Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral
(A) Explaining the Resolution
The resolution has proven itself vulnerable to misunderstanding or misrepresentation in the past therefore I will spell out exactly what it means.
Saying X should be legal/moral does not mean everything that belongs in that category is legal/moral; it means that something should not be illegal or immoral because it is X.
Example: driving a car should be legal and is moral
Misconception: running people over with a car is not moral, yet it qualifies as driving a car so driving a car shouldn’t be legal.
Clarification: Killing people is what is immoral and should be illegal in that action, not driving a car.
Therefore the resolution does not mean that every act of bestiality is moral and should be legal, but that an act is not immoral and should not be illegal solely because it bestiality.
Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which my opponent must accept, if a potential opponent thinks these are unfair premises we can have a separate debate on that.
Premise B.1) Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. Note this is not implying that if something is illegal at a given time or place it is immoral nor is it implying that if something is legal it is moral. Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality.
Premise B.2) Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. No other moral standard shall be accepted. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. consent is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans.
Premise B.3) The resolution makes a claim about what law should be but does not rely on any existing law, precedence, standard, or tradition of any kind. The fact that law has traditionally defined consent in a manner that makes it impossible for animals to demonstrate it in court is irrelevant. Only the definition of concept given here is to be referenced or used.
(C) Implications: From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. The premises above prohibit these strategies.
(C.1) B.1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is somehow detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it.
(C.2) B.2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless whim. Consent and biological harm are well defined objectively verifiable concepts.
(C.3) B.2 & B.3 mean you are willing to debate the matter of consent or harm as defined here. A brief justification for excluding legally defined consent is given but the topic is still not open for contest in the scope of this debate.
I reserve the right to deem other strategies incompatible with the premises you accepted with the debate.
(D.1) Bestiality – the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species.
(D.2) Zoophilia – the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans.
(D.3) Rape – the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below.
(D.4) Pain – the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology.
(D.5) Biological Damage – the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism.
(D.6) Consent– and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... .
(E) Burden of Proof
My burden of proof is to show that it is possible that an animal can consent to sex with a human. The core argument relates this to the resolution. I believe this burden is met by the end of this first post. It is not sufficient for my opponent to simply assert I have not met the burden he/she must explain why my argument here does not do so.
My opponent’s burden of proof is to either defeat the argument for consent, or prove it impossible for a human to mate with any species without causing pain or physical damage.
(F) Informed/legal Consent vs Consent
I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.
In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. This is implied consent but cannot be informed consent.
The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities.
If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape. I consider the above a valid form of Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org...
Finally I would like to point out that current legal precedence and tradition never tries to apply informed consent to animals. All anti-bestiality laws appear to be based on either religion or the concept of abuse. The law does not care about informed consent of animals now and I am not advocating that change. If a potential opponent does not think I have laid out valid reasons why informed consent is morally and legally inapplicable to animals, we can have another debate about it before they accept this one.
(G) Core Argument:
/ If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1)
/ Bestiality is a moral practice – see Support of Morality
// Bestiality should be legal
(H) Support of Morality - Consent:
Under the constraints set out above the question is:
(H.1) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?
Remember since I only need one exception to break the rule, if there is ever a case where the answer to H.1 is yes I have established that immorality is not inherent in bestiality, I can say it is moral as per section A. There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases:
(H.2) No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly.
(H.3) No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species
That means if I can negate (show to be false) both of these statements then there must exist some cases where the answer to the question H.1 is YES.
/ ~H.2 / ~H.3 // H.1
(H.4) – Negation of H.3
Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with H.3?
(H.5) – Negation of H.2
(H.5.1) It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply.
This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms.
(H.5.2) If a mind can agree with anything it must agree with itself.
Note: Reflexes are biologically and behaviorally differentiable from choice.
(H.5.3) Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction.
(H.5.4) To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding.
These youtube videos are among thousands of publically available images, videos, and reports detailing the sexual advances towards humans by animals, it provides the last piece in my argument for consent, action implying consent absent negative conditioning. They may be posted as a joke but what they display is real.
(I) Support of Morality - Harm:
The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate harm is necessary.
(J)I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?
I will say this again later, but just so the voters see: I hereby concede that bestiality/zoophilia is NOT inherently immoral. In an ideal world, humans having sex with animals would be fine. We are not in an ideal world
1. I am fairly certain that my opponent and I agree on what is the heart of the matter in this debate, so I have accepted her/his challenge. I understand that accepting the debate usually entails accepting the framework; however, my opponent gave a very long analysis on what this debate will entail, so I don't think it would be wrong for me to try to contest a few minor points, just to make sure we have a good debate.
2. Let me point out that my opponent used 7,000 characters to set up the round EXACTLY as (s)he wants it to be. (S)He basically is making the debate for me. Then, (s)he threatens me that if I disagree with any point I cannot debate the round.
3. This would be unfair to me. I though that my only real requirement is to attack my opponent's argument in a way relevant to the topic. I intend to do so.
4. I will not be bullied out of the debate, and I hope that is not my opponent's intention.
5. Because my opponent has put so much space in setting up the round, I have to waste this entire debate round ONLY on debating the framework. Voters, please note this fiat/framework abuse in your arguments and especially conduct section.
