Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral
(A) Explaining the Resolution
The resolution has proven itself vulnerable to misunderstanding or misrepresentation in the past therefore I will spell out exactly what it means.
Saying X should be legal/moral does not mean everything that belongs in that category is legal/moral; it means that something should not be illegal or immoral because it is X.
Example: driving a car should be legal and is moral
Misconception: running people over with a car is not moral, yet it qualifies as driving a car so driving a car shouldn’t be legal.
Clarification: Killing people is what is immoral and should be illegal in that action, not driving a car.
Therefore the resolution does not mean that every act of bestiality is moral and should be legal, but that an act is not immoral and should not be illegal solely because it bestiality.
Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which my opponent must accept, if a potential opponent thinks these are unfair premises we can have a separate debate on that.
Premise B.1) Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. Note this is not implying that if something is illegal at a given time or place it is immoral nor is it implying that if something is legal it is moral. Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality.
Premise B.2) Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. No other moral standard shall be accepted. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. consent is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans.
Premise B.3) The resolution makes a claim about what law should be but does not rely on any existing law, precedence, standard, or tradition of any kind. The fact that law has traditionally defined consent in a manner that makes it impossible for animals to demonstrate it in court is irrelevant. Only the definition of concept given here is to be referenced or used.
(C) Implications: From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. The premises above prohibit these strategies.
(C.1) B.1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is somehow detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it.
(C.2) B.2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless whim. Consent and biological harm are well defined objectively verifiable concepts.
(C.3) B.2 & B.3 mean you are willing to debate the matter of consent or harm as defined here. A brief justification for excluding legally defined consent is given but the topic is still not open for contest in the scope of this debate.
I reserve the right to deem other strategies incompatible with the premises you accepted with the debate.
(D.1) Bestiality – the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species.
(D.2) Zoophilia – the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans.
(D.3) Rape – the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below.
(D.4) Pain – the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology.
(D.5) Biological Damage – the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism.
(D.6) Consent– and this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... .
(E) Burden of Proof
My burden of proof is to show that it is possible that an animal can consent to sex with a human. The core argument relates this to the resolution. I believe this burden is met by the end of this first post. It is not sufficient for my opponent to simply assert I have not met the burden he/she must explain why my argument here does not do so.
My opponent’s burden of proof is to either defeat the argument for consent, or prove it impossible for a human to mate with any species without causing pain or physical damage.
(F) Informed/legal Consent vs Consent
I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.
In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.
For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. This is implied consent but cannot be informed consent.
The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities.
If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape. I consider the above a valid form of Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org...
Finally I would like to point out that current legal precedence and tradition never tries to apply informed consent to animals. All anti-bestiality laws appear to be based on either religion or the concept of abuse. The law does not care about informed consent of animals now and I am not advocating that change. If a potential opponent does not think I have laid out valid reasons why informed consent is morally and legally inapplicable to animals, we can have another debate about it before they accept this one.
(G) Core Argument:
/ If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1)
/ Bestiality is a moral practice – see Support of Morality
// Bestiality should be legal
(H) Support of Morality - Consent:
Under the constraints set out above the question is:
(H.1) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?
Remember since I only need one exception to break the rule, if there is ever a case where the answer to H.1 is yes I have established that immorality is not inherent in bestiality, I can say it is moral as per section A. There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases:
(H.2) No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly.
(H.3) No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species
That means if I can negate (show to be false) both of these statements then there must exist some cases where the answer to the question H.1 is YES.
/ ~H.2 / ~H.3 // H.1
(H.4) – Negation of H.3
Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with H.3?
(H.5) – Negation of H.2
(H.5.1) It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply.
This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms.
(H.5.2) If a mind can agree with anything it must agree with itself.
Note: Reflexes are biologically and behaviorally differentiable from choice.
(H.5.3) Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction.
(H.5.4) To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding.
These youtube videos are among thousands of publically available images, videos, and reports detailing the sexual advances towards humans by animals, it provides the last piece in my argument for consent, action implying consent absent negative conditioning. They may be posted as a joke but what they display is real.
(I) Support of Morality - Harm:
The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate harm is necessary.
(J)I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?
To clarify, the BoP is on Pro. In order for Pro to stand a chance of winning this debate, he needs to prove animals can consent to having sexual intercourse with humans, which he hasn't done in any of his debates so far. I will start by negating some of Pro's highly flawed premises.
Premise B.1) "Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. Note this is not implying that if something is illegal at a given time or place it is immoral nor is it implying that if something is legal it is moral. Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality."
Right here, Pro's argument already fails, legality and morality are not inherently linked. For example, cheating on your wife is generally viewed as immoral by the public. Does that mean it's illegal to cheat on your wife? Abosolutely not, since law isn't dependent on morality. In the U.S, you are not legally obligated to report a crime. Morally, most people would, but you don't legally have to. This premise is highly flawed. Morality isn't dependent on law, it's dependent on the person. Laws were not created to force morals on people.
