The Instigator
ADreamOfLiberty
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Con (against)
Winning
8 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...
wrichcirw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,076 times Debate No: 39218
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (70)
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 whim. 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://www.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?
wrichcirw

Con

Introduction


I accepted this debate because I cannot believe my opponent has won every single debate he has engaged in on this topic. I aim to break his streak.

I need only demonstrate either that PRO fails to uphold his burden, or prove that bestiality/zoophilia EITHER should not be legal OR is inherently immoral to win this debate. I will focus on legality and PRO's burden, and will reserve the right to focus on morality later if deemed necessary.

PRO has not defined any concrete conditions or definitions for this debate. Most if not all of of his opening is indeed argumentation, as opposed to establishing what is and is not permissible in this debate, thus I find all of his statements to be open game for counter-arguments. The only statement of what is not permissible in this debate from PRO:

"I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless whim. 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."

The problem with PRO's statement here is that it does not address the issue of legality. Someone could indeed argue along these lines and make a reasonable case that what "can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone's life" would easily constitute a legal basis for its prohibition. Thus, I find this condition to be invalid because it is directly pertinent to the resolution. Had PRO not wanted to debate over a rational basis for legality, he should have left legality out of the resolution.

Regardless, my case is extremely simple. PRO has made glaring omissions to how he chose to advocate his position.


Consent


Indeed, as PRO's opening easily corroborates, this debate will revolve around this one word. PRO inserts a lot of irrelevant baggage and argumentation that does not address the issue of consent in an accurate or meaningful fashion.



C1) PRO concedes that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality. However, PRO's rendition of this phrase is extremely inaccurate and misleading, as PRO states that "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."

Informed consent: Assent to permit an occurrence, such as surgery, that is based on a complete disclosure of facts needed to make the decision intelligently, such as knowledge of the risks entailed or alternatives.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

As one can see, informed consent does not involve perfect knowledge; it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision.

Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent. In order for animals to consent to interspecies sex, we must be able to inform the animal of the consequences of such an act, and to understand when a non-human animal consents to sex. We cannot. PRO must prove that animals can both 1) be informed and 2) communicate consent to humans when humans initiate sexual advances to an animal. If the animal cannot, then the animal does not consent, and this turns bestiality into rape of animals.

Why should this be illegal? After all, animals are not endowed with the same rights typically granted to human beings; we slaughter animals all the time and it is not deemed to be murder of animals.

One issue arising from slaugtering animals is that it is deemed necessary for our own survival, and so such killing is justifiable. Such justification does not apply to bestiality, as interspecies sexual acts are not necessary for either species's survival.

The issue thus becomes that of habit, and how this habit can cross-apply to interpersonal relations - this line of argumentation simply does not apply to slaughterhouse operations, as most human beings will never have contact with animals deemed fit for slaughter. Whenever a human engages in sexual intercourse with another living being, s/he is engaging in human sexual intercourse, regardless of the species of the other animal. Also, having sex with animals that in many ways have strong similarities to human biology, i.e. similar sexual organs, similar body structure (4 appendages and a head), is thus similar to having sex with a human being. One engaging in such a practice could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape. By prohibiting bestiality, we reduce if not outright eliminate the possibility of this specific kind of behavior, which brings a positive benefit to society in that it reduces occurrence of this specific cause of rape.



C2) PRO states: "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."

This is simply incorrect. A stranger in a hospital is known to have given "implied consent", which is a form of consent:

"...if that person is unconscious or otherwise unresponsive, paramedics, first responders, and passersby are allowed by law to assume implied consent to provide first aid and treatment."
http://www.legalinfo.com...

Consent is central even to those who cannot consciously give consent, because such consent in the instance of administering first aid is implied by law. First aid generally involves direct tangible benefits for the victim that in reasonable circumstances would warrant the victim giving consent if s/he could.

In order for PRO to affirm the resolution, he must demonstrate why we should assume such implied consent for animals in regards to sex. I for one cannot think of any reason, and most certainly cannot think of one that would grant blanket legality for bestiality.



C3) PRO states: "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."

This is again just simply incorrect. If a creature is incapable of making a choice, then it is incapable of giving consent. Consent is still fully conceptually applicable in this situation, especially since sexual behavior can become cross-applicable to human beings, thus encouraging the habit of rape, which is simply non-consensual sex.



C4) PRO has defined his own burden:

"...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 [the question "Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?"] 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."

PRO must demonstrate that these hypotheticals are fully applicable to reality in order for PRO to affirm the resolution. PRO simply has not done so. If PRO cannot, then PRO fails to establish burden of proof and the resolution is thus negated.

Also, PRO must demonstrate that these hypotheticals are applicable to ALL cases of bestiality. The resolution is clear that there are no exceptions to be made, that ALL "Bestiality/zoophilia should be legal..."



C5) PRO asks: "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?"

Again, this goes back to habit. Humans generally do not ride on the backs of other humans, and in the cases in which they do, it is typically playful and not considered harmful. Encouraging non-consensual sex on the other hand is quite harmful, as when applied to human beings, it constitutes rape.



Conclusion



PRO has failed to uphold his burden. He must prove that animals can consent to sex. If he cannot, he cannot affirm the resolution. Non-consensual sex with animals can all too easily be cross-applied to non-consensual sex with human beings, as we are in many ways simply another type of animal. This constitutes rape.

If PRO wants to turn this debate into a discussion of the morality of rape, he is more than welcome to, provided he meets the burden for such an advocacy. As it stands, he has yet to uphold his burden for this resolution, let alone a sub-topic like rape.
Debate Round No. 1
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

“Most if not all of of his opening is indeed argumentation, as opposed to establishing what is and is not permissible in this debate, thus I find all of his statements to be open game for counter-arguments.”

I gave three premises that you should accept before debating, if you don’t I’m not going to say you’re not allowed to debate; but I do know that there is not enough room in four rounds to resolve whether the law and morality should reflect each other, whether the moral question here is consent and avoidance of harm, and whether morality even exists etc…

If you think you can just focus on legality all you’re going to get from me is abstract political-ethics and people who come to vote will be wondering what to decide on.

“Had PRO not wanted to debate over a rational basis for legality, he should have left legality out of the resolution.”

I say there is only one rational basis for legality, morality. Everything else falls under a person’s right to liberty regardless of whether you think it is best for them. If you think you have another basis present it.

“PRO concedes that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality.”

I do not, I said it’s used in legal circles. The law is consistently unconcerned with the informed consent of animals. Even if it was I would reject an argument based on legal precedent alone. That is an appeal to authority.