6. I'll go down the framing flow:
A) Clarifying the resolution:
a. I of course agree and concede that Pro does NOT have to prove that bestiality is never immoral.
b. I also agree that Pro does NOT have to show that every aspect of Zoophilia/Bestiality should be moral; I accept that Pro is discussing limited action related to Bestiality/Zoophilia, and not every action
c. The way I see it, there are two parts to the resolution: 1) Show that Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and 2) Show that Bestiality/Zoophilia is not inherently immoral.
d. I want to clarify, though, that as the Con I have the ability to attack either of the options in any way I choose, as long as I am attacking the actual resolution and not a strawman/woman :)
e. As for the legal aspect, my opponent must demonstrate that the world would be worse with the law, whereas I merely need to advocate that the world will be neutral or better with the law (perfect neutrality is a nearly impossible of course!).
B1 is slightly problematic. My opponent is advocating that bestiality should be legal. I'm simply proposing that it should not be legal. My opponent certainly has the right to define the criterion of the round to be morality, but (s)he cannot make my arguments for me. I reserve the right to attack the legality of bestiality/zoophilia in any way that I choose that is consistent with the case.
B2) My opponent said that "no other moral standard will be accepted." I'm cool with that, and think her/his moral standard very astutely gets to the bottom of this: that is it very important to keep in mind that the damage done by bestiality/Zoophilia is important, and not what people think of bestiality/Zoophilia. I think this might have been a minor mistake on the part of my opponent, but psychological and social damages are also important (i.e., if someone is raped gently while in a coma, this causes social humiliation and psychological trauma, which are obviously bad). Again, this is just a minor adjustment.
B3) In order for you to say that bestiality should not be illegal you must talk about a law that you think should not prohibit bestiality. Federally, there is no law that prevents bestiality, but there are several in the states of the United States. Might I recommend Florida's if you have a hard time finding some. If not--if you don't have any laws that you think are prohibitive of bestiality/zoophilia, then I've already won. The burden is not mine to come up with a law, but yours.
a. I understand and like your definitions, but I do not want to get involved in a semantic war, which I guess is not what you want either. Therefore, if I find that you are not being topical, I will say so in round. Definitions are meant to be helpful in understanding a topic--except for legal definitions, they are not meant to shackle a debate subject.
b. Keep in mind also that definitions display how people use words, not actual meanings. For example, your definition of rape seems to explicitly NOT include nonhuman animals, simply because humans do not talk about rape in that way. This is because humans tend to talk about humans. I am defending animal rights, so I will talk about animals in that way.
c. Additionally, your biological pain does not consider humiliation or psychological trauma, both of which are problematic.
Again, just to be clear, I am not going to bother getting into a semantic war about concepts we both understand. I will use your definitions as guidelines, not as rules of what we can debate about, since that would take away the truly topical discussion of whether or not acts of bestiality/zoophilia should be legal.
Now, this is important
E) You have forgotten a few burdens:
1) To demonstrate that non-human animals can consent to sex
2) that having a law prohibiting bestiality/zoophilia would be worse than no law
3) That zoophilia/bestiality is not inherently immoral.
I may attack these in any way I choose.
I admit that I can't just defend, but don't worry; I'm not planning to. My only burden is to demonstrate the opposite of any combination of 1, 2, and 3.
"If a potential opponent does not think I have laid out valid reasons why informed consent is morally and legally inapplicable to animals, we can have another debate about it before they accept this one."
My opponent thinks (s)he can give 5,000 characters of requirement for this debate, and that I have to accept them all. Ha.
I'm here to debate the topic. My opponent accidentally set up the round so (s)he can win by forcing me to make particular arguments. I think this is not my opponent's intentions, otherwise my opponent would be debating with herself/himself. In the spirit of debate, I will construct my own position, thank you very much.
I recognize that my opponent is trying to not get bogged down in semantics over what counts as "consent." I appreciate that. Please apply what (s)he says here to my position on her/his definitions. I too don't want to get bogged down.
However, I must insist that definitions of consent according to the law are VITAL. You are not obligated to follow the past law's way of informed consent, but you must be able to set up standards for informed consent in the eyes of the law, or else I've already won that animals would never be protected. I look forward to seeing my opponent's analysis on this.
a. I hereby concede that bestiality/zoophilia is NOT inherently immoral.
b. However, please realize that I still hold that bestiality/zoophilia is immoral in the context of the real world.
c. Even if that's not the case, that does not necessarily mean that it is moral. Wearing a red shirt is not moral or immoral.
d. EVEN IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT IN ONE CASE CONSENT IS IMPOSSIBLE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT LEGAL CONSENT IS PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE, NOR THAT A LAW COULD BE MADE THAT COULD PROTECT ANIMALS.
----That is to say, if one lucky human manages to have sex with a consenting animal, that does not really mean anything.
----Non human animals, I will argue, will still need protection in the form of laws against bestiality/zoophilia.
----You coming up with a hypothetical example of consent does not entail practical, legal consent.
e. I will argue against the videos in my next round, since this round I've had to address all of your sometimes a confusing but certainly very long framework.