Premise B.2) Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage.
Again, Pro needs to prove bestiality/zoophilia is indeed mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of forseeable pain or biological damage. Pro has defined consent as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.” My opponent has yet to show that animals can physically show that they are willing to have sexual intercourse with humans. Many countries such as the U.S. view bestiality as animal cruelty. Does Pro mean to legalize bestiality all over the world, or just in the U.S. where he lives?
(F) Informed/legal Consent vs 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."
True, no animal has consented to becoming a pet, nor have animals consented to being killed to be used as food. However, an animal is not being harmed by becoming a pet. They are given food and shelter, and can benefit humans i.e. exercise, companionship (non-sexual). As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival. Meat provides an important nutrient (protein) to humans in order to sustain their well-being. Animal coats provide necessary warmth for humans to prevent hypothermia from occuring. Since Pro has not shown that bestiality is necessary for human's survival, there's no reason for this to be legal.
"The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities."
Exactly, we cannot apply these morals to non-humans since it does indeed lead to contradictions and absurdities. Animals cannot consent to having sex with humans.
"If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape."
"In the eyes of law" animals cannot consent to having sexual intercourse with humans, since humans cannot completely understand animal behaviour beyond reasonable doubt. Two animals from the same species understand each other's behaviours and can communicate with each other. A human cannot communicate with an animal that doesn't speak the same language them.
"(G) Core Argument:"
/ If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1)
/ Bestiality is a moral practice – see Support of Morality
// Bestiality should be legal
Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with H.3?"
"To clarify, the BoP is on Pro. In order for ...which he hasn't done in any of his debates so far."
Flaws in Pro's Evidence
"Watch the youtube videos and read the linked blog article, and I can give you more links if you need more. I will not link to pornographic material so if you want to see a successfully completed sexual advance by an animal you will have to find it yourself. I promise you such videos exist. In other words, examine my opening argument more carefully."
First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for not showing pornograhic bestiality videos, we wouldn't want DDO to turn into 4chan wouldn't we? I'd first like to point out the flaws in your videos.
In the first video, it does ideed show a dog humping a pretty girl. However, this debate is about sexual intercourse with animals. All this could have proved was that dogs can get horny sometimes, and like to stimulate their sexual organs. This has not proved that the dog wanted to have sexual intercourse with the girl, the only other possibility was that dogs like to stimulate their sexual organs.
The second video seemed to portray a donkey chasing a human. In this video, we don't know what the donkey was trying to accomplish. Was the donkey being playful? Or again, was the donkey attempting to stimulate it's sexual organs on the humans back. Again, we don't know for sure. Pro is just assuming that these animals have attempted to have sexual intercourse with humans, when in reality, this is unlikely. Even if we assume that the donkey was sexually attracted to the man, we don't know for sure that the donkey's penis made penetration into the man's anus.
My opponent has clearly made blatant assumptions, he still hasn't proven that animals can consent to having sexual intercourse. Essentially, if an animal cannot consent, and a human forcefully coerces an organism into sexual intercourse, it's rape. Should we legalize this?
Me: "Many countries such as the U.S. view bestiality as animal cruelty."
Pro: Not this citizen.
I said countries. The U.S. views bestiality as animal cruelty, and in order for this to change, consent needs to be shown in court. Your opinion is irrelevant to what the government thinks.
Me:"However, an animal is not being harmed by becoming a pet."
Pro: So you say, how do you know?
You provide no evidence on how an animal is being harmed by becoming a pet. As long as an animal isn't neglected, I don't see how it is being harmed. An overwhelming majority of countries do allow humans to own domesticated animals such as dogs or cats. Are you saying that the majority of countries are allowing animals to become harmed by being pets?
"You seem to have no problem calling these benefits yet animals have no better ability to communicate about these than sex. If you can have sex with an animal where the animal communicates no complaint and often actively participates and yet that is harmful and non-consenting I would like to know how you can do anything with an animal and be sure they consent or that they aren't being harmed?"
Most things that are beneficial to humans that don't infringe on other people's rights or well-being are made legal. Bestiality has not been proven to be beneficial to humans. In fact, bestiality can increase illnesses in human population. Bestiality has been proven to increase rates of penile cancer amognst male humans. According to Men's Health Magazine, Bestiality can increase the risk of penile cancer to 42%. This was done by Brazilian researchers who took 500 men from 12 cities. 35% of them citied that they had sexual intercourse with an animal of another species. The original study was this: Sex with Animals (SWA): Behavioral Characteristics and Possible Association with Penile Cancer. A Multicenter Study. Think no harm is done to humans, think again. 
Me:"As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival."
