The Instigator
ADreamOfLiberty
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
dawndawndawndawn
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

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 2 votes the winner is...
ADreamOfLiberty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,871 times Debate No: 38361
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (2)

 

ADreamOfLiberty

Pro


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 I hope are self-evident to my opponent. If they are not those topics must be clarified before meaningful debate on the resolution can be had.



1. Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. The difference between them is the difference between what people think and what is. Morality is that which is right, the law is that which people (a majority of) think is right (as expressed through a democratic government).



2. To make moral claims one must have moral principles, to have moral principles one must have a moral theory. That is one must be aware of the field of philosophy which is ethics and subscribe to some system of thought in that field.


3. 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. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. volition is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans.


From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication.


#1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it. For those who consider this unfair I ask you to think of all those things demonstrably detrimental to society that the law does allow for on the basis of personal freedom.


#2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone’s life then I’ll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue.


#2 also means that there is no such thing as ‘one case at a time’ moral judgments, nothing is good or evil in a vacuum but can only be so in the context of a mountain of previously derived facts. Identifying and challenging double standards is a key technique in discovering moral fallacies. If someone can, on whim, use one standard of moral judgment in case A and another in case B then no moral debate is possible. Therefore if you are someone who thinks comparing zoophilia to homosexuality or to the practice of eating animal meat is a red herring then you should not accept the challenge.



#3 means you are willing to debate the matter of consent, I love to debate ethics and no doubt I will on this site but if you do not believe consent is the moral principle involved here you are almost certainly going to turn this into a philosophical debate.



Some notes on terms:



I use the term Bestiality/zoophilia, some other people make distinctions between these terms; I mean the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species.



Is zoophilia a sexual orientation? I think so, as far as the word has objective meaning. Bottom line is that some people desire sexual relations with animals. I do not believe the causes of this phenomenon are relevant to the debate nor do I believe there is enough scientific ground work to attempt to answer that question. The homosexual movement has been chugging away for decades and nobody really has a clue what causes it.



Consent, and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... . 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. There is no consent informed or otherwise.




Under the constraints set out above the question is:


A.) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?



There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases:




  1. No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly.

  2. No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species



We can knock out #2 by the mere fact that this is an issue. Humans must be capable of granting consent to another species if they pursue sexual relations with them. Surely you could say humans are an exception but that would require some explanation. Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How could you reconcile this with observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species?



Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species.



If a wasp stings you, you might think it was merely the sum of stimuli up to that point that caused it. There is not enough of an independent consciousness in a wasp brain to ever decide not to sting you given the same inputs. It is incorrect to say that the wasp accepts or refuses the interaction. It does neither but if you had to choose, it would be acceptance because if it did have the ability to choose obviously its actions would reflect its choice.



#1 is a little harder but not by much. Consider the following premise



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. If it can agree with anything it must agree with itself.



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.



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.



Whether that decision is the result of some faculty of self-determination or is pure instinct is actually irrelevant. If it is pure instinct then the creature never had any freedom to violate. If it has self-determination then it is determining things for itself.



In summation if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to question A is Yes, at least in some cases. If in some cases an animal can consent to interspecies sex, then surely in some cases an animal can consent to sex with a human, thus on the consent principle it is moral to have sex with an animal.. in some cases.



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?


dawndawndawndawn

Con

Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap.

Size/pain is not mentioned in your post.

Further - what you start with is not where you stay.

You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans
for splitting chihuahuas and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation
AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking.

Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly.
Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot.
So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course.

You seem to be a bit light on the difference between choice and reflex.

The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse,
it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual.
Debate Round No. 1
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap."

Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation.

The zoophile would have to believe that somehow they had telepathically taken over the animals mind. If you are going to say something like "they can't help themselves" don't bother, of course they can most people train their animals not to make aggressive moves of any kind towards humans. They learn and don't try but they couldn't learn if they had no choice.

"Size/pain is not mentioned in your post."

Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner.

None have considered these matters with as much depth and concern than zoophiles I assure you.

If you must have some specific species to work with, zoophiles have established that dogs [of general wolfish dimensions], horses, sheep, goats, and bovids are generally acceptable partners.

They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. The genital structures of dogs, sheep, and goats are similar enough in size and shape to humans in order to interface.

It is generally not safe to be penetrated by full sized stallions or bulls but that is more a risk to the human than to the animal. There is no way in hell a mature mare or cow could be damaged by being penetrated by a human (penis).

When animals are in pain they tell you. A horse's ears are a good example of body language humans can understand, dog vocalizations such as whimpering or growling indicate how they feel about something.

The reactions of these animals despite being contrary to popular expectation quite in line with what one would expect before irrational prejudice took over. Sex is pleasurable, and in nature they get it when they can. Their reactions range from passive neutrality to actively soliciting future events.