I) My opponent says that my burden of proof is harm. It's about time. This is the burden of proof that I am willing for both of us to accept.
1. My opponent must prove that having a general law is more harmful
2. I have to show that having a general law is less harmful.
3. This stuff about what counts as moral I guess may only apply to the "inherently immoral" part. If that's the case, then only this burden applies to me.
4. But either way, my opponent offered the criterion/burden of "harm," which I gladly accept, since this includes all harms, including pain, biological damage, humiliation, slavery, etc.
J. I will later show how this horseback riding argument will prove my point.
1. Neither of us will be burdened by useless definitions
2. I concede that inherent, ideal-world immorality is untrue. I will demonstrate that morality in this world is problematic
3. My opponent needs to specify a particular type of law that should rejected (even if its not exactly a real law, it should at least resemble the topic). Or else there's nothing debate.
4. Voters should note that I had to use up a round in simply accepting his debate by having to address 7,000 characters of things that I "have to" accept. I had to do so to demonstrate that I have the right to debate my own round
5. Because we are talking about laws now, the criterion should be whether they are harmful, which my opponent admits. If not, it should be whether or not they are moral. Moral includes harms, pain, and mutual consent (my opponent's definition would allow certain instances of rape to be moral, so I rejected it).
6. Also these are the burdens: E) You have forgotten a few burdens: 1) To demonstrate that non-human animals can consent to sex 2) that having a law prohibiting bestiality/zoophilia would be worse than no law 3) That zoophilia/bestiality is not inherently immoral.
7. I may attack these in any way I choose.
8. I'm really looking forward to the debate! :)
4. “I will not be bullied out of the debate, and I hope that is not my opponent's intention.”
The intention is to prevent a ‘debate’ which consists of nothing more than discovering just how deep into the fields of ethics or politics someone might disagree with me before we run out of rounds. I consider the size and specificity of my framework to be the result of the formatting requirements of this site. It in no way reflects my unwillingness to debate the full range of objections to my argument as is clearly implied by the repeated statements of ‘we can have another debate on that’.
Then as I told those who have made the same objection before you, this will turn into a debate about the proper relation between law and morality. Leaving the honest voter with a bit of a conundrum since they are supposed to vote on the contents of the debate instead of their own independent opinions about premises.
“If not--if you don't have any laws that you think are prohibitive of bestiality/zoophilia, then I've already won. The burden is not mine to come up with a law, but yours.”
Why couldn’t I make this argument in a world where there are no laws against bestiality? Is a resolution “breathing should be legal and is not inherently immoral” impossible since there are no laws against breathing?
I fail to see how any specific law passed by any given state or nation is required to debate this topic nor how picking one is necessary to my BoP.
It doesn’t include all non-human animals that’s true, but I believe it includes the relevant ones (dogs, horses, sheep, goats, dolphins, the other great apes, higher social mammals in general).
I have gotten into debates about whether these animals are capable of intelligent self-determination but that’s really not necessary to establish. At some point you’ve got to cross a line and realize that caring about consent is an anthropomorphic projection because there is no decision to respect. If you care about the consent of a tree you are caring about a decision that never has and never will take place. You are trying to respect a phantom of your own perception. There is only the decision you would make if you had the body of a tree, which is not the same as a tree making a decision… you could say the same of a rock.
I would consider those painful. There are two definitions, one for pain (mental harm) and biological damage (physical harm). You are right I should probably make that part a bit clearer, but I only had 34 characters left…
I would like to give my opinion on psychological trauma to the relevant animals. They most certainly can be psychologically harmed, however this is one of those cases where the more complex a machine is the easier it is to break. I think humans are the most psychologically vulnerable species because there is so many ways we can feel humiliation or take offense.
Animals are not entangled in our thousands of years of cultural background. If you want to psychologically harm one you are going to have to do something that they perceive as an insult… and for relevant animals that means hurting them or damaging the social bonds they rely on. Those social bonds being essentially bonds of trust which they have with humans as well as other animals… damaged by [again] hurting them or repeatedly disregarding their will in a profound way.
So really the possibility of psychological harm just comes right back to the original moral criteria.
I said ‘My burden of proof is to show that it is possible that an animal can consent to sex with a human.’
Premise B.1 implies that a law prohibiting moral behavior is always worse than no such law. If the BoP was to prove every premise one used in an argument every argument would have about a hundred thousand pages of overhead and wouldn’t prove axioms to boot.
“My opponent thinks (s)he can give 5,000 characters of requirement for this debate, and that I have to accept them all. Ha.”
I believe categorizing the framing as an attempt to force you to only use some arguments is naïve. If you think there is any other way to come to non-trivial conclusions besides relying on premises that others may or may not accept, that tells me you have not seen how involved or lengthy debates can really be. Since you do not feel obliged to remain within the framing I think we will get to see firsthand what happens.
If you agree that I do not need to follow past laws then I can simply say that laws to prevent animal rape should have standards of information designed for their level of cognition. That is the information they need to have is what they would learn in nature by experience. They need to know what they are doing however they perceive it. That pretty much only excludes having sex with an unconscious or restrained animal.
The law should not recognize animal consent as releasing liability for things they cannot understand.
