a product, prostitution is an action.
7) In prostitution, the agent can chose what he/she wants his/her prostitute to do; this option does not apply to pornography.
8) Porn lasts forever; one sex act in Vegas hotel room does not.
9) Not all pornography is paid. People make their own home movies all the time; not an uncommon phenomenon.

These points of disanalogy apply both to the concept of pornography itself and to those who participate in the making of the porn. I will focus on this for my second point.

Contention Two: There can be pornography without prostitution.

I think this point is particularly damning. Per the definitions provided above, a prostitute must necessarily be a promiscuous person. However, if I only have sex with one person in my life and I also happened to make a video of it, I think it would be quite wrong to call me a prostitute. See also point of disanalogy no. 9 above, which explains this further. The force of this argument here is that since pornography is such a broad category, and much of it can theoretically exist absent typical requirements of prostitution, there is more disanalogy here than analogy.

Those are my opening remarks. I'm open to debates about alternative weighing mechanisms or standards, so feel free to bring them on.


I thank my opponent for his first constructive.

First, some refutation:


I 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 Refutation

My 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 Refutation

This 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 Refutation
Overall, 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 Case

Contention One: The Camera

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 Distinction

We 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 Party

My 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.
Debate Round No. 2


The roadmap will be framework, AC, NC.


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.


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.


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.

I urge a vote in the CON


My roadmap for this round will be Framework, Refutation, and then finally some rebuilding of my own case.


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.


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.


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.

Because I have fulfilled my burden, because my opponent has deconstructed his own “inherent” qualities of porn, and because filming something doesn’t negate the act I strongly urge a vote for Pro.

Debate Round No. 3


Since this is the last round, I"m just going to go straight for voter issues and clarifications. The order will be framework, the "Inherent Structures" debate (which involves the NC), and the AC.

Clarification: Framework Debate

1. If you look at my first line of refutation to his framework, I accept and meet his burden of proof. So he doesn"t need to extend it as a benefit for his side, insofar as I impact to his framework.
2. He accuses me of not showing why both frameworks are compatible, but at the same time does no work in establishing why they are incompatible. I agree that his can effectively show the round in tandem with mine. Part of his framework involves mine, since

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.

This weighing involves a truth-testing mechanism, insofar as one must confer the validity of the legal status of porn against the illegal status of prostitution.
3. Even if you don"t buy this argument, I"ll impact to both framework structures, so his framework superseding mine isn"t a voter here.

With that in mind, let"s move on to case.

Voter #1: Free vs. Paid Porn

1. He tries really hard to impact my ninth disanalogy where I talk about how some porn isn"t paid, as it in his mind brings up some contradiction in my case. 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. Thus, since I"m not trying to impact that argument out, you ignore it, and it can"t be used against me.
2. This categorization argument he makes is weird. Since this debate, as he recognizes in his framework, is about the type of porn typically understood (i.e. porn where the actors are getting paid, since for the analogy to hold to prostitution that is the case), he himself recognizes that there are different categories of porn, and that for the purposes of this debate we just have to focus on one. Which means"
3. All of my points of disanalogy are still relevant, insofar as they address the inherent institutional structures of the type of pornography we"re talking about, i.e. where the actors are getting paid. Thus, he can"t dismiss these away, insofar as they are relevant to the type of porn this debate has been about. Extend all of my points of disanalogy between prostitution and porn, since they address the institutional structure of the type of porn we"re talking about, and thus are relevant to the debate. When I said things like "there are institutional structures to porn," when using the word "porn" I wasn"t talking about it in the abstract (since I kicked out of the free porn category) but rather the type of porn focal to this discussion. This is the first voter issue, since this blanket argument against my disanalogies don"t hold, and through this I impact to both framework since the disanalogies apply at a truth-testing level and a legal level.

Thus, you"re still voting on the negative case, insofar as my points of disanalogy stand and apply to both frameworks.

Voter #2: Affirmative Case

Group all his contention arguments together.

1. I brought this up in my last case, and he didn"t really address it: all of his case arguments are premised on this assumption that "all acts of sex involving money are prostitution until proven otherwise." (1) That"s an unwarranted belief within his case, so you won"t vote on it which means his contentions fall, and (2) begs the question of the debate. Effectively, this logic ignores any weighing mechanism, meaning he can"t impact back to his own framework, since the operating presumption behind the case isn"t the weighing of porn"s qualities against prostitution"s, but rather analyzing porn through the lens of prostitution. This isn"t weighing, it"s an applied analysis, and it"s not how his framework was set up. Thus you flow his framework over to my side of the debate, since I"m actually doing a weighing analysis instead of presuming one as the standard against the other.
2. He refutes the circularity argument I make against his case (where I tell you that his claim, "if you film a crime it"s still a crime" presumes that porn is prostitution and thereby a crime) by saying

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.

This is non-responsive. (1) It still assumes prostitution is the metric here, which again undercuts the weighing proposed in his own constructive, and (2) doesn"t address the logical fallacy within the statement. Let me reword it, though replacing the word "crime" with "porn":

If you film porn it"s still prostitution.

I take that the absurdity of the statement is plainly relevant; thus his contention arguments, especially contentions 1 and 2, fall.


Considering both frameworks in tandem, these are the voter issues simplified:

1. Since my points of disanalogy still stand, as they apply to the institutional structures to the type of porn we"re talking about, you have eight reasons to see how porn and prostitution aren"t analogous in the way we"ve been talking about. This impacts to both framework structures, thus you have two reasons to vote PRO.
2. I"ve effectively shown the operative principle behind his case, namely "prostitution until proven otherwise," is question-begging and doesn"t uphold his own framework. Since I"m the only one doing a comparative weighing instead of a presumptive analysis of porn, you look to the PRO since I"m upholding his framework and he isn"t. The other circularity, namely "crime is still crime even if it"s filmed," is still invalid thus you"re looking to the pro.

For those two key reasons, I urge a vote in the PRO, and I thank my opponent for his remarks.


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 Debate
Ultimately 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 arguments

One: The Inherency Inconsistency
I 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 Case
For 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 response
It 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.

Don’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.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wiploc 3 years ago

You should try to be friendly to your voters, easy to read.

Pro: There is no reason, for instance, to instigate and argue first but to call yourself Con. Had the resolution been, "Prostitution is _not_ analogous to porn," then you could have called yourself "Pro," and eliminated a source of confusion.

Con: These are pointlessly ambiguous: "1) This begs the question." "2) Once again, this begs the question." "3) First, this isn"t true of all cases of pornography." I wonder what 1, 2, and 3 are, but will I scroll back up to try to find out? Imagine that your case is being read by fifty people. Is it easier for each of them to scroll back up each time you make such a reference, or is it easier for you to actually name the subject that you're talking about.

Pro: Here's where I gave up.
"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..."
You obviously aren't interested in my input, or you wouldn't be pointlessly cryptic. I could Google "NC" and "AC," but I no longer care.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.