“As one can see, informed consent does not involve perfect knowledge; it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision.”

Lol, how objective (sarcastic). Now define an intelligent decision and give a categorical definition of which facts are relevant to that decision (note categorical means you don’t just give a few examples, but a general rule).

“Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent. In order for animals to consent to interspecies sex, we must be able to inform the animal of the consequences of such an act”

Incorrect, as I already explained in my OP consent and informed consent are not equal, therefore an animal’s inability to demonstrate informed consent does not mean they cannot consent. All the burdens you claim are mine based on this premise are void.

“2) communicate consent to humans when humans initiate sexual advances to an animal.”

Not all animals, just some. If you want an example consider a female dog. When she is consenting she will stand still or back up into the human instead of pursuing other activities. She will sometimes provide counter-strokes. She may also wag her tail.

In short she will behave with a man exactly as she would behave with a male dog whom she as accepted. Unless you are willing to say that for all we know every instance of canine sex is rape, bitches have and will continue to consent to humans. Many more examples exist for dogs, horses, and other large domesticated mammals.

Finally we need not worry we are mistaking the lack of consent for consent when the lack of consent from animals is frankly so unmistakable:

Vocalization:

Action/Body language/ Vocalization : (2:55)

“One issue arising from slaugtering animals is that it is deemed necessary for our own survival,”

This is false, at least at this point in time. Furthermore why would necessity make murder acceptable? A well-known moral dilemma is cannibalism in a survival situation, and your theory would excuse a person from murdering all their fellows for their meat.

“By prohibiting bestiality, we reduce if not outright eliminate the possibility of this specific kind of behavior”

I am happy you noticed that there were some similarities between having sex with a human and having sex with an animal. However this line of argument is absurd, the best you can hope to claim is that zoophiles are deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent; for the zoophiles most certainly believe the animals are consenting. In which case they do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beings and cannot therefore become accustomed to it.

Furthermore I do not accept your justification for excepting slaughter houses and hunting, if humans are willing to kill animals they don’t know why not shoot humans they don’t know? You take for granted that a human can’t mentally separate their behavior towards animals and behavior towards humans which is clearly false.

Finally even if there was a link, that still wouldn’t justify a law since laws apply to everyone not just the people who commit rape. When someone does that there are always a thousand contributing factors but that does not justify banning each one, they must in of themselves be immoral. For instance, watching soft porn may lead to watching hard porn, which may lead to watching violent porn, which may lead to rape. That doesn’t mean watching porn is immoral; which is to say it shouldn’t be illegal.

“This is simply incorrect. A stranger in a hospital is known to have given "implied consent", which is a form of consent:”

I withdraw the last sentence and will alter this section of my argument in the future. You are right it is implied consent and I have always understood that. It should read “there is no explicit consent and therefore no informed consent”

In order for PRO to affirm the resolution, he must demonstrate why we should assume such implied consent for animals in regards to sex

No universal assumption is necessary, the individual animals imply consent by their actions, vocalizations, and body language.

“This is again just simply incorrect. If a creature is incapable of making a choice, then it is incapable of giving consent. Consent is still fully conceptually applicable in this situation”

Then it is fully applicable for a tree as well.

“PRO must demonstrate that these hypotheticals are fully applicable to reality in order for PRO to affirm the resolution.”

Do you want a picture? A video? Or a link to an author that claims to have witnessed it? Or will you claim that no matter what negative conditioning was used? In that case cannot prove it to you nor could anything be proved to you since this is a debate forum and not a controlled lab setting. At a certain point you and the readers must do some fact checking yourselves, especially given the context of this issue and the rules about posted material. Even if you leave it at that hypothetical I will be content to know all that remains is one objective study.

"At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo run by Birute Galdikas, sometimes referred to as "the Jane Goodall of orangutans" and the world's foremost authority on these great apes. At Camp Leakey, the orangutans are gradually acclimatised to the jungle, and as they get closer to complete independence, they are able to come and go as they please. While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious by his erect penis. Fighting off so powerful an animal was not an option, but Galdikas called to her companion not to be concerned, because the orangutan would not harm her, and adding, as further reassurance, that "they have a very small penis." As it happened, the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place, but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

http://www.utilitarianism.net...


Looks at these dogs behavior, do you seriously believe that if the human cooperated they wouldn't complete the act?

“Also, PRO must demonstrate that these hypotheticals are applicable to ALL cases of bestiality. The resolution is clear that there are no exceptions to be made, that ALL "Bestiality/zoophilia should be legal...”

Also incorrect, the resolution states bestiality is not immoral and shouldn’t be illegal. It was scopeless and in context that means the act in of itself not including modifiers or corollary acts which are immoral. If I said “sex should be legal and is not inherently immoral” would I have to prove that rape is moral? If I said it is not inherently dangerous would I have to prove that HIV doesn’t exist?

“Again, this goes back to habit. Humans generally do not ride on the backs of other humans, and in the cases in which they do, it is typically playful and not considered harmful.”

And if we were to accept your premise above that humans will get confused if they do something with an animal and end up doing it to a human, then it only follows that horse riding should cause many incidents of people trying to ride other people around. You also did not answer the question.



wrichcirw

Con

Etc

I thank PRO for an entertaining round, especially the videos. Nevertheless, for the purposes of his position, I find it lacking. First, I will address some tangential points.


E1) PRO: "I gave three premises that you should accept before debating..."

False. PRO, in round #1: "From these premises [PRO] would like to preempt possible strategies," meaning that PRO found these three premises to be valid debating points.


E2) PRO: "I say there is only one rational basis for legality, morality."

According to PRO, what is moral is rational. This will be important, as my argumentation will frame my position in a rational light. This simplifies morality to simply be what can be justifiable through rationality.


E3) PRO: "I said [informed consent is] used in legal circles."

Again, PRO concedes that "informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality.” This debate is about the legality of bestiality, so informed consent is thus a critical matter for PRO/CON to consider, and this according to PRO.


E4) PRO believes that the statement "[slaughtering animals] is deemed necessary for our own survival," is false, and provides absolutely no proof of his claim. My assertion is the status quo, as meat is a food, and eating food is necessary for survival, and so no further proof from CON is necessary on this point. In order for PRO to prove his point, PRO must demonstrate that animal meat is not a valid form of food.


E5) PRO asks "If I said “sex should be legal and is not inherently immoral” would I have to prove that rape is moral?"

Without specificity, CON's answer is yes. PRO did not add any specifiers to bestiality...indeed he didn't even bother to define it.

