The Instigator
Link123109
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Should prostitution be illegal, while porn is not?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 73844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Link123109

Con

No, prostitution should not be illegal if porn is not. They are literally the exact same thing, save for a camera. Pornography is defined as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." While prostitution is defined as "the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." Pornstars are people who actually do this for a living. They are "engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment." Pornographic videos are prostitution.period. Therefore one should not be legal, while the other is not.
Ragnar

Pro

The instigator's entire case is a fallacious False Dilemma [1].

"Pornographic videos are prostitution.period."
Except by the instigator's own definitions, they are clearly not exclusively the same thing. Please note that payment is a key part of the definition for prostitution, whereas it is absent from the definition for pornography. That someone may take pictures of a prostitute, does not bridge the gap to "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity," requiring payment.

That sex partners share pictures with each other, with or without each other involved, does not
imply a monetary exchange, or even successful exchanges otherwise. While it is pornography, nothing about that implies prostitution.

There is no parallel to one being illegal means the other should be.

Sources
:

[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Link123109

Con

"The sex partners share pictures with each other, with or without each other involved, does not imply a monetary exchange." Be that as it may, what does that have to do with the price of butter? (Figuratively speaking, of course.) That is just simply pictures taken of a person of sexual nature. Dailymail.co says "A U.S. scientist has said just under 50% of young adults have shared nude or semi-nude photos of themselves using a smartphone" (Griffiths). Are any or all of those people being pages to send their nude photographs to their partner? Most likely not. Although those do fall under the definition of pornography, they would not be paid for said photographs.
Also, in reality, porn stars are just that, stars. They are actors/actresses being payed and making a living off of said things they do for the camera and viewers. If they didn't get pages, why would you join a charity of being slept with? In fact, most porn sites have pages upon pages of pornography under the tabs of hooker, payment, prostitute, etc...
In the end of the day, the best you could say is that not ALL pornography is prostitution, but still most of it is.
Ragnar

Pro

"what does that have to do with the price of butter?"
That is what I should ask you. The resolution you selected is the entire spectrum of porn, not one specific form of it. Were the resolution 'pornstars are by nature prostitutes' you might have a case, might.

"That is just simply pictures taken of a person of sexual nature. ... Although those do fall under the definition of pornography, they would not be paid for said photographs."
You admit that said picture is pornography even without pay, but insist it is the same thing as recieving money for sex. That makes no sense.
Let me fill in the blanks where your parents failed... If you send a boy or girl you like a naughty picture, there is zero risk of disease transmission, pregnancy, being mugged, etc.. Whereas if you accept $5 for quickies in the bathroom of a truckstop, you are likely to catch nasty things from all over the country. Do you understand the difference, and which fits the definition of which word? Or do I need to bring illistrations in?

"'just under 50% of young adults have shared nude or semi-nude photos of themselves'"
Which helps make my case for me. While anger over not recieving said photos may cause some to call such people rude names, those who share photoes (likely a larger percent have taken said pictures without sharing) are the average, and by no definition are they prostitutes for taking part in pornograpghy.

"porn stars"
1. That is one part of porn, not the entirety of it.
2. It has not been proven that they are in fact prostitutes. They are as you so eliguently put it "actors/actresses being payed" (or paid), that they are paid and have sex does not assure prostution taking place. The CEO of a bank is paid, and has sex, yet that does not equal he or she being a prostitute. Method acting in a role, with a partner (who is not the one paying I might add), perhaps taking it a bit farther than some may be comfortable with, does not mean the payment is for sex. Sasha Grey for example is paid for her time, that she sometimes has sex with various people while at work is illelavent to her acting fees.

"why would you join a charity of being slept with?"
I know this may sound strange, but for most people sex is quite enjoyable.

"most porn sites..."
Do you know the difference between fantasy and reality? Anne Hathaway played a prostutite in Les Miserables [2], that does not translate to her being one in real life. It's called acting.

"In the end of the day, the best you could say is that not ALL pornography is prostitution, but still most of it is."
You've already self-refuted this [3], given that about half the young adult population has taken part in pornography and not been paid.
Were you to prove the actresses in question who pretend things for the camera are made in reality prostitutes by it (an arrest record for Anne Hathaway?), that is still the minority of people taking part in pornography.


Sources:
[2] YouTube
[3] http://rationalwiki.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Link123109

Con

This section is where I would post my argument against what you have said. However, I cannot seem to find any good ground to stand upon. I picked an interesting way of wording, and should have changed that around. I know when I am bested, and I must say you have bested me sir. I started this argument with only an idea, but after actual research, I can tell the difference. (I believe you could as well, given my horrible defense the second round.) Now, being only a Freshman in High School, I still have a lot to learn, obviously. Be that as it may, I still have some beliefs that it is prostitution in some way. But, however the case, you obviously won the argument. Good debate, sir/ma'am.
Ragnar

Pro

Thank you (and sorry for so much sarcasm in my argument). If you'd ever like help constructing any future arguments, please send me a PM.

Note to voters:
My personal recommendation for concessions are conduct to the side which conceded, but arguments against them.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
@Voters
If not mentioning any reason either side's sources were better (as opposed to just being there), please do not award the source point. Sources do not always need to be graded.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
================================================================
>Reported vote: Canuckleball // Moderator action: Removed<

1 point to Con (conduct), 5 points to Pro (arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: Gave Con the conduct point for his concession as requested. Well done Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain arguments and sources. "Well done Pro" is not an explanation.
================================================================
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Link123109RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Yassine 2 years ago
Yassine
Link123109RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct: Pro's sarcasms => Con's win. - Argument: Con conceded, no better way to judge an argument. => Pro's win. - Sources: Con provided none. => Pro's win.
Vote Placed by creedhunt 2 years ago
creedhunt
Link123109RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded, and rightly so. Pro used sarcasm that did not have much of a place in this debate.