Unless they were hurt by it, or have a serious lack of trust for the human they typically don't show any negative reactions.

I don't see how anyone could expect otherwise, animals have no cultural taboos to violate no preconceptions on what is demeaning. They don't know what they don't know, so they don't know how much smarter humans are.

If you want to hurt them mentally or physically you essentially have to hurt them physically or behave in a very non-pack/herd like manner, they don't have the intelligence to take insult many other ways. Hitting them, yelling at them constantly, not sharing food when they are starving, or leaving them in a pit would be examples of the kind of insults animals would understand.

In summation, considering the absolute and complete void where evidence of pain might exist I dismiss it as a serious possibility in the relevant cases.

"You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans
for splitting chihuahuas"
No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer"

"and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation"
You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies.

"AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking."

I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact. Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken.

"Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly."
You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago.

"Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot.
So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course."
Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait?

"The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse,
it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual."
Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all?

Tell me if you will how somebody can author a study which estimates the consent of an animal which died a hundred generations ago but a zoophile can't do the same with a horse standing right next to him?
dawndawndawndawn

Con

I answer in caps because it's easiest for me.
I am not "shouting"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Assuming that animals want YOU is a big leap."

Not if you had seen what I have seen. When a male animal gets on your back and starts humping you, there is no other rational interpretation.
PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH.
NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES.
"Size/pain is not mentioned in your post."

Of course not, I should hope it is obvious that not all animals are valid sexual partners. Temperament, human sociability, anatomy, and of course individual variation are all factors in determining if an individual of a species should be considered an appropriate partner.
HOPE AWAY AS IF IT HELPS. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS,
LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM.

SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING
BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY.

They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses.
WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW? \/

"You would need further regulation to prevent full sized humans
for splitting chihuahuas"
No I don't, intentionally causing severe pain or death to your animals is already covered by animal cruelty laws that need make no mention of sex. You may as well have said "you need further regulation to prevent a full sized human from hitting a Chihuahua with a hammer"

WE DO.

"and SOMEthing to limit child-experimentation"
You mean sexually mature adolescents experimenting with animals? Why? that is their parents purview. Better animals than other humans their age, no unwanted pregnancies.
I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT.
IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN.
IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY.

CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR. IF YOU WANT THIS, AND IS SURE SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE VERY VERY READY,
I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO
STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING.

"AND, I do not see a comprehension of communicable diseases in your thinking."

I comprehend communicable disease just fine, that is why my post does not make mention of it. Just like HIV doesn't make all human-human sex immoral no interspecies STD makes all interspecies sex immoral. Not to mention the fact that there isn't anything equivalent to HIV on the radar, all diseases communicable by sex are similarly communicable by any body fluid contact.
THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE. >Such may occur everytime you touch an animal unless the strictest precautions are taken.
I CAN SMELL IT FROM HERE!

{"Pets started by them coming to us willingly and staying with humans willingly."

You can't possibly know that it was 8,000 years ago.
I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE
> "They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. "}

"Genetics plays a big role in homosexuality and has been studied a lot.
So, your point that no one has a clue about gayness is way off course."
Afraid I am not way off. It has been studied a lot that is true but to little avail. If you heard stuff about a 'gay gene' being discovered you have been the victim of sensationalist news stories. It has been inferred that genetics plays a big role in homosexuality. If a 'gay gene' has been identified being homosexual could be predicted. If you think it has been identified tell me what chromosome it is on? Is it dominant or recessive trait?
WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF?
THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS.

"The studies of horseback-riding have postulated that the first time a human got on a horse,
it was, probably, teen-aged boys and it was, probably, consensual."
Aside from the fact that this can't postulation can't possibly be supported what relevance does it have at all?
I WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO THIS. PREVIOUS, SENTENCE OF YOURS
"They all have long histories of domestication. Humans have a long history of developing and understanding communication with them, especially with dogs and horses. "
WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT.
"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?"
Debate Round No. 2
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"PLEASE DO NOT TYPE AS IF YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE WHO EVER SAW SUCH."

If you have then explain how it cannot be described as 'an animal wanting you'.

"NOW, SINCE YOU DIDN'T, PLEASE, CONSIDER THE FEMALES."

It would be irrational to presume only males are capable of seeing humans as sexual partners, just so happens females tend to be very passive when they are consenting to sex so it's less obvious. We need to keep in mind that they behave pretty much the same for males of their own species. There are still strong indications, females will back up into men, show excitement in their species specific ways and immediately go on about other business right afterward. That last is important because if they simply didn't care at all they would go about their business and not wait.