Pro: "You going to try the same lies as wrichcirw? Here is a list of people who would have died if meat was necessary to survive"
Your first sentence is an ad hominem. Secondly, meat was orginally neccessary for survival, especially during "The caveman era." Killing and eating meat have been fundamental factors in the evolution of man-kind. Larger brains have actually come from consuming high amounts of protein in a meat based diet. "Cooperative hunting promoted the development of language and socialization; the evolution of Old World societies was, to a significant extent, based on domestication of animals." Obviously, hunting and the domestication of animals are still legal since they are beneficial to humans, while bestiality leads to factors that aren't so beneficial i.e. penile cancer. Since these have been beneficial to human survival, the law has made this legal. By the way, famous people who have survived being vegetarian is completly irrelevant. Ironically, Adolf Hitler was on that list. Not too many people miss him.... By the way, that list is a grand total of under 200 people. The point is, who cares? This is irrelevant to the debate. My point is that since meat is beneficial to human's survival, it is made legal. 
"Cotton is a plant, wool doesn't require you to kill an animal (oh but it does require you to cut off their hair, I say they consent to that but according to people against bestiality that's all but impossible)."
Sheep do not consent to having their wool shaved off. However, humans benefit from wool, and the wool industry is huge. Global wool production is about 1.3 tonnes per year, and offer thousands of jobs to humans in the industry. There is also dispute over how much animals are indeed harmed by being sheared. Again, laws are made legal if they are beneficial to humans. 
"All you have done is prove that the status qua law and morality is subjective. You can kill without consent because you want easy protein, because you want to live in temperate zones, or because you want X. But since you don't want sex that's not a good enough reason for me to violate consent.
I think I've stressed by point about laws being made legal if they're beneficial to humans enough. Since bestiality harms animals without benefiting human's survival, it's deemed illegal. Since I've proved that bestiality commonly involves violating animals, it's been deemed illegal (for the rspca link where I got this from, you have to search bestiality in the blank with bar, it doesn't seem to be working).
Who are you to judge whether something is a good enough reason?
It's true, I'm not the one to decide, it's governments like the U.S. and Canada that deem bestiality illegal.
When they disemboweled sheep to make condoms out of their intestines so humans could have sex without consequences where were these objections?
I don't know if this actually happened, but as long as they use other the other animal parts, I don't see why there would be any objections. If they use the meat for food an the wool for clothing, I see no reason why they can't also use sheep intestines for condoms.
Since Con has not proven that keeping pets is necessary for human survival there's no reason for that to be legal... because as we all know bans are always justified unless they are banning something 'necessary for human survival' [sarcasm].
Again, owning a domestic animal is deemed legal because of the benefits (I'm not sure how many times I have to say that) to humans. Again, Pro has not shown that owning a pet itself is harmful, so it's another reason why it's legal.
Oh yes, but how? Vocalizations? Nope humans could hear that and eventually learn their meanings. Body language? Nope humans can see that and eventually learn its meaning. Direct action? No humans can observe that just as easily as other animals.
Really? Why don't you give me a source to prove it. The affirmative especially needs sources to hold up the BoP.
Most animals speak no language.
If this is true, another reason why it's nearly impossible for animals to consent.
My opponent states that morality is inherently linked to legality. I mentioned that many things that are considered immoral aren't illegal. He states this doesn't contradict his premise, but this creates fallacies in his BoP.
Me: "Has an animal ever been proven to attempt to directly have sex with another human? The answer is no."
PRo:"The answer is yes, as my two videos and the blog proved."
Two videos that prove nothing ( see beggining refutation of Round 2), and a blog that Pro admits was meant for a joke. I don't think that's undisputed scientific evidence.
Me:"When a male dog starts humping (rubbing it's genitilia on something) another humans leg, does it want to have sex with the human or does it want to stimulate it's sexual organs on another humans leg for pleasure.
Pro: "They have a word for stimulating one's sexual organs inside another organism's sexual organs: Sexual intercourse."
In those two videos, were the animals stimulating their organs The rest of Pro's argument is based on his opinion without any actual evidence, and two flawed videos and a joke blog isn't going to cut it.
As for the harmfullness of bestiality, should we legalized something that has no benefit to humans, and is usually harmful to both humans and animals?
As for Pro's last source, if it can be carried out without obvious force, what's the percentage of time that it can be. It's like saying that sexual relations between an adult and a minor can be carried out without obvious force. Should we legalize that too? It's all about consent, and the organisms mentality of the consequences.
“First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for not showing pornograhic bestiality videos,”
Yet you seem to think it’s the only way to prove the facts I am relying on. You seem to accept that animals will shove their penis at you but don’t think that’s evidence of a sexual advance on a human. There is only one more step before that becomes sex, the human cooperates. They take off their clothes and they assume the position, and they wait for rover to strike gold.
You thank me for not showing that (and I don’t think I could anyway, it’s not on youtube I would have to upload a file) but at the same time you reject the closest you can get to sex without actually being sex.