Bestiality: sex between a person and an animal
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Therefore, PRO must categorically affirm that "Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral."


Rebuttal


R1) PRO challenges CON to "define an intelligent decision and give a categorical definition of which facts are relevant to that decision." Simple enough. It seems PRO is unaccustomed to using a dictionary:

Intelligent: able to learn and understand things
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Decision: a choice that you make about something after thinking about it
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Thus, an "intelligent decision" is a choice that one who is able to learn and understand things makes about something after thinking about it.

I reassert that "informed consent does not involve perfect knowledge; it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision," and that "Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent."


R2) PRO states: "an animal’s inability to demonstrate informed consent does not mean they cannot consent."

This is simply ridiculous. Informed consent is a form of consent. I have already established that "informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality,” so of course an animal's inability to demonstrate informed consent DOES mean they cannot consent.

PRO may want to avoid discussing informed consent, but he cannot. It is simply too important to this specific resolution, which deals strictly with legality.


R3) PRO believes that "When [a female dog] is consenting she will stand still or back up into the human instead of pursuing other activities."

I will make this simpler for audiences - a female dog standing still could mean just about anything - maybe the dog is looking at something it's never seen before, maybe the dog is about to take a piss, maybe the dog is eyeing a suspicious neighbor, etc... It does not necessarily demonstrate consent to sex - to think so is somewhat ridiculous. PRO's point is invalid.


R4) PRO contradicts himself rather egregiously by citing an example of "the lack of consent from animals [being] frankly so unmistakable," when prior he demanded "a categorical definition" for an intelligent decision, which is critical to the act of consent.

PRO's specific example from the video of a dog not wanting to take a bath is only a specific example...it is not a categorical definition. PRO fails to uphold burden of proof (BoP), and this according to PRO's own standards.

I have categorically defined both "intelligent decisions" and "informed consent", both of which are absolutely necessary to determine legality, which is central to the resolution. In order for PRO to meet BoP, PRO must demonstrate that animals are capable of communicating informed consent in a courtroom.


R5) PRO believes CON's argument is that "zoophiles are deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent; for the zoophiles most certainly believe the animals are consenting. In which case they do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beings and cannot therefore become accustomed to it."

Let's assume that this is CON's argument. PRO's logic here is convoluted and contradictory. If zoophiles are "deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent", then zoophiles are indeed "having sex with non-consenting beings" regardless of what they think, and thus will most certainly "become accustomed to it."

Therefore, my prior assertion stands affirmed, that "One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape."


R6) "[PRO does] not accept [CON's] justification for excepting slaughter houses and hunting, if humans are willing to kill animals they don’t know why not shoot humans they don’t know?"

This is an excellent philosophical point. Two observations:

1) I have already defended my slaughterhouse point - as per the status quo, meat is necessary for human survival. It is "us or them" and in such a situation, it is rational and thus moral for us to choose our own survival by slaughtering animals for food.

2) On hunting, I will compare the act of hunting to military action. Although the hunting of animals for food is now anachronistic and thus no longer necessary for survival, military action, which involves killing, is still necessary for survival. Killing animals is thus an activity with strong connections to rational activity - we must learn to be able to kill living beings in order to do so when necessary for survival. Hunting is also very heavily regulated, as is the killing of human beings. We do know the humans we shoot...we know they are enemy combatants. We do not kill human beings that are protected by law; similarly, we do not kill animals that are protected by law.


R7) PRO is correct that "laws apply to everyone not just the people who commit rape." Those who commit rape are breaking the law, and so the full force of the law falls upon them, whereas it does not for people who do not commit rape.


R8) PRO states that "watching soft porn may lead to watching hard porn, which may lead to watching violent porn, which may lead to rape."

In order for this statement to be valid, PRO must provide burden of proof of several points:

1) That watching soft porn may lead to watching hard porn
2) That watching hard porn may lead to watching violent porn
3) That watching violent porn may lead to rape
4) That violent porn, or any other porn mentioned, involves non-consensual sex

PRO has not provided proof of any of these statements. Without providing proof, especially regarding consent, PRO's statement is simply invalid and irrelevant to the resolution. It does not substantiate immorality (i.e. non-consensual sex) for watching any form of pornography, and does not constitute any relevant assertions to the acts of bestiality or rape. It does not satisfy burden of proof for affirming the resolution.

Finally, violent force by itself is irrelevant to the issue of consent. Rape can occur when a victim (animal or human) is drugged and asleep, where minimal physical force is necessary for the illicit act.


R9) PRO believes that "individual animals imply consent by their actions, vocalizations, and body language."

PRO must demonstrate how these "actions, vocalizations, and body language" could somehow be admissible in a court of law. Can an animal swear an oath? Can an animal commit perjury? I wish PRO luck in providing BoP.


R10) PRO's point about a tree being incapable of giving consent is irrelevant to the resolution. A tree is not an animal.


R11) PRO all but concedes the debate when he states that "[PRO] cannot prove [demonstrable consent by animals] to you nor could anything be proved to you since this is a debate forum and not a controlled lab setting. At a certain point you and the readers must do some fact checking yourselves."

PRO not only fails to provide BoP, but concedes that he will not be able to, and that anyone who wants proof should not expect it from PRO. This essentially closes the matter. Bestiality involves non-consensual sex with animals, which can easily become disturbing behavior in that it can be cross applied to non-consensual sex with human beings, which is rape.


R12) PRO believes that "sex across the species barrier... ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

PRO's point and article are irrelevant to the issue of rape or bestiality, because no one was raped in the article. There was no non-consensual sex occurring, because sex did not occur in the article.


R13) PRO accuses CON of not answering the question about horseback riding, to which CON will simply state that it's fully legal and does not require consent for humans to ride on the backs of other humans.


Conclusion


Very, very simple. PRO cannot prove demonstrable consent by animals. PRO also does not contest CON's primary assertion:

"One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape."

Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality.
Debate Round No. 2
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

“I thank PRO for an entertaining round..Nevertheless, for the purposes of his position, I find it lacking.”

After reading your offering for this round I have come to the inevitable conclusion that you simply ignored most of my points from the last round and are repeating yourself in hopes that voters may forget to read the first half of round 2. In the instances where I think you are just reasserting your point without addressing my rebuttal I will probably just ask a pointed question plus (+) [some searchable section of previous rounds]; leaving it to the conscientious observer to be sure and read the whole debate carefully.

(E1)

Everything is a valid debating point, doesn’t mean I didn’t want to preempt them.