"SERIOUSLY, I DON'T CARE TO PREVENT THE SEX IF IT IS A GOOD THING"

It is generally a good thing. Pleasure is good. <- caveman enough for you?

"PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HURT THINGS, LIKE TO HURT ANIMALS BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT TELL ON THEM. BUT TOO MANY PEOPLE will HURT ANIMALS IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY."
1. Zoophiles are not 'people who like to hurt things'.
2. As I pointed out in the comments, anyone has the opportunity now. All they have to do is adopt an animal and then cause them pain in ways that don't leave permanent evidence. I am not offering a solution for that, and anti-zoophile laws never were a solution.

"WHY DO YOU TYPE THE ABOVE /\ AND THEN, STATE THAT THERE CAN BE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST BELOW?"
I didn't type "there can be no knowledge of the past" below. I implied that pinpointing the first instances of horseback riding or animal domestication is quite impossible, much less identifying the circumstances surrounding those events. We know roughly when animals and people started living together and it was a long time ago. We can observe right now that we have significantly greater capacity to communicate with these long domesticated animals than we do with wild animals.

"WE DO."
You're ignorant of the law, there are animal cruelty laws that cover wanton violence.

"I DID NOT TYPE "ADOLESCENT" BECAUSE I DID NOT MEAN ADOLESCENT."
Children who have not hit puberty will have little to no interest in sex even if they know about it. That is why I read it as 'adolescent'.

"IF YOU GIVE PERMISSION FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS, A LOT MORE OF IT WILL HAPPEN."
Fine with me.

"IF A LOT MORE OF IT HAPPENS, CHILDREN WILL ASSUME THAT THEY GET TO TRY."
Children assume a lot, they assume they get to have sex with each other. Whether they are allowed to try or not should be a parents decision. All things considered it is safer for an adolesant to have sex with an animal.

Animals won't betray the teen's trust by gossiping, won't get pregnant, won't transmit HIV. Even more an animal won't get it's heart broken when a fickle teen changes their attitude.

I don't see the problem so long as legal guardian and animal are consenting.

"CHILDREN ARE NOT GOOD WITH MANY SORTS OF ANIMALS IN NON=SEXUAL ACTIVITIES...BITES, SCRATCHES, PERMANENT FEAR."
If they are afraid of the animal why would they want to have sex with it? Or are you saying in trying they will get the animal mad and then get bitten?

"I WOULD NOT WANT LITTLE KIDS PUTTING FINGERS IN FIDO AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO
STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING."

Tell them "no"? Is this seriously your line of argument? Sensing the decriminalization of zoophilia legions of prepubescent children are going to somehow learn about sex before they get the birds and the bees speech. Shortly thereafter they will start sexually molesting animals despite having little to no sexual drive themselves?!

Young children and animals typically learn to respect each other's boundries and ussually end up being pals for life, I have no idea where you are getting this 'hypothesis' from.

"THE SENTENCES ABOVE ARE IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF THIS - NEXT - SENTENCE"
No... they aren't. Disease transmission is not unique to sex therefore any ban based on that justification would have to apply to more than sex. You would have to make it illegal for a dog to lick a person or a person to feed a horse without wearing gloves.

Clearly it is not that big of an issue.

"I WANT TO INTRODUCE THE ABOVE SENTENCE /\ TO YOUR PREVIOUS SENTENCE"

No one knows who built the first stone house, there is no way to be sure who did it, how, or what it looked like because it was 8000 years ago and it could have been buried somewhere we would never find it. Yet humans have a long history of stoneworking, and can now build fine stone houses.

By the time writing and records were established animals were already well integrated into our life.

"WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF BEING NOT OFF?
THERE IS ENOUGH INFO ON GAYNESS AND GENETICS FOR YOU TO LOOK SILLY SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT GAY NESS."
I said no one has a clue what causes it, not that nothing is known about it. I stand by that because it's correct not because I am afraid of being wrong (although I am afraid of being wrong, so should you).

If you know what causes it I would be very interested in knowing.

"WHAT RELEVANCE IT HAS IS IN ANSWER TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT."

Ah, so you believe speculation about ancient possibilities is how you know a horse can consent to being ridden... ok have it your way.

-------------------------------------------------================------------------------------------------------------

Plenty of room to address a question asked in the comments. Is zoophilia a sexual orientation or a disorder?

I believe a lot of this stuff is more political than objective disctinctions, however I will quote from this document which was typical of the kind of arguments that got homosexuality reclassified as a sexual orientation instead of a disorder.

http://www.torahdec.org...


"For a mental or psychiatric condition to be considered a psychiatric disorder it must either regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning. With the exception of homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other sexual deviations when in mild form, such as voyeurism), all of the other mental disorders in DSM-11 fulfill either of these two criteria."