Which world do you think I was talking about?
I would say it’s moral since it’s not immoral.
“----That is to say, if one lucky human manages to have sex with a consenting animal, that does not really mean anything.”
It means it’s possible to have sex with a consenting animal.
“----Non human animals, I will argue, will still need protection in the form of laws against bestiality/zoophilia.”
If they don’t need protection from bestiality then they don’t needs laws against bestiality. I look forward to your argument that they need to be protected from bestiality.
“----You coming up with a hypothetical example of consent does not entail practical, legal consent.”
Nothing is going to imply legal consent because legal consent as defined by all existing law can only come from adult humans with a certain but arbitrary level of understanding.
Is there is anything about what you call a hypothetical and I call the general criteria that you believe is impossible in the real world?
My standard of proper law, as given in round 1 as a premise does not attempt to weigh the ‘harm’ of laws indeed I claim that no just law can possibly harm anyone or anything. If I had to cast it in terms of harm:
A general law against bestiality violates rights since some bestiality is within the rights of humans and non-humans. That is harm. This will be called outcome (A).
A lack of such a law can by definition be neither harmful nor beneficial. This will be called outcome (B).
Where harm is a positive magnitude and benefit is a negative magnitude, and (A) is some non-zero harm, and (B) = 0; the following must be true:
(B) < (A)
It was necessary harm. If the harm is not necessary then neither should illegality be.
Your opponent believes morality not ‘harm’ should dictate law as was clear from B.1. A rock does no harm by sitting on the ground but neither does it prevent any injustice either. If simply being non-harmful was the basis of law the best law would always be no law.
My opponent has setup a dichotomy for me. There is the ideal world where my logic works, and the real world where it apparently doesn’t.
Presumably in the ideal world nobody goes to prison on account of performing a moral sexual act (causes no harm, violates no consent) but in the real world some people must.
I challenge my opponent to demonstrate this ‘need’ that I have overlooked in the real world.
Also important I have already made an argument that animals can consent which details how they would communicate that consent. I have not forgotten that little bit.
kbub forfeited this round.
a. According to my opponent: "if something is moral it should be legal and if it is legal it should be moral."
c. My opponent has also suggested that something is either moral or immoral, with no neutral ground in between. I concede this analysis. Therefore, if I can show that Bestiality is not moral, then I have also shown that it is immoral and should not be legal.
B2) Pro admits to sociological and psychological harms being counted as "pain." Because Pro accepts this, I concede to this moral standard.
B3) I asked my opponent what kind of laws we are discussing in a private message. My opponent answered me in a private message, and gave me permission to repost it in this debate:
1. Any law that prohibited a sexual act simply because it was a sexual act involving a human and an animal.
2. Any law that does this by trying to define all sexual acts involving humans and animals as abuse.
3. Any law that does this de facto by requiring a signature from an animal or something like that.
4. Any law that does this de facto by placing the BoP on the defendant to prove they had the animal's consent as opposed to the burden of proof being on the state to prove they didn't.
D) Pro has NOT objected to my plea to use the definitions as guidelines. Therefore, what is on or off topic will be debated in-round. These definitions cannot be therefore be used as evidence in this debate, but only helpful guidelines.
Pro has made claims here that I will discuss later that might be enough to make Pro lose this debate.
E) 1) a. Pro conceded that Pro has the BoP of demonstrating that non-human animals can consent to sex. Consenting of course means that non-human animals must communicate that they agree to the sex to the human, and that the human is capable of understanding it.
E1b. My opponent says that "If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement." This statement could be extraordinarily problematic.
"Silence does not mean consent."--http://www.pandys.org...
E1c. For example, if someone is in a coma she/he has no way of communicating whether he/she wants to have sex. Simply because someone can't communicate does not mean that there is consent. Speaking for others might be ok in a medical emergency, but in the case of sex, speaking for others (i.e. "she really wants it") causes rape. According to Pro this is consent by implication, which it is not. Consent by implication does not work in terms of sex.
E1d. "If the person lacks the capacity to consent, sexual activity with that person is rape."--http://www.pandys.org...
E1f. Therefore, my opponent needs to prove that animals can communicate consent to humans and humans can understand it. I don't require 100%, but I do require proof that animals can consent to sex and humans can generally understand it. If not, my opponent advocates sex without consent, which is rape, even according to my opponent's definition.
E 2) a. My opponent concedes the BoP to show the world will be worse with the law. My opponent says that if B1 is right than this BoP can be accomplished by proving bestiality is moral.
E 2. b My opponent hasn't criticized my right to attack premises, but gives me a friendly warning that the debate will be long. Thanks for the heads up.
F) PRO WAS UNABLE TO GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HOW LAW CAN RECOGNIZE CONSENT. I had previously warned Pro that unless my is able to give an example of how the law is supposed to judge between consent and non-consent, then my opponent would have failed to demonstrate that the law can tell the difference between sex and rape.
To give my opponent a second to offer ways to demonstrate that the law can tell if there's consent in a private message. My opponent again refused to state any specific example, but listed off four general criteria for consent (my opponent gave me permission to repost this):
1. "Vocalizations known to communicate submission, happiness, ease, relaxation, excitement or any other mental state incompatible with a mental state which is opposed to what is happening i.e. feeling violated."