“In the first video.. dogs like to stimulate their sexual organs.”
I’m going to burn a bunch of characters answering this because it’s the most relevant thread.
Once again I feel obligated to point out that stimulating one’s sexual organs and having sexual intercourse are not mutually exclusive, and indeed when you try to stimulate your sexual organs using the body of someone else they tend to call that sex.
If a dog is willing to hump you they are consenting to hump you. If you cooperate that humping turns into penetration and orgasm for the dog. If you don’t want to define that as sex fine with me. Zoophiles aren’t having sex with animals they are ‘stimulating their sexual organs’ in extremely close proximity to animals I guess.
What exactly are you postulating would happen if the human cooperated? The animal would just lose all interest? They’re just joking around and wouldn’t keep going is that what you are saying?
Or do you imagine that at the moment of penetration poor Fido mentally gasps in terror realizing that his owner isn’t a couch, but by then it’s too late his instincts have taken over his brain and he can’t fight them right?
What’s more that horrible human has gotten him addicted to the exact same torture week after week because every time they present themselves he’s right back at it.
“Even if we assume that the donkey was sexually attracted to the man, we don't know for sure that the donkey's penis made penetration into the man's anus.”
It didn’t, but you stretch the benefit of the doubt beyond the breaking point when you ask a reasonable reader to assume that this is because the donkey didn’t consent to that as opposed to the man not consenting.
It does not matter if the animal has a specific idea of exactly how things will go. They consent to what they are doing, and the only way they learn is by experience. If they don’t like what happens they won’t do the same thing next time. Their consent is no less real for experiments.
It is completely irrational to say an animal is essentially trying to masturbate on a human but would be opposed to the human helping them via intercourse or other means, especially when the latter is the only thing that would actually bring them to orgasm. I’ll remind you though, rational or not there is no need to assume. If they were truly doing as you say they could stop themselves anytime they changed their minds and thus withdraw consent.
Your objection seems to imply that if you saw a video where an animal did penetrate a human then you would know the animal consented to intercourse. Is that true or would you just claim they were trained? I can link to a verified case of an animal penetrating a human.
“My opponent has cl..”
Pot calling the kettle black? You are asking me and the readers to assume that the simplest explanation for those animal’s behavior can never be what they want, despite the fact that they will carry the process to completion without complaint.
What of the socks? Do you deny that ever happens?
“and in order for this to change, consent needs to be shown in court”
Why? The definition of no other abuse is related to consent.
“Your opinion is irrelevant to what the government thinks.”
What the government thinks is irrelevant to the truth.
“You provide no evidence on how an animal is being harmed by becoming a pet.”
Ah! So something isn’t harmful to animals if one can’t provide evidence on how an animal is being harmed.
What about a guy beating his animal senseless every other day? Is that part of being a pet?
“Bestiality has not been proven to be beneficial to humans.”
That entire paragraph was a red herring. The benefit in question is towards animals not humans, and the issue was how you know something is a benefit if you can’t use advanced language with animals.
“According to.. increase the risk of penile cancer to 42%.”
I’m definitely going to look into this, but results will be in the comments because that’s a risk someone has the right to take if it’s real. (big if)
“The point is, who cares? This is irrelevant to the debate. My point is that since meat is beneficial to human's survival, it is made legal. ”
The point is you are now attempting to use a moving the goal posts fallacy. You did not say beneficial, you said, and I quote, “As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival”
You didn’t use a period, your statement was unambiguous. Your entire paragraph related to things necessary for human’s survival.
If something is necessary you cannot do without it, not even one person can do without it; thus I only needed one vegetarian to disprove your statement and I gave you 200 (despots included).
I’ll throw another counter-example: People who keep pets take them to vets and sometimes subject them to surgery without consent. If everything requires consent from animals unless it is ‘beneficial’ to human survival then are pets beneficial to human survival and why?
“Global wool production is about 1.3 tonnes per year, and offer thousands of jobs to humans in the industry.”
You realize how many jobs are created by the search for pleasure? If that’s your idea of benefit the porn industry is a benefit and is exempted from your absurd prerequisite for ignoring animal consent.
“laws are made legal if they are beneficial to humans.”
I don’t care if a government makes law based on astrology law should be based on morality.
“Since bestiality harms animals”
You have not met the burden of proof on that. Your link did not support the claims you made. Your claim was ‘most’ not ‘all’ as the context requires.
“it's governments like...”
Who are they to decide?
“but as long as they use other the other animal parts”
Ah I see, so what about if humans were going to violate consent anyway? Say with animals destined to be sluaghtered?
“Again, owning a domestic animal is deemed legal because of the benefits”
Well I don’t care how many times you say it since you said necessary the first time. So, how does keeping pets benefit human survival?
“Pro has not shown that owning a pet itself is harmful,”
Con has not shown that bestiality itself is harmful.