I have the distinct impression you haven’t tried to broach the topic of rational ethics before, nothing on this planet appears more controversial. I hope you realize it is not simply choosing an arbitrary goal and then applying logic to see how best to achieve that goal.

(E3)

Again PRO denies this (+) [I do not, I said it’s used in legal circles. The law is c..] (+) [I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent.]

This is deeper than law and I am not constrained by the precedence and traditions of the court. I am saying consent matters to morality and morality should dictate law. This is in no way depends on any existing law or any definition in existing law. If I were to consider existing law the message is clear, humans don’t need informed consent from animals to interact with them.

Since you like explaining what your opponent must do why don’t I return the favor. You must demonstrate why the fact that informed consent is a legal concept means I must integrate it into my argument when I specifically said I am not using it.

(E1)

Every vegetarian is proof.

(E5)

My answer is no. It was apparent a dozen times over that I was not defending every act that qualified as bestiality.

In rape it is not the sex that is immoral but the use of force and absence of consent that is immoral. However since rape is also sex the event belongs (among others) in the category of sex, and therefore there is an occurrence in that category which is immoral. Yet still sex qua sex is not immoral and I can say sex is not immoral.

“..indeed he didn't even bother to define it.”

Read more carefully (+) [I use the term Bestiality/z]

(R1)

That’s nice, animals can learn and make decisions, case closed. Before you say something like “PRO must prove that animals can…” get accustomed to using google? Here is a hint for search terms “animal + intelligence”

it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision”

You didn’t define a minimum threshold of knowledge, indeed under your definition any decision made by an organism capable of learning and understanding may be an intelligent decision.

(R2)

But not the only form.

“I have already established that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality”

You have asserted that I ceded this twice when I have not done so. If that is your idea of establishing it then I have already won this debate.

“so of course an animal's inability to demonstrate informed consent DOES mean they cannot consent.”

Put that in the form of a categorical syllogism please. Here I’ll do it for you.

Some consent is informed consent (Some C is I)

No animal can demonstrate informed consent (No A is I)

Therefore no animal can demonstrate consent (Therefore no A is C)

Invalid logic, check it any way you like.

If bestiality was legal I wouldn’t need to make this argument would I? No it’s illegal so of course I am not trying to demonstrate its legality but that it should be legal. The law gives no justification, it simply defines bestiality as an illegal act falling under animal abuse. I repeat (for the last time hopefully) that no section of any common law requires informed consent prior to interacting with animals.

It is not the law that requires informed consent from animals, but my moral theory that requires consent for sex.

I will not address this point again unless you come up with something with more meat than "look the word legal is in his resolution."

(R3)

It could mean just about anything in just about any context, but in the context of a man trying to penetrate said bitch it can only have one meaning. Any sane person who has a pet dog will assure you that they would notice such an action. If they stand in the same position for five minutes during coitus there is only one rational conclusion. They know what is happening and at the very least don’t mind.

(R4)

I see no contradiction, those dogs didn’t like baths; they weren’t consenting to take a bath and that’s what non-consent looks like in animals. I see no connection to demanding a categorical definition.

(R5)

ehh. no if zoophiles think they have consenting animals then they think that if those animals could talk they would be whispering dirty things in their ear. That means if they run into a human who says "No I don't want to have sex with you" they will not associate their subsequent behavior with what they do with the animals. In their minds the animals would be consenting unlike the human.

As for my logic being convoluted it is blindly simple, if an animal has the power of choice and tries to stick it's penis in you or allows you to stick your penis in it then it consents.

(R6.1)

That’s what I was afraid you’d say, no it is not globally rational just because it’s practical in a given context. Some zoophiles would rather eat you than their animals. Furthermore you have still failed to show why behavior towards animals does not spill over to humans in the case of slaughter houses but would supposedly do so in the case of sex.

(R6.2)

Of all the responses you could have thought of this is the most disturbing. Instead of abandoning your proposition that humans can’t separate their behavior towards animals and people you speculate that hunting is in fact a form of psychological training – preparing people to go out and gun down other humans for the crime of being on the other side of a political conflict.

But people don’t hunt because animals in the woods are communist, they do it for some kind of emotional triumph and they don’t seem to care that the animal doesn’t have a chance. Based on the reasons for killing and their choice of targets it would make sense that if they did start repeating their behavior with humans it would be as a serial killer targeting the weakest humans.

(R7)

And the full force of the law should not fall on someone who hasn’t committed rape but only done something statistically associated with rape.

(R8)

Why don’t you prove that having consensual sex with animals makes people rape humans? This was the counter example to that. Please sir, there is a beam in your eye!

(R9)

Open the court room door, wheel in a TV, and watch a video. Evidence admitted. Also note that I am not advocating making consent a legal requirement for sex that must be verified constantly by inspectors, it isn't for any other human animal interactions. Rather a guide line should animal abuse be suspected.

(R10)

It is not an animal, but it is incapable of consent. Therefore according to your argument it is rapeable and rape is immoral and will lead to the raping of people. That is the relevance of my point: ad absurdum.

(R11)

I would be very interested to see if this fools anyone. I can’t post pornographic material and you know I can’t and even if I did you would claim that you didn’t see the rest of that animal’s life so maybe it was beaten if it didn’t cooperate. This is not unique to my argument but all of them here can be reduced to links to studies where people have made objective observations. If someone won’t accept any third party evidence it is indeed true that nothing can be proven since this is a website and all we have are words.

I don’t need to however since the burden of proof is not on me, the law must be justified by CON because it asserts something is immoral where I only assert that the law is baseless. Something is moral until proven otherwise just as someone is innocent until proven otherwise.

It was never my intention to replicate the effect of an objective study but to reduce the issue down to a question of independently verifiable facts. Speaking of which you never answered my question “Looks at these dogs behavior, do you seriously believe that if the human cooperated they wouldn't complete the act?”

(R12)

Rofl, first I must use the concept of informed consent and now I must choose only examples involving rape? You sure do have a tight grip on those reigns but I am afraid I will not be cowed into moving my goal posts. I used consent not informed consent and I am saying that rape is not necessary to interspecies sex.

That excerpt was meant to give a concrete example of an animal not only consenting to sex with a human but initiating it. It did not occur but as with the dogs, there is no reason to believe it would not have given human cooperation. Something zoophiles have tested and confirmed.

(R13)

So in other words, it’s legal so you don’t care if horses consent. That’s what I thought.

"One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape."