2. "Body language known to communicate submission, happiness, ease, relaxation, excitement or any other mental state incompatible with a mental state which is opposed to what is happening i.e. a state of feeling violated."
3. "Direct action which implicitly communicates complicitness in the interaction, i.e. cooperative steps which are taken without the coercion of negative training."
4. "Inaction when action implicitly communicating non-consent is known to be within the animal's capabilities."
None of these standards give specific examples of any behaviors or communications of animals that can prove that the animal is willing to have sex.
Additionally, these standards are awful. Supposing that a dog barked during intercourse, a human might argue that this was a happy bark. Unfortunately the dog cannot testify in court to the contrary. Thus, a human may be able to argue that the animal is communicating that it wants sex, while the animal would not be able to testify against the human.
Furthermore, the animal cannot say "stop." According to my opponent, if the animal signals that it is interested in sex, (s)he cannot change her/his mind. If (s)he ever indicates consent at any point, than according to my opponent the animal will always want intercourse.
There is no way to determine if the animal has been trained to have sex. Additionally, humans are masters over their "domestic" animal-slaves. They train animals to do what they command. This means that there is always a huge risk that the inaction of animals resisting is a sign of their being "obedient."
According to my opponent, in order for penetration to be considered rape, the state must prove that the penetration was not consensual using these very same shady premises This means that any animal that cannot be proved to have not wanted sex is allowed to be penetrated.
According to my opponent, these ape prostitutes wanted to have sex with humans: http://www.examiner.com...
Despite my repeated effort to encourage Pro to give a single specific example of how an animal may provide consent, my opponent FAILED to de so; therefore, under PRO'S MODEL THE LAW CAN _NEVER KNOW_ IF THE ANIMAL HAS GIVEN CONSENT.
Even worse, my opponent forces the law to prove that there wasn't consent instead of having the defendant prove that there was consent (4. Any law that does this de facto by placing the BoP on the defendant to prove they had the animal's consent as opposed to the burden of proof being on the state to prove they didn't."). Because animals cannot testify in court, under Pro's model the law can definitely not know the difference between rape and sex.
Therefore, Pro has unfortunately LOST THE entire DEBATE, because all laws need to be moral (According to Pro's B1), morality requires consent (See Pro's Burden of Proof E, and E1, E2, Consent, and my case).
Even if you don't buy that Pro lost, Pro admits that the law would not be able to distinguish between rape and sex. If sex is legal in this case, so is rape.
Making rape legal is problematic. According to my opponent something immoral should be illegal (see B). Rape is immoral, and therefore should be illegal. Thus MY OPPONENT HAS LOST IN A SECOND WAY.
There is a way out of this second part. My opponent would have to show that rape is moral. I caution Pro against taking this route.
Just because you didn"t resist physically doesn"t mean it wasn"t rape " in fact, many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent. Lack of consent can be express (saying "no") or it can be implied from the circumstances (for example, if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect, or if you were afraid to object because the perpetrator threatened you with serious physical injury). http://www.rainn.org...
The fact is, the law is indeed anthropocentric. In the status quo, farm animals have virtually no rights and live their "live" in the worst slavery.
So the real question becomes: should masters be allowed to have sex with their mute, mentally handicapped slaves who cannot testify in court when the law is entirely incapable of determining whether the master raped or had consensual sex?
The videos you posted according to you would be sufficient evidence evidence to prove the human's innocence. This is far from the case, as I pointed out by the animals being unable to say stop. And even if the animals said stop through body language, the human master probably wouldn't listen. After all, the human master doesn't listen when the animal explains that it wants to leave by running away. And even if the animal is absolutely obvious in her/his changing her/his mind, all the master needs to do is not film that part. In that way, if its not filmed there is no way for the law to prosecute, since animals can't testify and there would be no evidence left.
Therefore, such laws would not distinguish between rape and sex. Since sex without consent is immoral, this law is also immoral and should not occur.
Thanks again to my opponent for her/his time, and thanks also for allowing me some extra time. I look forward to her/his response.
Well I went about 7000 characters over budget this time (I type it in Word first). Very little can be condensed especially for the video description. I thus removed many responses, I ask my opponent to realize that I did not wish to ignore any of her points (I'm male btw) what's here is simply what I rank most relevant. I will post the rest in the thread about bestiality I made. I also put the description of the video in that forum despite it being demanded in strong terms by my opponent. I ask that my link to the forum post I will make be considered like any other source and not an attempt to sneak by the character limit (which it most certainly is).
The argument is contained in round 1. I will sum it up with a series of case examples since Con seems agreeable to that format. I did not do this originally since it is by nature less complete than the abstract and probably a bit more disturbing to people who are disgusted by bestiality (or just sex).
1. If an animal pounces on you with an erect penis and shoves it at you such that all you have to do is line up a hole. That is implicit consent from an animal, their mind is in control of their body so we can know their mind by what their body does.
2. If an animal has well known and established vocalizations and body language to communicate fear, anxiety, pain, anger, warning, or any other emotion or reaction reflecting a non-consenting state of mind, yet fails to do so during an interaction that is implicit consent. For a dog growling either means he/she is mad or he/she is pretending to be mad (as in a game). They don't pretend to be mad during sex so that's unequivocal.