The key things supposedly distinquishing an orientation from a disorder being "regularly cause subjective distress, or regularly be associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning"

Both are false for zoophilia. It in of itself causes no distress nor social impairment. Zoophiles do tend to be eccentric in someway but most people seem to find it quite tolerable (if not charming). Many zoophiles hold jobs with a lot of social interaction with humans and handle it fine.

The above paragraph is based on my person and conversations with other zoophiles online. I can of course not disclose any names for you to check on.

Needless to say it is the truth and if it comes to it many zoophiles would volunteer to participate in an objective study. Until such time I would remind any who doubt it that ignorance is not the same as negation. If you are feeling brave you can visit a forum frequented by zoophiles, I think you'll their self-respect and social skills quite normal.

On a last note I would like to remind readers that just because there may be some statistical association between a sexual orientation and a disorder does not mean they cause each other.

Check out http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... that concludes "Findings from our study emphasize the fact that sexual orientation minorities are vulnerable to poor mental health outcomes, including suicide attempts. Clinicians need to be aware of these specific negative mental health consequences when assessing sexual orientation minorities." Does the orientation cause mental disorders or does the humiliation and fear of being part of a small taboo minority cause them?

dawndawndawndawn

Con

Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant
that no or few laws are needed.

You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals.
I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin
that it covers and not the skin around it
Debate Round No. 3
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

I kind of feel like you're phoning it in at this point Dawn.

"Like cannibalism, so many people find it repugnant
that no or few laws are needed."

There are laws against murder.... I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

"You seem pretty desperate to have sex with animals."

Lol, then you seem pretty desperate for me not to have sex with animals.

"I hope that you realize that a condom will only protect the skin
that it covers and not the skin around it"

Yea, I get that...
dawndawndawndawn

Con

I am pretty grossed out that you find this to be important enough for such a detailed debate.

Murder and cannibalism are not the same thing.
There are laws against murder in most places
but no laws against cannibalism in many places but it was so repugnant to so many people
that it was felt that laws weren't needed.

Mostly, the hunger for sex will not leave humans alone.
So, when they can't find an interface, they have turned to animals
forgetting that the smell lingers.

The immorality in question would be if it hurt the animal but not if it hurt the human,
if the human got hurt constantly and wanted us to pay for it or, the inability to control
the sexual urge.
In most cultures, some form or sexual control is taught, sometimes too drastically,
but no culture encourages human to copy the bonobos.

If it isn't immoral, legality is a secondary question.

In that light, the only question is morality

unless you, like me, are just grossed out and want to be SURE that no animals are harmed
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
dead do not care
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"One can harm a dead body but only the living care."

The living care if you make them dead.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
A person has to be alive for harm to hurt.

One can harm a dead body but only the living care.

As to my, perceived, persistence...young people wear out easily.

This is a TINY effort in the scope of a multi-decade-life
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
I can't believe you just keep going like the energizer bunny without looking a word up. I look up words I have used all my life.

Harm is not defined as pain, if it was I could kill you in your sleep and never harm you.

Harm - physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted

http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Death is not pain. Dying, often, has pain but death is out of the reach of harm and/or pain
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"DEATH DOES NOT HURT. DEATH IS THE END OF HARM AND PAIN"

Yea? It's like a favour right? You just can't wait till some kind soul comes along and puts an end to your pain.... and people say I'm the who needs help.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
"Animals have far more reflex than choice."
So you say, but it is not in evidence.
PERHAPS YOU WILL RESEARCH REFLEXES

"Harm is not the same as death.
Harm hurts."
Consult a dictionary madam.
DEATH DOES NOT HURT. DEATH IS THE END OF HARM AND PAIN
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Animals have far more reflex than choice."
So you say, but it is not in evidence.

"Harm is not the same as death.
Harm hurts."
Consult a dictionary madam.
Posted by dawndawndawndawn 3 years ago
dawndawndawndawn
Animals have far more reflex than choice.

Harm is not the same as death.
Harm hurts.
Death does not hurt.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"IF YOU GET HURT FLOCKING AN ANIMAL, WHY SHOULD ANY ONE WANT TO HELP YOU?"
Because I'll pay them...

"I ACCEPT THAT if AND ONLY if THE ANIMAL AGREES"

Maybe you missed my opening argument, it was all about consent... and the consequences of choice vs reflex.

"SO, DON'T EAT ANYTHING AND LOVE THE LOSS OF PAIN AND DESIRE"

How about I eat some things and admit I am harming them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
ADreamOfLibertydawndawndawndawnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con, in R3, not only dropped all arguments, but said that no laws are needed to prevent bestiality, even though he is arguing for the position that bestiality should be illegal.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
ADreamOfLibertydawndawndawndawnTied
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: Neither of you guys did a good job....Nobody wins.