This is your main point? It was already well addressed, quick review:

  1. Zoophiles are not having sex with non-consenting beings
  2. Zoophiles do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beings
    a) (+) [the best you can hope to clai]
  3. People can behave differently towards animals and other people
    a) (+) [And if we were to accept your p]
    b) (+) [if humans are willing to kill animals the]
  4. Statistical association is not a basis for banning a behavior
    a) (+) [Finally even if ther]

“Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality.”

Prove bestiality is equivalent to rape?

wrichcirw

Con

Before I begin, I find it almost comical that PRO accuses CON of ignoring points. My entire round #2, as well as my following rebuttal, was/will be clear in which parts of PRO's case I was rebutting, and I quoted from all corners of PRO's round #2/3.


Rebuttal


E1) PRO dropped this point. All of PRO's statements are fair game for this debate.


E2) PRO did not bother to define anything. Perhaps PRO would be so kind as to define "rational ethics" before engaging in a debate or discussion about the topic.


E3) PRO thinks this debate is "deeper than law". This is absolutely and utterly ridiculous, as this resolution is specifically asserting that "Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal," meaning it is ALL ABOUT LAW. PRO must adhere to his own constraints in this debate.

PRO then asserts that "consent matters to morality and morality should dictate law," completely ignoring that law is also a practical matter.


E4) Every person who eats meat refutes PRO's assertion - PRO must prove how eating meat is not necessary for the survival of meat-eaters, such as pastoral societies that live only off meat and dairy products. Meat is a valid form of food, and we need food to survive, thus slaughterhouse operations are justifiable. Slaughtering animals for food is materially and categorically different from bestiality, as we do not need to have interspecies sex for survival.


E5) PRO states that "In rape it is not the sex that is immoral but the use of force and absence of consent that is immoral." While CON agrees, CON continues to assert that bestiality constitutes non-consensual sex with animals, because consent cannot be determined in a legal setting.

I reassert that PRO must categorically affirm the resolution for any and all forms of bestiality.

PRO then states that he actually defined bestiality. This is completely false. All PRO did was to lay out how he was going to advocate a case for bestiality:

"the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage"

His "relevant theory" is his advocacy. Nowhere does he define bestiality, nor any of the other terms critical to this debate that I have defined for him.


R1) PRO thinks that CON and the audience should research his case for him:

"Before you say something like “PRO must prove that animals can…” get accustomed to using google?"

PRO deserves to lose his debate, he is not even attempting to establish BoP. All PRO is doing is thinking that audiences should simply agree with him, because he's such a swell guy that posted funny videos.

PRO then states that under CON's definition of "intelligent decision," "any decision made by an organism capable of learning and understanding may be an intelligent decision." PRO is thus learning the value of clarity, as this is indeed what CON stated. This refutes PRO's assertion that "It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent," as humans and many animal can give informed consent...the relevant matter is whether or not an animal can communicate it to other beings, and for the purposes of this debate, whether they can communicate it in a court of law. This is PRO's burden, and he has yet to fulfill it.

Again, I reassert that Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent.


R2) PRO states that he hs not ceded the statement: "informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality", even though he clearly states that "informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent."

At this point in the debate, I could care less what PRO thinks "consent" means. This debate is about legality, not PRO's definition of consent, and PRO has clearly stated that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality.

PRO challenges CON to construct a syllogism. Fair enough:
  1. This debate is about legality.
  2. Informed consent is relevant to certain rights granted by law.
  3. No animal can demonstrate informed consent.

Therefore, no animal has certain relevant rights granted by law.

In the context of this debate, these "certain relevant rights" deal with absolving the initiating party of the consequences of the initiator's actions. This is what makes consensual sex perfectly legal, and non-consensual sex the crime of rape. Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent, thus they cannot absolve the initiating party (i.e. the one wanting sex) of the consequences of the initiator's actions. This makes any and every act of bestiality non-consensual sex in the eyes of the law.

Oh, and BTW: "look the word legal is in his resolution."


R3) PRO believes that (offending language replaced) "in the context of a man trying to penetrate said [female dog, the dog standing still] can only have one meaning."

This is totally ridiculous, as PRO concedes that "[standing still] could mean just about anything in just about any context." For example, perhaps the dog was simply not aware of would-be-dog-rapist.

I'm quite certain "Any sane person who has a pet dog" will assure anyone that a dog does not have omniscience, and that it is easily possible to sneak up on a dog especially if it is preoccupied with something, like perhaps a television. Again, the dog standing still "could mean just about anything in just about any context", and this according to PRO.

PRO has failed to fulfill BoP that animals can communicate informed consent, especially in a court of law.



R4) PRO has failed to provide a categorical definition of how an animal could communicate non-consent. Without such, it would be impossible for a court of law to determine consent or non-consent for an animal, thus making any act of bestiality non-consensual sex.


R5) Whatever PRO is attempting to state here, he drops my assertion: "If zoophiles are "deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent", then zoophiles are indeed "having sex with non-consenting beings"regardless of what they think, and thus will most certainly "become accustomed to it."


R6.1) Refer to E4 of this round.



R6.2) PRO believes it is a crime to kill others "on the other side of a political conflict." Simply wrong. According to Harvard Law School:

"In war, there is no prohibition on the killing of a known enemy combatant"
http://harvardnsj.org...


Such legality is fully applicable to the act of hunting, where there is no prohibition on the killing of "fair game". PRO thus drops the point that legally, hunted animals that are killed do not constitute a criminal offense. Such is also true for enemy combatants that are killed. Both activities are legally and morally justifiable.

PRO then makes a ridiculous and irrelevant segway into communism, which I will not even bother to address.

I also note PRO's ad hominem attack by labeling hunting "disturbing" behavior, thereby calling all hunters "disturbed". I may not like Dick Cheney, but it's not because he considers hunting a sport.


R7) The law still applies to non-rapists. Non-rapists simply do not get punished for illegal acts they did not commit.


R8) PRO asks "Why don’t you prove that having consensual sex with animals makes people rape humans?" failing to realize that PRO must establish that consensual sex with animals is possible to begin with. PRO has not.

PRO completely drops his argumentation surrounding pornography.


R9) PRO thinks he has somehow answered my questions by "Open[ing] the court room door, wheel[ing] in a TV, and watch[ing] a video." PRO thus fails to meet BoP in determining whether or not an animal could swear an oath or commit perjury. Thus, whatever an animal attempts to submit as "testimony" would be inadmissible in a court of law, and thus Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent.


R10) PRO must somehow demonstrate that it is possible to have sex with a tree for this point to have any validity.



R11) It is up to PRO to figue out how he will fulfill burden. If he cannot, he deserves to lose this debate.