3. Just as an animal can communicate consent implicitly by action (1.) they can communicate non-consent by action meaning their inaction communicates consent. Walking away is the almost ubiquitous quadruped method for females to avoid an unwanted mating. Males mounting ‘doggy style’ (which is obviously used by far more than dogs) have no way to practically stop a female from moving and will literally fall off in a few strides. I am not pulling this out of my hat, I have seen it repeated again and again in articles and documentaries and frankly it seems obvious.
“Sometimes the problem is a female moving her hindquarters at a crucial moment or walking forward while the male is mounted. You can try leashing your female so she doesn't do this. I have done this with first time mating females with good success.”
For those readers who seriously think that some kind of brain control takes over when an animal gets aroused read consider what the link above describes. Note especially the casual nature of the answer, Jane Lefler is not surprised that a female will bite a male who is ‘getting fresh’ with her when she doesn’t want it. None of you should be.
Don’t let it escape you either that she advocated tying up the bitch so she can’t perform the “no” action, muzzling her so she couldn’t bite, and finally sticking a metal tube up her vagina to impregnate her regardless. Consider what you might think if this was done for the benefit of a human male. Think about all this talk of informed consent.
Alright, I give up. You want specifics fine? I am in possession of several videos of male and female animals engaging in sexual relations with human beings. I am willing to describe what’s going on in them.
http://www.debate.org... 146 and 147.
I will refer to this as video A.
He/she would not need to, the burden would be on the state to show it was a sad bark presuming they even had a recording or eye witness to the bark. The communications I reference are not subjective projections as noted above.
The same criteria I gave which allows us them to communicate consent to us are equally applicable to communicating non-consent. An animal most certainly can change their minds but they are going to have to communicate it. Criteria #4 is specifically the absence of communicating non-consent when it is known to be possible. Obviously if the animal then communicated non-consent consent is retracted and the human has a duty to extricate themselves as soon as possible.
Well there is no way to prove otherwise for video A or any other documentation of consensual bestial acts (to you), no scientist or other so called objective observers have volunteered to document the whole process starting with an animal that has never had sex with humans.
However I have a problem with the idea very of training, it’s kind of a concept invented just to glaze over the differences between coercing, trading with, and teaching animals.
The same word used to describe [shocking an animal till it does something its afraid of] is also used to describe [offering them a hug in return for making a funny sound] or [showing them how to use an automatic treat dispenser].
What I’m going to say now is just my word of course, but 95% any other zoo would tell you the same thing and we are the only ones who could possibly know anyway.
Most animals need to learn how to have sex, even with their own species. Having sex with humans has a learning curve, for dogs (providing you aren’t getting too fancy) it’s usually a very short learning curve to get basic intercourse down. Refining the interaction can take a lot longer.
Most animals do not need to be artificially motivated at all, that is the sex is probably its own reward them and that’s how it should be and how zoosexuals like it. However some will use ‘bribes’ or treats to motivate animals who are reluctant especially about trying something new. They draw the line at negative reinforcement of any kind, and so do I, and so should all of you.
It can still be described as training as there are repeated cycles of reward and punishment even if the reward is merely pleasurable sensation and the punishment is only being disappointed (or seeing your human disappointed) but it’s not wrong because consent is still respected and there is no harm.
Actually if you read through her leg was tied up and she was in a cage. I specifically said in the PM that restraints should be illegal at the same time as sex because they prevent an animal from leaving which is a primary form of avoiding unwanted interaction and they know they can’t leave if they’re tied up.
This principle is known as ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and was not invented by me.
Because animals cannot testify in court, under Pro's model the law can definitely not know the difference between rape and sex.
No, if it ever gets its hands on real evidence those criteria can be used to determine consent. I would remind you that this is already the case for sex itself. The only acts of bestiality that are being caught are either by direct evidence (eye witness, recording, confession) or some kind of physical damage to the animal.
The only time my criteria would stand in the way of bringing an animal rapist to justice is if there is no evidence that they raped an animal. In which case of course I advocate letting them go since to the law they are no different than someone who is not an animal rapist.
Even if you don't buy that Pro lost, Pro admits that the law would not be able to distinguish between rape and sex. If sex is legal in this case, so is rape.
I have not come anywhere close to admitting that, all I have admitted is the obvious truth that the law cannot distinguish where no evidence is available.
The animal can’t talk, that’s true; that’s one possible source of evidence neither the prosecution nor defense can use. It’s not the only possible source and the possible sources of evidence have nothing to do with the ability of the law to make a determination based on the facts as they have been supported in court.
You could pass a law making alien landings on earth illegal without permits and the fact that no alien landings can be detected would not mean the court can’t declare an alien landing illegal if one was ever proved.
Luckily I am not advocating that.
They aren’t mentally handicapped, and I won’t entertain for a moment that keeping pets is slavery and that is permissible but having sex with them is so much worse. People need to make up their mind, either animals have a healthy place by our side or they don’t. It is the height of hypocrisy to pick one minorities desires and say “hey you, you need consent from the animal; not us we don’t but you do.”