“Really? Why don't you give me a source to prove it”
Prove that I am asking you a question? Sure, I cite this debate second round. You said animals can communicate to each other while humans cannot communicate to animals. I didn’t. I’ll ask it again:
“I don't think that's undisputed scientific evidence.”
Unless you’re claiming those videos are hoaxes it is undisputed evidence.
“In those two videos, were the animals stimulating their organs”
They have a word for stimulating one's sexual organs inside another organism's sexual organs: Sexual intercourse. (sound familar?)
“usually harmful to both humans and animals?”
“what's the percentage.."
What’s that supposed to mean? If you refuse to use force 100%.
“It's like saying…”
Which is also true.
“and the organisms mentality of the consequences.”
This (except maybe phrased correctly) not consent is why sex with minors is a problem, for they can consent.
(1) My opponent has backed off their claim of necessity and has adopted the following moral/legal principle
If doing something to an animal benefits human survival, the consent of the animal can be ignored. If something is harmful to the animal and does not benefit human survival it should be illegal.
He has claimed that bestiality is harmful to the animal and does not benefit human survival. His response to the counter example of keeping pets in general is as follows:
It’s not harmful unless I can prove it is. He implies burden of proof is on the person claiming something is harmful, I agree.
He has not given an argument for why keeping pets is beneficial to human survival. I predict to do so he must appeal to positive emotions associated with it. If so I claim the same + pleasure for bestiality.
(2) My opponent has repeatedly acted as if he has already proven bestiality is harmful to animals. He has not. He had a single link which did not claim what he said it did. Yes I did search bestiality on the RSPCA site there was only one result “Animal Abuse” which provided a word document which I have searched half a dozen times for that claim. Without linking to the actual claim I cannot follow the claim back to the original data to evaluate its propriety. I will reject any claim that is not founded in concrete evidence gathered under accepted rules for avoiding sampling bias. Neither should any readers. I will require this before the last round, if he should conveniently find it only in the final round I ask readers to interpret this as dishonesty.
(3) His objection to the quality of evidence for my consent argument continues to be little more than grasping at the least likely interpretation of observed behavior. He is thus asking me and readers to forgo reason and common sense and assume that the animals who are sexually advancing on humans mean to do anything but what they appear to be trying to do. He ignores that knowing the animal's intent is not critical to perceiving their consent. e.x. If a dog gets in your car under his own power, he could be there because you asked him or because he wants to stick his head out the window. He consents in either case and you do not need to differentiate.
I'd first like to address Pro's later points in his argument in Round 3: "Yes, I did search bestiality on the RSPCA site there was only one result “Animal Abuse” which provided a word document which I have searched half a dozen times for that claim. Without linking to the actual claim I cannot follow the claim back to the original data to evaluate its propriety."
Sorry, I didn't realize that you could "cache" a website that automatically takes you to a work document. I have now "cached" it so that you can view on the web. Pro can no longer reject my argument for its legitimacy.
"You seem to accept that animals will shove their penis at you but don’t think that’s evidence of a sexual advance on a human."
This still doesn't prove that animals can consent to having sexual intercourse. I believe the BoP is on you, Pro. You have still not provided legitimate scientific evidence that animals are capable of making a sexual advance on humans. Besides, this isn't what the debate is about. At the beginning of the debate, you defined zoophilia as this: the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. The resolution is Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral. This is about human's sexual orientation and their attraction to animals, not the other way around. If you wanted to debate the opposite, you should've specified that.
"indeed when you try to stimulate your sexual organs using the body of someone else they tend to call that sex."
Again, the dog was not stimulating it's sexual organs inside another human's body. This isn't sexual intercourse. Also, we're talking about human's sexual attraction not the other way around but I'll refute your next points anyway.
"If a dog is willing to hump you they are consenting to hump you. If you cooperate that humping turns into penetration and orgasm for the dog."
You are assuming that since an animal is humping you, they have consented to hump you. So in the video, did the dog say this: Hey girl, may I hump your butt? No, it just got horny and started humping. Even if a few barks meant consent (which it didn't) we don't know what animals actions mean beyond reasonable doubt. Animals aren't like humans in terms of communication. So far, Pro hasn't proven that animals can consent and in order for it to be a law, consent must be shown in court. The BoP is on him, and so far he hasn't shown this.
"It does not matter if the animal has a specific idea of exactly how things will go. They consent to what they are doing..."
Again the BoP (Burden of Proof) is on Pro. Usually in debates, no new information may be introduced in the final round. I suggest we abide by this. The majority of my opponent's arguments have been blatant assumptions without any evidence and the BoP is on him. His argument's ultimately fail.
Me:“and in order for this to change, consent needs to be shown in court”
Pro:"Why? The definition of no other abuse is related to consent."
Pro:Ah! So something isn’t harmful to animals if one can’t provide evidence on how an animal is being harmed.What about a guy beating his animal senseless every other day? Is that part of being a pet?