R12) PRO does not realize that CON's central point throughout this debate revolves around an animal giving consent to a human initiator, that "PRO must prove that animals can both 1) be informed and 2) communicate consent to humans when humans initiate sexual advances to an animal. If the animal cannot, then the animal does not consent." I've seen dogs humping fire hydrants - such behavior is not the issue of this debate.

PRO has yet to demonstrate the bolded. Furthermore, PRO must prove that such evidence can be admissible in a court of law.


R13) My response to PRO's bullet list:

  1. Zoophiles ARE having sex with non-consenting beings.
  2. Zoophiles indeed do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beings, and this is a problem.
  3. People can behave differently towards animals and other people (indeed, they can not rape either of them)
  4. Statistical association is not a basis for banning a behavior (there were no statistics cited in this debate)


R14) PRO: "Prove bestiality is equivalent to rape?"

I have demonstrated throughout this debate that bestiality involves non-consensual sex with animals.


Conclusion


PRO has not seriously debated this topic - PRO would rather that the audience do their own research and reach their own conclusions. If/when he does, I will offer a more substantive rebuttal. As it stands, there is indeed not much for me to do other than to repeat the same assertions over and over again.

I remind audiences that legality is central to this debate. PRO's attempt to reframe the resolution to some other criteria should not be seen as valid.

As it stands:

"One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape."

Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality.

Debate Round No. 3
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro


"following rebuttal, was/will be clear in which parts of PRO's case I was rebutting, and I quoted from all corners of PRO's round #2/3."


You quoted just fine, but round two response was pretty much a rephrasing of round two with little to no effort to understand and refute my rebuttal. I have to say even though I was surprised to win the others, I would be the least surprised to win this one.


(E1)


As if I could stop you from complaining about them…


(E2)


I defined bestiality as the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. I defined consent and linked to a well-respected dictionary. If you deny this (and it seems impossible for your statement to be taken otherwise) you are parading your incompetence and/or dishonesty before all potential voters.


(E3)


I am adhering to my constraints. I said the law should be what morality is, and I say the morality of sex with animals should be determined by consent + avoidance of harm. Under that constraint it does not matter what the law is right now, only what is moral and whether it is possible to have sex with an animal while respecting their consent and avoiding harm.


Enforcing the law is a practical matter, I do not believe the content of the law should be determined by practicality. Practicality in a vacuum means nothing. It must always be used in the context of a specific goal in order to have relevance.


If your goal is the continued welfare of human society as is often cited as the goal of law (something I do not subscribe to) then you still have to find a reason why legalizing bestiality would harm the pursuit of that goal since your previous attempt has been thoroughly destroyed IMO.


(E4)


My premise was that meat was not necessary for survival, you cannot refute this by citing examples of eating meat even if everyone did it. You may as well say chocolate mints are necessary for survival, after all I’ve eaten one haven’t I?


All I need to prove it is not necessary is one person who did not eat meat and survived. If any readers doubt that such a person exists then by all means vote CON.


This is not a debate about eating meat and I am not saying eating meat should be illegal, refer yourselves to the original context in which he brought up eating meat while attempting to assert that people can’t keep themselves from treating other humans just as they treat animals. (See round 1. C1, starting at ‘Why should this be illegal?’)


(E5)


Con can continue to assert as he wishes, I have demonstrated logically that consent is possible and given specific examples of how it can be communicated in real life. Con has never addressed the logic in the OP which was the negation of the two universal statements labeled 1. and 2.


If he does so in this last round I most certainly wish to call foul since it is quite obvious that he stalled dealing with the core of my argument until I had no chance to officially respond.


As for that incredibly embarrassing rant about how I didn’t do what everyone including Con can simply scroll up and see me doing in the first round under “Some notes on terms:”… I am slightly stunned I did not expect someone who seems as serious to sabotage himself so readily.


(R1)


I’ve researched plenty, so I know what is and isn’t out there. If you are looking for a study which observed human animal mating in controlled conditions you won’t find it. I never claimed anyone would nor do I consider it necessary for the resolution. I think common understanding of animal behavior and things as easy to find as those youtube videos demonstrate that animals are willing to consent. That is the kind of thing academic articles base their conclusions on. You could follow a trail of citing back to 1963 because nobody has yet been willing to let it happen in a controlled circumstance while promising privacy and security to participants.


There are books like these:


http://www.amazon.com...


Which assert that animals can enjoy and initiate the interaction.


There are books by people who refer to their own work http://books.google.com...


And say “dogs seem to enjoy the attention provided by sexual interaction with a human (Greenwood 1963..)” <- that would be Greenwood, M. D. 1963 Unusual Sex Practices


http://www.abebooks.com...


You may have found those videos funny but they were also on topic. It gave clear examples of animals wanting to do something sexual with a human, and not wanting to do something with a human (in this case a bath).


Unless you are proposing that should those humans have been naked and willing the dog would completely change its mind this demonstrates consent as defined by the oxford dictionary –see my opening post.


They make it clear to any objective observer that the basic intentions and attitudes of animals are communicable to humans and therefore their consent to any given interaction is also implicitly available.


“..the relevant matter is whether or not an animal can communicate it to other beings”


I have not accepted the strawman which claims I must prove informed consent is possible, however communication of the information comprising informed consent is also not utilized by the law. Instead it is sufficient for a simple yes or no given that the other is capable of informed consent. When you have sex with your spouse, you do not need to sign a contract each time; in fact you don’t even have to explicitly say “yes” each time.


(R2)


Strawman totally ignored (as promised), now as for this syllogism of yours, it’s not categorical. If the law sees no interaction with animals as consensual the law is incorrect… which just happened to be an integral premise of my whole argument – see first round.


(R3)


Well I’ll let the voters decide if a dog would notice someone humping them. Since I’m piling up home work for the readers why don’t you look up how bitches behave with dogs. Spoiler: Yep they stand still when they could easily move away and other than involuntary scent production that’s about it.


(R4)


If a tree falls in the forest, and a court of law cannot verify that; it has still fallen. The species of communication vary with species and individual. In general it is vocalizations, body language, and actions.


If I thought all dogs hated playing fetch I would think it should be banned, but I do not believe that; I think most of them like it and communicate implied consent by retrieving the object. That does not mean they can recount for a court their decision and reasoning nor is that necessary.


(R5)


In the scope of the hypothetical that animals were not consenting that would be correct, but since you are talking about the behavioral patterns of the humans only their perception is relevant.


(R6.2)


Strawman, you should read more carefully (again).


I quote myself: “preparing people to go out and gun down other humans for the crime of being on the other side of a political conflict


I found your response disturbing, and I suspect many readers, hunters included, do as well.