About the forum link; you know better than that. Like you, I'm dealing with confined space. I really can't allow you to use the forum to bypass the character count, but I understand where you're coming from. Sorry!
As for not responding to everything... I'm ok with that this round if you're ok with that in my sort response this round! For your previous argument and my response I am cool with us not counting missed arguments as dropped (I'm on a time crunch XP). These arguments will simply add, not subtract. Next round I suppose will be back to normal.
So it seems the debate has come down to this: **Whether or not non-human animals would demonstrate LACK of consent in court reliably.**
The reason for my saying this is that
-We agree that sex without consent is immoral, that the law should never advocate something immoral, and therefore the law should never advocate sex without consent.
-We agree that if the law cannot distinguish between consent and non-consent sex, it is problematic.
-My opponent says that one must prove that the animal did not consent for prosecution. Therefore, Pro has to prove the above in order to win, while I will oppose him.
When I said that if a dog barks some would wrongly think it happy, Pro says: "the burden would be on the state to show it was a sad bark presuming they even had a recording or eye witness to the bark. The communications I reference are not subjective projections as noted above."
My opponent suggests that if one cannot prove that sex was against the animals wishes, the human would not be prosecuted. Basically, if there is a possibility that it was consensual, the humans will not be prosecuted. This admission will be the cornerstone of my debate.
Animals cannot testify in court; therefore, they cannot be witness to their own rape. My opponent remarks that in order to prove that there was non-consensual sex, one would need eyewitnesses (who are presumably human and can tell whether the behavior was non-consensual) or a camera, and then would need to convince the human court that without a doubt the animal was not consensual.
This means that I would be free to rape an animal as long as I don't video tape it. I can even tell people that I'm going to rape the animal. Because one could not prove that the animal did not want sex, I would walk free.
Even if for some reason the perpetrator videotaped her/himself, the would have to show explicitly a "no" behavior. If an animals "says no" and the camera doesn't catch it, the perpetrator would walk for rape.
Even if it does catch a "no" behavior, it would have to be a certain enough behavior to "prove" that the animal did not want sex. If a dog growls, the defendant could say there was a cat nearby. If the dog moves away, the perpetrator could say that the dog was readjusting her/himself, or that there was a toy that the dog was eyeing.
My opponent points out that the behaviors are difficult to identify across species. I agree. This means that the court would have a difficult time "proving" that the animal did not consent.
Additionally, a lack of response does not mean "yes." Simply not struggling does not actually imply consent. For one thing, the animal could be coerced. See the article I posted last round about the prostitute ape , who was trained/coerced to grind on customers. This evidence shows that unhappy animals may be coerced into sex. There is always the possibility of restraints, even if they aren't visible. Most training is done under circumstances of slavery. If a human slave were offered food for good behavior, that is coercion, even if it is less painful. The ape prostitute was undoubtedly coerced and probably made many attempts to escape the prison, but as long as she follows through during sex (even if video and expert witnesses were present, which is unlikely) no laws would be broken.
Basically, under this model these horrific animals prostitution rings would be allowed. These animals are slaves who are raped, but as long as no one videotapes the animal struggling or breaks the animals' legs, the customers are free to have sex according to Pro's model .
After years of rape, this poor kidnapped human began to stop struggling (though this was still rape and still horrific) 
I still have lots more to say, but I'm running out of time. I look forward to what I'm sure will be a great response from my opponent! Feel free to add the arguments you weren't able to add previously. Good luck! It's been a pleasure debating. We should do it again sometime, with a similar subject! (perhaps a few less rounds though! :P)
(I'm also a male btw.)
Oh sorry, that’s what I get from judging a poster by their avatar. Stupid language requires gendered pronouns, guess it could be worse (looking at you Latin language group).
Alright forget the responding stuff, but the recounting of the video was not argumentation it was just description. I could have linked to a source with the same kind of stuff.
For instance here https://docs.google.com... you (could if you wanted) search for first instance of “If a mare does not feel receptive” and read one more paragraph. Warning only zoosexuals can read the whole thing without going blind (JK, but remember it’s addressed to people who are already having sex with mares).
… Actually no. When it comes to the law better safe than sorry, and safe for the law is not throwing people in prison.
Just as the inability to prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt would mean the person is innocent, the inability to prove a class of action immoral beyond a reasonable doubt would mean banning that class of action is immoral.
If there truly was no reliable method of gauging consent, even in the presence of full documentary evidence that would mean that no one can prove rape is occurring beyond a reasonable doubt. That would mean any proposed ban on bestiality based on the premise that it is all or mostly rape would be unjustified.
A man is innocent of a crime until proven guilty
Raping animals is a crime <- this would be the proposed ban
Therefore a man is innocent of raping an animal until proven guilty.
It then follows that the state must prove he raped an animal.
Which means the state must prove the animal did not consent.
If they cannot determine whether the animal consented, they cannot prove that.
Claiming that a ban against bestiality is justified precisely because they can’t prove it was rape is a sad mockery of justice if rape is the supposed immoral action.