“Sorry, I didn't realize that you could "cache"...Pro can no longer reject my argument for its legitimacy.”
Your link to the google cache is merely an online version of the word document I read six times. It does not contain the claim “Bestiality usually includes abusing the animal in a violent, sexual way. Consequently, some animals can die from the injuries inflicted upon it” which you used in round two. That claim remains the only argument you’ve made for the harmfulness of bestiality which you have repeatedly relied on in practically every point you’ve made.
You haven’t managed to correctly cite the source of that critical claim in three rounds. I still cannot evaluate the source of the original data; you’re out of time for that seeing as this is my last official posting. I accuse you of intentional dishonesty if you cite this or any other similar claim only in the last round. For the rest of this post I will consider your BoP for harm unmet and ignore any points relying on it.
“This still doesn't prove that animals can consent to having sexual intercourse.”
Yes it does, as my R1 argument demonstrated the creatures in question cannot pursue a course of action they do not consent to. Regardless of whether I shown you full acts of bestiality I have shown you animals pursuing sexual interaction with humans.
Humping is what a dog does during sex. The willingness to hump, have their organs stimulated, where the target is a human is identical to the willingness to fulfill their part in sexual intercourse with a human. Anyone who seriously beleives penetration is somehow drastically different they can read the studies I cited or just use google to see a dog penetrate a human (not youtube).
“Besides, this isn't what the debate is about.”
Yes it is, you are claiming that the animals in those videos are not demonstrating through action, implicit consent to sexual relations with a human. The fact that they are is key to a premise of my core argument.
“This is about human's sexual orientation and their attraction to animals, not the other way around. If you wanted to debate the opposite, you should've specified that.”
This is not about human’s sexual orientation. I provided the definition of zoophilia for convenience, it’s already legal to be attracted to anything. It should be legal because anything else would be thought crime.
I am not debating whether animals are sexually attracted to humans, it is irrelevant. They consent, their reasons are their own.
Maybe they are attracted to humans. Maybe they see any pack/herd member as valid targets for sexual interaction. Maybe they don’t find us attractive at all but we are excellent sex toys given they lack the ability to easily masturbate. Maybe they do it because they think we will like it.
It doesn’t matter, perceiving consent does not require understanding of the reasons consent was given.
"Again, the dog was not stimulating it's sexual organs inside another human's body.”
Yet videos exist of dogs (and horses) doing just that. Do you accept these as implicit consent? Don’t just say “no” tell me why and contrast your reasoning with my arguments in round 1.
"You are assuming that since an animal is humping you, they have consented to hump you.”
My argument in round one establishes that no assumption is necessary.
Since an animal capable of volition is humping you absent negative conditioning, they must consent to humping you.
“we don't know what animals actions mean beyond reasonable doubt.”
We know they mean the animal is willing to do those actions the animal is doing.
“So far, Pro hasn't proven that animals can consent”
“and in order for it to be a law, consent must be shown in court.”
That is incorrect. The law can ignore animal consent completely and state abuse occurred only if objective psychological or physical evaluation can establish harm. No animal consent needs to be demonstrated at any point in any legal proceeding.
The law can mention consent, and say that it is illegal to have sex with a non-consenting animal. In which case only non-consent needs to be demonstrated in court because the burden of proof is on the state to prove the animal was not consenting.
Your point is defeated, I have just given two variants of law that never require consent to be proven in court yet permit bestiality.
“This debate is about the legality of bestiality” [and all such similar comments]
We are debating the ideal legality of bestiality.
“Why would a government legalize something that isn't proved?”
Governments don’t legalize facts they legalize behavior. When did they prove animals can’t consent and that bestiality is abuse? I know you are all used to the status quo but the BoP for justifying a ban does not belong with those who think it’s unjustified but the people who made and continue to support it.
“Laws are made legal if they benefit humans in some way.”
What is done is not necessarily what should be done.
Finally bestiality benefits humans: It lets us release stress and express and feel love. If done instead of promiscuous human-human sex it results in less STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and friendship destroying breakups. So if benefiting humans in some way is your only criteria for ideal law, abolishing the ban is still ideal.
“Pro then goes on to say that…”
You have almost as many reading problems as wrichcirw. I said unambiguous, and there was a comma not a period between the section containing “animal products” and “necessary for survival”. Your last sentence in that paragraph was also unambiguous and showed that you were used ‘necessary for survival’ as the justification for ignoring consent.
“Pets are not beneficial to human survival”
First “necessary for human survival” then “beneficial to human survival” now we’re down to just “beneficial to humans”, that means pretty much any excuse to violate animal consent will do. Well I already gave you a few reasons bestiality is beneficial to humans.
“We presume the animal does want to be healed”
Which is somehow acceptable where a presumption of wanting sex is not (not that I am relying on such a presumption).
“The legalization of bestiality, and the legalization of bestiality porn are two seperate things.”