(R7)


Having sex with animals is not statutory rape, therefore rape laws are totally irrelevant for justifying a ban of such.


(R8)


I have, and even if I haven’t you have not proved that raping animals leads to raping humans any more than killing animals leads to killing humans.


(R9)


I did answer your question which referred to the possibility of bringing vocal, body language, and active communication before a court. I did not say animals can swear an oath or commit perjury or what not, those were strawmen.


(R10)


You cut a hole about the right size, or make a dildo from a branch.


(R11)


I deserve to win if only because you failed to even attempt to address the concept of consent without projecting your strawmen about informed consent. I have posted as much as the rules of appropriate material allow, any reasonable reader never expected more.


(R12)


PRO has maintained from the beginning that he is not claiming informed consent, no matter how many times CON reasserts that I must demonstrate it I do not.


If you’ve seen a dog humping a fire hydrant then that dog consents to humping that fire hydrant. Such behavior is at the heart of this debate.


(R13)


Oh I noticed about no statistical association being cited, it was just a vague impression of yours.


Conclusion:


CON has tried a blinding flurry of reassertion in place of reason. You need only read over the debate carefully to see that he has done little more than repeat to the point of absurdity the same unsupported assertions. The one he has posted at the end of each round is absurd and I consider it quite destroyed. The only other relevant one is:


Assertion - My burden of proof requires that I demonstrate informed consent in all cases even if the animal in question is an ant or doesn't in fact consent.


Rebuttal - It does not, I clearly stated that I was not referring to or using informed consent. I am aware that informed consent is a legal concept with some use, but not for this issue since animals cannot reach a standard of information calibtrated to a general human populace. I reference the fact that informed consent has never been a prerequisite for human animal interaction and indeed what laws against bestiality that exist appear to be based on religous or abusive grounds.


It should not be a prerequisite because that would be demanding a standard higher than the best natural possibility. If they can't aquire the so called 'required information' about sex that applies to sex with other animals well. Which would mean 'in the eyes of the law' all animal sex is rape, everyone who allows animals to breed is condoning rape, and indeed the existance of the species requires mass rape each generation. I give you Reductio Ad Absurdum


wrichcirw

Con

Rebuttal


E1) This is an ad hominem by PRO. I am not "complaining", I am rebutting unclear and inaccurate assertions by PRO.


E2) I now recognize PRO defining bestiality, although PRO left it open to interpretation by stating that "some other people make distinctions between these terms".

I recognize PRO defining consent, but do not recognize that term as defined by PRO as having any real significance in this debate, as PRO has clearly stated that informed consent is much more relevant to the issue of legality, which per the resolution is the primary issue of this debate.


E3) PRO believes that practicality is irrelevant to law. I would be rather frightened by any budgetary proposal that PRO would choose to enact, if he were given the power to enact any. Practical concerns must be considered in any legal matter.

PRO states that CON's "previous attempt [at negating the resolution] has been thoroughly destroyed" without stating how. Such a statement is indicative of the absolutely vacuous nature of PRO's unfortunately verbose argumentation. My conclusion from Rounds #2, and #3 stand uncontested.


E4) We can look at every single kind of food and deem it "unnecessary for survival" but this does not change the fact that food is necessary for survival, and meat is a type of food. Taken in aggregate, especially given the large quantities of meat consumed, not consuming meat would lead to lower survivability for humanity.

Bestiality in any form however is not necessary for survival.


E5) PRO believes he has "demonstrated logically that consent is possible and given specific examples of how it can be communicated in real life," completely ignoring that CON has provided counter-examples that show "reasonable doubt" in whether or not an animal was actually communicating consent. By ignoring CON's counter-examples, PRO drops the validity of his own examples.

Furthermore, there is the very real practical issue of having animals testify in court. PRO does not address this practical issue, making his advocacy supremely impractical.

PRO needs to work on clarity. There is no "negation of the two universal statements labeled 1. and 2," because PRO did not label any of his statements "universal". I have no idea to what PRO is referring.


R1) PRO states that "the basic intentions and attitudes of animals are communicable to humans and therefore their consent to any given interaction is also implicitly available."

PRO again does not address the issue of reasonable doubt as to whether or not the animal actually communicated intent for sexual activity, especially in the situation of the human initiating the activity.

PRO then states that "communication of the information comprising informed consent is also not utilized by the law."

This is absolutely ridiculous. In medical issues, informed consent is communicated via written agreement. In matters of sex, "the only way to be sure is to ask."
http://www.pamf.org...

I can imagine the response someone would get if they ask a dog whether or not they want to have sex. It most certainly would not involve verbal consent.


R2) PRO believes informed consent is a strawman, and by doing so, drops the argument.

PRO then makes the false statement that my syllogism was not categorical. There were no examples in my statement and it covered general circumstances; my statements were thus categorical. PRO's specific examples of consent by animals were most definitely not categorical.

By stating "If the law sees no interaction with animals as consensual the law is incorrect," PRO is destroying the credibility of his own position in this debate by doubting the law, considering that this debate centered around legality. CON has demonstrated counter-examples that cast reasonable doubt on PRO's examples, which PRO has dropped. PRO has also not provided any categorical statements in regards to the nature of animal consent.


R3) PRO is asking if a dog would notice someone raping it: "Well I’ll let the voters decide if a dog would notice someone humping them."

Of course a dog would notice, but by that point, it's too late, isn't it? The dog has already been raped. The entire matter is to determine consent before potentially illicit activity begins.

PRO fails to uphold burden here. PRO has not determined that consent can be categorically determined. His examples are weak and have been addressed and rebutted.


R4) PRO believes that it is not necessary for purposes of determining legality for anyone to "recount for a court their decision and reasoning nor is that necessary."

This is absolutely absurd. PRO does not at all recognize any practical aspect of law. PRO does not recognize any practical aspect of communication. PRO does not recognize any reasonable argumentation necessary for consent, and by doing so, fully contradicts and refutes the veracity of any "rationally ethical" position he may take on the resolution.


R5) PRO's statement here is borderline criminal. PRO believes that when one has sex with someone, "only their perception is relevant," meaning that all we need to do to not rape is to think it's not rape. This is absolutely and totally absurd. Rape is rape, whether you think it is or not. It depends on whether or not the other party consented, not on the perception of the rapist.


R6.2) First of all, PRO continues his ad hominem tirade and completely drops my argumentation and concedes there are parallels with hunting and military activity.