My argument has never been that the state always knows enough to determine consent, nor even that every human who ever tries this determines consent correctly; but that it is possible for it to be done in practical real world circumstances. Thus if I can know I’m not raping an animal I can know it’s moral. If I can know so can millions of other people.
It is not about our inability or unwillingness to prove before a court of law that every animal consented every time. It is the opposition which must claim that the individual circumstances, the individual evidence doesn’t matter because it is rape each and every single time no matter where no matter when. It is the opposition’s failure to make that case which I have established to meet my BoP.
Con follows this point with a few examples, the unifying characteristic of which is observing possible absences in the strength or definitiveness of evidence against an animal rapist. In general my response to this is “too bad”, too bad that there aren’t better ways to get evidence, but throwing people in jail you can’t prove committed an immoral act is not a fix it’s just another problem.
I will respond to these points mostly by observing how this limitation also applies to proving sex occurred in the first place.
Or to their own consensual sex.
You are free to rape an animal now if you don’t video tape it, don’t let someone see you, and don’t tell anyone you did it. You are free to steal a car as long as you don’t leave evidence. You are free to murder so long as nobody finds the body.
Doesn’t sound correct? Con is merely pointing out that keeping evidence of a crime out of the hands of the justice system is a good way to avoid punishment. I cede that without a fight.
I can even tell people that I'm going to rape the animal.
That might fall under criminal intent.
Because one could not prove that the animal did not want sex, I would walk free.
And if the animal did want sex, you would walk free; as opposed to being thrown in jail because some people thought their inability to prove the animal did not want it justified the assumption they did not.
They would walk for sex because without the no behaviors/vocalizations/actions it would just be sex before the law.
Yes, now you are getting the picture.
There is always the possibility of restraints, even if they aren't visible.
There is always the possibility of sex, even if it isn’t visible.
Most training is done under circumstances of slavery. If a human slave were offered food for good behavior, that is coercion, even if it is less painful.
No, offering food is not coercion. If slave ships stopped by Africa to lure the locals over with apple pie, never used shackles, never used whips, never shot (or otherwise hindered) runaways there is still possibility for immorality but you could not accurately call it slavery.
The ape prostitute was undoubtedly coerced and probably made many attempts to escape the prison
Speaking hypothetically (i.e. not based on any real evidence in this case) if you knew that the ape was coerced and made escape attempts why couldn’t a court use that to convict?
How could the law differentiate your claim from the wild accusations of a bigot and accurate claims except by objective evidence?
but as long as she follows through during sex (even if video and expert witnesses were present, which is unlikely) no laws would be broken.
In other words if the only evidence that existed was evidence of sex not rape then no law against rape would be broken. Nothing can fix that except getting better evidence.
No they would not. They would be hard to crack. Just under the model of the U.S. constitution organized crime is not allowed, it is simply harder to crack because of all these rules about search warrants, subpoenas, speedy trials, fifth amendments, etc…
These rules are there not to make it harder to catch bad people but to make it harder to punish good people. Furthermore:
These animals are slaves who are raped, but as long as no one videotapes the animal struggling or breaks the animals' legs, the customers are free to have sex according to Pro's model
I realize allowing an industry around bestiality would introduce a special concern which is why in our PM I admitted some regulation of this industry would be warranted. Mandated video recordings of all interactions from start to finish. Inspections of living conditions and training techniques. Under such regulation animals would be safer from rape in the industry than they are right now just by being unsupervised pets.
The reason being that for the prostitution company complying with those regulations would be infinitely easier than trying to hide from the law. It’s the same reason that the alcohol business turned real violent real fast during prohibition and promptly switched back afterwards, and it’s probably also the case for many currently illegal drugs.
Controlled animal prostitution would certainly lower overall animal rape in absolute terms (not just proved cases). There are essentially two types of people who are likely to rape animals.
1. Sex starved people (zoo or not) who want a quickie wherever they can get it and are so desperate they will try random animals. In a safe prostitution environment the animals would be well used to having sex with humans, there would be established protocol for communication which the human would learn when he came in. This is the only safe way to skip building a relationship with the animal. If for some reason one animal won’t take him/her there are probably others that could be tried. This avoids the desperate person finding some random animal who has never had sex with a human, who has no relationship or trust with the human, from being the only option for release in an unsupervised setting.
2. Real sickos who like hurting animals, people, whatever to get their kicks. There is nothing to be done about the smart ones, but the stupid ones might very well show up at a prostitution company and give themselves away by attempting to rape one of the animals. Doesn’t sound good to have the animals as bait but it’s a helluv a lot better to be rescued 30 seconds into the attack than to die alone allowing the sadist to move on to another victim. The prostitution company would have very strong motivation to keep these people in jail because they could traumatize their animals (and render them useless to the company) so we wouldn’t have to worry about corruption.
I admit after years of rape (or any other abuse) human or non-human animals will stop objecting because they know all too well that their consent doesn’t matter to their abuser. However there are going to be significant mental scars from such a prolonged trauma that would be evidenced by behavior. If some sadistic bastard managed to train their animal to pretend they are happy when in fact they are terrified I’m afraid they’re just not going to be caught. Even if sex was illegal they could easily avoid leaving any permanent evidence.
Thanks for a great debate! We should do it again sometime.