The latter requires the former. You justified shearing because it gave people jobs. Making porn gives people jobs too.
“You've just contradicted yorself....”
There is no contradiction. If law should be dependent on morality that is an inherent link.
“The burden of proof rests on the affirmative”
Incorrect, that is a high school conception of the BoP. I could just have easily of made my resolution “Bestiality should be illegal and is immoral” and taken the Con. Under the laws of logic the burden of proof lies with the original claim of existence. The defaults are that X does not exist or does not affect Y.
I claimed that animals can consent to sex, the burden of proof is on me since that is a positive claim. (and I have met it).
I claimed that there is no inherent harm. That is a negative claim; the burden of proof is on anyone who would make the positive claim and contradict my statement.
You agreed with this principle when you said “Since you still haven't provided any evidence on how an animal becoming a pet is harming it, we'll take it that you see no harm.” despite the fact that you were the one who originally said owning pets does not harm them.
“Yes, I did, and a cited a well-known author Frank Ascione PhD”
No you didn’t you posted a claim that I couldn’t even find in your links. Ascione was mentioned in one link and did an interview in another but there was no claim of ‘usually harms’ nor more importantly a citation of the study with that conclusion so the data and methodology could be examined.
“have sexual intercourse with it, what does this mean?”
First off you didn’t answer the question you asked another question. You said animals communicate with each other better than they do with us. How do you know, or are you just assuming?
Wagging of the tail is well known to mean excitement or happiness. He consents when the sex starts (yep the humping) and he keeps wagging his tail and/or participating in the way typical of his species.
“*Pro says that I directly said”
Actually that was a summary, you implied it by demanding that I prove pets harmed by being pets. From the beginning of the debate first instance of “You provide no ev”
“Bestiality negatively effects animals”
The section following that heading was an equivocation fallacy. RSPCA defines animal abuse as the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals. It is then claimed that bestiality involves abusing animals and thus it must be the infliction of pain or suffering.
Under the definition given bestiality is not abuse and need not involve abuse since it is not the infliction of pain or suffering. Con cannot escape the requirement for concrete evidence of inherent harm so cheaply.
The third link referenced by  is for penile cancer and has nothing to do with this.
“Bestiality doesn’t benefit humans”
I gave examples of how it does, and after reading that link I could barely contain my disdain. That is exactly the kind of sensationalist false conclusions I hate from third party reporting on studies.
Just one excerpt should be enough “The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time”
It’s an interesting phenomenon that doesn’t scale with exposure… eh?
My opponent seems to think the mere mention Dr. Ascione is enough citation, no need for specific studies or claims. If that’s the case I’ll remind readers that I dropped the name of Dr. Andrea Beetz who says “As has been mentioned before, sexual acts often include practices that
do not necessarily employ coercion, restriction, force, or violence; not only
oral-genital contact or masturbation, but also penetration of the animal can
be practiced without causing pain or injuries.” on page 65 of Bestiality and Zoophilia http://www.goodreads.com...
My Final Refutations
It did not directly contain that claim, your right. However, if you take direct quotes from sources, your supposed to put quotations marks and italicize them. That wasn't a direct quote. From the information from the source, I came to my own conclusion, which is what you're supposed to do. The source did explain how bestiality lead to harm against animals, so I summed it up in my own words. I don't think Pro gets the point of sources, you are supposed sum up the information in your own words.
"consider your BoP for harm unmet"
I don't know how may times I have to say this, but I'll say it one final time. The BoP is on Pro, not me, his burden was to show that bestiality should be legal and prove that it's not inherently immoral. My job is to negate the resolution. This common knowledge for all debates.
"Maybe they are attracted to humans"
Notice the word maybe... First of all, even if they are, you don't back it up with a source. Two, your videos prove nothing, and aren't even examples of bestiality. Even if we assume that animals can perpetrate sexual intercourse, bestiality involves many forms. By legalizing all bestiality, we are also legalizing a human raping animals without their consent.
Me:"Again, the dog was not stimulating it's sexual organs inside another human's body.”
Pro:Yet videos exist of dogs (and horses) doing just that.
"animal is willing to do those actions the animal is doing"
Again, you have no proof. If an animal is forced to have sex with a human, does that mean they have consented to this. No, as I mentioned before, bestiality comes in many forms and that means legalizing every form. This includes a human perpetrating the sexual intercourse.
"burden of proof is on the state to prove the animal was not consenting."
In this case, the BoP is on the lobbyists that want to legalize bestiality, by showing that animals can consent. Even if most governments ignore the consent aspect, they have done psychological and physical evalutations on bestiality and deemed it illegal since bestiality is essentially abuse. All I was saying was that in order to fairly debate the legalization of bestiality, it would be better to show consent in court.
"We are debating the ideal legality of bestiality."