Second, PRO's believes I have misinterpreted his statement, which is simply not true. If PRO finds it objectionable to kill those who have committed the crime of being on the other side of a political conflict,” then PRO indeed "believes it is a crime to kill others "on the other side of a political conflict.""

All of my argumentation in round #3 on this point (which PRO has completely dropped) applies. I ask that conduct be taken into account for PRO's repeated ad hominems against valid argumentation. PRO has dropped civil debate in exchange for petty name calling, a sure sign of a vacuous position by PRO.


R7) PRO brings in the totally irrelevant point of statutory rape in order to detract from his dropping arguments on this point. Laws on rape apply to all citizens of a nation.


R8) PRO has completely failed to uphold burden here. He has not proved that animals can demonstrate consent in a court of law.


R9) PRO believes that "swear an oath or commit perjury or what not, those were strawmen," utterly failing to demonstrate how any legal provisions regarding bestiality can ever be practically enacted in a court of law. If it cannot be enacted, then there should be no legal provisions advocating for such.


R10) PRO fails to demonstrate how one can have sex with a tree. For example, putting a penis into a hole in the wall does not constitute having sex with the wall. Neither a tree nor a wall has sexual organs.

This line of argumentation by PRO is borderline trolling.


R11) Empty bravado from PRO. Total failure to uphold BoP.


R12) Again, PRO drops the point about animals being unable to consent to human initiation of sex with animals, which is the heart of CON's argumentation. By dropping CON's rebuttals and argumentation, PRO drops the veracity of his case.


R13 and R14) Dropped by PRO.


R15) PRO admits that "animals cannot reach a standard of information calibtrated [sic] to a general human populace," meaning that animals cannot viably communicate informed consent. PRO concedes his case (again) here.


R16) PRO makes the ridiculous assertion that "all animal sex is rape." This is reductio ad absurdum...by this logic, all human sex would be rape as well, and consent would be impossible.

CON has demonstrated the ease in which informed consent could be demonstrated amongst humans, and that animals may indeed be capable of informed consent, although they may not be able to demonstrate this capacity to humans in a court of law.

CON has thus consistently maintained that interspecies communication regarding consent to sex must be categorically demonstrated by PRO. PRO has failed to uphold this burden. Consent cannot be determined in a court of law, so any instances of bestiality must be seen in a legal sense as non-consensual sex.


Conclusion


This has been a rather frustrating debate, mainly because despite PRO's verbosity, he almost totally and completely lacks any real argumentation. The only reason he won his prior debates was because his opponent forfeited.

PRO's opening was rambling and exceptionally unclear, which did lead to CON missing some terms that PRO defined, and for that I apologize. Regardless, beyond length and verbosity, PRO does not have much going for his case other than weakly asserted examples (all of which were addressed) and the repeatedly unsubstantiated assertions of strawmanning. PRO completely dismisses the notion of legality, despite the clear wording of his resolution.

It is not CON's role in this debate to provide burden, it is PRO's burden to fulfill. PRO has stated repeatedly that he will be unable to fulfill burden, and thus PRO deserves to lose this debate. Furthermore, upon cross-examination, PRO regressed to rather insulting ad hominem attacks, foregoing reasonable argumentation. I ask that conduct be taken into consideration.

PRO has not even bothered to address CON's main point of argumentation, that:

"One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape."

Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality.



I thank readers for reading this long debate. I ask that readers take PRO's insulting remarks into consideration for scoring, and that readers keep in mind that burden of proof falls squarely on PRO for this debate, and that this debate centers around legality.
Debate Round No. 4
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 2 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"This is simply ridiculous."

Then ridicule, but it will not refute the statement.
Posted by TheLastMan 2 years ago
TheLastMan
"R2) PRO states:"an animal"s inability to demonstrate informed consent does not mean they cannot consent."
This is simply ridiculous."- L.O.L
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Your plans didn't fall through to challenge RoyLatham?"
He declined the challenge.

"seems your specialty is to state your opinion rather than refute with evidence."
It may seem that way because the specialty of many so called debaters is to claim there is evidence against my position and then post links to totally irrelevant facts. Too many school essays not enough logic training. Facts are nothing without valid inference.
Posted by Zhege 3 years ago
Zhege
Your plans didn't fall through to challenge RoyLatham? Seems your specialty is to state your opinion rather than refute with evidence. I'd also like to know the morality on driving on either the left or right side of the road, hopefully one day discussed in the future debate.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Many laws are matters of convenience rather than morality."
I don't believe such should be laws. Traffic regulations should be based on and derived from the authority of owning the road.

I am planning on challenging you about whether making a conclusion about what the law should be implies the use of existing legal concepts. Specifically whether making an argument referencing both law and consent binds one to use informed consent.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
It wasn't relevant in this debate, but I don't agree that morality is the only grounds for law. Driving on the left side of the road is neither more or less moral than using the right side as the convention. The law supports the practical objective of not crashing into oncoming traffic, but it is not at root a moral decision. Many laws are matters of convenience rather than morality.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
"Actually, troll, that was you."

I explained your "reasoning", or rather your interjection of more stupidity.

Anyway, enjoy your loss.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"You brought up pedophilia"

Actually, troll, that was you.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
No thanks. You brought up pedophilia for reasons you don't explain, in a manner irrelevant to this already rather...unconventional practice of bestiality. More than likely you're just trying to see how far you can take this.

It ends now. Troll someone else.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
How about you just answer that last question before you bow (or slither) out?

So what if humans find this method for a species and interface with it, just as a hypothetical question?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
ADreamOfLibertywrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro admitted in the challenge that consent was a central issue for determining the truth of the resolution. Since the context of the debate is legality, "consent" is interpreted as "informed consent." Statutory rape is, for example, illegal on the grounds that minors cannot give informed consent. The example of horseback riding challenges the use of informed consent as the standard, but that's a problem for Pro in the way he posed the debate, and not a problem for Con in applying the standard to the debate topic. Arguments to Con on the grounds that informed consent was not proved. I think there was some merit to the idea of rape being validated -- it undermines the validity of informed consent as a standard. Both sides made personal insults near the end of the debate. Conduct violations offset.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
ADreamOfLibertywrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro offers a surprisingly effective justification of "consent" by including body language as a form of communication. But bestiality is still illegal, as Con points out. It is also rejected in the strongest possible terms by society, as Con also points out. Con unfortunately becomes a bit hostile towards the end, comparing Pro's position to rape, but I didn't think that he was doing this as an ad hom personal attack. (Maybe poisoning the well.) Con's strong assertion that Pro did not meet the BoP, was important for the score I gave.