I believe the resolution above is: Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral. In the opening round, you never mentioned anything about the ideal legality of bestiality. All we're debating the legalization of bestiality and the morality of it.
"Finally bestiality benefits humans:"
I find this newly introduced point hilarious. Although, normally new arguments aren't introduced in the last round, I will counter Pro's newly introduced point. You say it will result in less STD's, but the diseases from bestiality are astronomical. STD's could theoritically be transmitted from animal to human if an animal had multiple sexual partners in a short time frame. Potential disease include: Brucellosis from dogs, peritonisis, Q fever, Leptospirosis etc. Did I mention that bestiality also increases penile cancer by 46%? Yep, bestiality sure benefits humans (sarcsm). 
"You have almost as many reading problems as wrichcirw...."
Okay, now Pro's just blatantly insulting me. For sure a conduct point should be taken off from Pro. Also even if you said unambiguous, I did put a comma between animal products, and neccesary for survival in the first round. I don't see what you're getting at here.....
Me: "We presume the animal does want to be healed”
Pro: "Which is somehow acceptable where a presumption of wanting sex is not...)
Presuming that animals want to have sex is unacceptable for the following reasons. First, assuming that an animal wants to have sexual intercouse, can lead to humans forcing them to something they don't want to do. Hence, leading to rape. However, when an animal is ill, we help them since it's benefiting their well-being. Sexual intercourse, however, does not.
"If law should be dependent on morality that is an inherent link."
In premise B1, you stated that they already are an inherent link. In round 3, you stated that it should be an inherent link. That indeed is a contradiction. Therefore, if you amended changes to your Core Argument, it would look like this:
"/If a practice is moral is should be legal since law should be based on morality
/Bestiality is a moral practice
// Bestiality should be legal"
However, your last point would've been invalid since you stated that law and morality should be linked, implying that they aren't. By that logic, bestiality shouldn't be legal because law and morality aren't inherently linked. In an ideal world, the probably would, but this isn't an ideal world.
"I claimed that animals can consent to sex"
Indeed you did. However, you didn't back it up with any credible scientific sources. You just assumed they did, and never backed it up with anything. You have not me your BoP regarding that point.
"I claimed that there is no inherent harm."
Pro always has the BoP on everything he/she says. In criminal law in America (where my oppnent ADreamOfLiberty lives), the Prosecutor always has the BoP. If the Prosecutor were to make a negative claim, the BoP wouldn't be on the Defence to contradict that statement. Similarily, this applies to debates. Pro (Prosecutor), Con (Defence). By the way, you made a generalization of all forms of bestiality. If a man forces a dog to have sex with him, is that doing inherent harm? The answer is yes, Pro made a false generaliztion on all forms of bestiality.
"No you didn’t you posted a claim that I couldn’t even find in your links."
The point of citing something isn't to post a direct claim as I mentioned before: It's to come to your own conclusions. I did not put quotes or italicize that statement, therefore, it wasn't a direct claim. I just came to my own conclusion from that report of Animal Abuse by the RSPCA.
"Wagging of the tail is well known to mean excitement or happiness."
Again, the BoP is on you as I've explained a million times. You don't back this up with a source. Therefore, I cannot accept this to be true.
"Under the definition given bestiality is not abuse"
Again, even though the definition of bestiality isn't abuse, bestiality can take may forms. Since bestiality is abuse if perpetrated by a human, it is rape since animals cannot consent. Since legalizing bestiality means legalizing all forms, we cannot make the generalization that bestiality is not inherenly abuse. For example, killing somone in some situations is not inherently immoral. Does that mean, we should legalizing killing people? No, because we can't make generalizations about all killings. Similary, we can apply this to the legalization of bestiality.
“The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time”
Again, where did you get this information from. Since you haven't proven this, it can't be accepted to be legitimate.
Pro quoting Dr. Andrea Beetz: "penetration of the animal can be practiced without causing pain or injuries."
It can be practiced without pain or injury, but the above resolution would legalize every form of bestiality. Again, this would include humans forcing animals into sexual intercourse which would be considered rape.
Bestiality negatively effects animals
Since legalizing bestiality, would legalizes man on animal rape, most countries deem this illegal. Bestiality can lead to pain and suffering amognst animals without any necessary benefits to humans. Pro hasn't even shown that bestiality benefits animals, so I think I win this argument. 
Bestiality doesn't benefit humans
Bestiality is more detrimental to humans then beneficial. Bestiality leads to humans contracted a wide variety of diseases and does certainly not benefit their health. At least when your having sex with a human, you have a low chance of getting bitten. All in all, since bestiality mainly harms animals and doesn't benefit humans, it is deemed illegal.
**Pro fails to show that animals can consent. He only assumes that they can and doesn't back it up with any scientific evidence. Ultimately, Pro fails to uphold the BoP. I have proved that bestiality is more harmful then beneficial to both humans and animals. Hence, I think I should win this debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|