The Instigator
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Bestiality should be illegal in all cases in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,674 times Debate No: 49239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

bluesteel

Con

First round is for acceptance only.

Bestiality = sex between a human and a non-human animal

Because bestiality is currently legal in many states (such as Texas), the BOP is on Pro to argue for a change to the status quo.
bubbatheclown

Pro

I accept. Also, may I add that Texas is more messed up a place than I previously thought?
Debate Round No. 1
bluesteel

Con

== Definitions ==

Bestiality = sex between a human and a non-human animal

"Illegal in all cases" means that Pro must prove that every instance of bestiality should be illegal, regardless of circumstances. If Con wins a single example where bestiality should be legal, then Con wins the debate.

Zoophile = a person who is sexually attracted to animals; the term is often used to denote someone who is part of the "zoophile" [or "zoo"] community, meaning the person has sex with animals on a semi-regular to regular basis.

== Argument ==

1) Animals can consent

---(A)--- Animals with advanced cognition and language skills

If the only reason that humans cannot have sex with animals is lack of consent, Pro loses because there are clear examples of animals that can give consent. Chimpanzees have advanced cognition and language skills, including the ability to learn human sign language.[1] In theory, a person could teach a chimpanzee enough sign language so that the chimpanzee could actually consent to sex with a human. In addition, Homo sapiens are the most advanced animal species currently discovered. If humans found an ultra-intelligent alien species, it would be classified as part of the "Animal Kingdom." Animalia is characterized as a group of multi-cellular organisms that are capable of movement. An intelligent alien species that met this characterization would therefore be considered an "animal." If this alien species was equally as intelligent as humans, it could most definitely consent to sex with humans. I don"t think anyone would contend that it would be immoral for the two main characters in Avatar to have sex, even though one was a hyper-intelligent blue alien female and other one was a normal human male.

Con wins even if you think bestiality should only be legal if it is with a small subset of [highly intelligent] non-human animals.

---(B)--- Less intelligent species can consent as well

Even dogs can consent to sex with humans. According to an expert zoophile, "Animals cannot verbally say yes or no to sex in our human languages but they have other ways to show how they feel. Surely a dog who has mounted, say his human lover, experiences pleasure. This is evident because of his orgasm. Female dogs have orgasms too. Once a dog for example realizes you as a sexual being, they show sexual desire quite often: females will sway their tales revealing their swollen vagina's and dry hump the air in front of you, males will become erect and try to mount. Anyone who is [a] zoo[phile] will be aware of when their animals want sex. More importantly, they will respect their animal partner when they do not want sex. Sometimes when you rub your partner down there they will pull away and sit elsewhere. That is how animals show they are either interested or not. If an animal does not enjoy what is happening to them they will show bodily signs of this: they will tense up, their eyes and ears will move, tails might jitter, and they will pull away. If you continue it could bring painful results: Dogs have powerful teeth and will bite you! Horses can break bones (or worse) with a single kick. Quite simply, it is obvious to see what causes pleasure and pain. [T]he consent issue is really a smoke screen for the icky factor. By and large people are disgusted about the idea so they claim consent is a big issue when in fact it is not."[2]

This quote raises two important points: (1) consent can be inferred from an animal"s behavior, and (2) there are female zoophiles! If a human woman is having sex with her dog, it is hard to argue that the dog did not consent because the dog has to mount the woman and do all of the work. The dog could disengage at any time. Dog physiology is not conducive to the woman "being on top." Dogs can only do it doggy style. So there is literally no way that a female human could rape a male dog. The fact that zoophile sex happens between human females and male dogs proves consent.

In addition, my opponent cannot argue that "this is all due to training" because there are many documented cases of animals making sexual advances towards humans in the wild. "Animal sexual advances on, and attempted interactions with humans . . . have been documented by ethologists such as Kohler, Gerald Durrell and Desmond Morris, [and] Birute Galdikas who studied orangutans in Borneo. Philosopher and animal welfare activist Peter Singer reports: While walking through the camp with Galdikas, [she] 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,' . . . though the orangutan lost interest before penetration took place," presumably because it couldn"t figure out how to undress her. [3]



2) Even if animals cannot consent, sex with animals is morally permissible

---(A)--- Animals are not morally considerable beings

Professor Oderberg argues that rationality is a necessary pre-requisite for a being to have moral rights because to be morally considerable, a being must have (1) knowledge of its moral rights, and (2) the freedom to exercise those rights. [4] Animals have neither. Animals lack the self-reflective ability to know that they have rights. Even if we granted moral rights to animals and gave them a right "not to be killed," an animal would not realize it had this right or know how to assert the right. In addition, animals do not have the freedom to exercise their rights because in our society, animals are viewed as property. An animal enclosed in a pen on a farmer"s land cannot assert that it has a "right to be free."

In addition, animals cannot be moral agents because moral obligations are reciprocal. If you have a moral obligation not to kill me, then I must have a moral obligation not to kill you. However, rights-claims cannot be asserted against animals. As Professor Oderberg explains, "[E]ven the most hard-line animal rightist does not advocate prison (or worse) for chimpanzees that go on random killing sprees, as they are known to do. Nor do they advocate forcible prevention of lions from eating gazelles " "They can"t help it," it is said." [4] As Sam Harris has explained: "A moral agent is defined as any being able to make moral judgments and be subject to them. Moral agents must possess two faculties. They must be self-aware else they could not make judgments with respect to their own actions and so could not be held responsible. And in as much as moral judgments are stated as propositions, they must have a faculty of language. This is why non-human animals are not moral agents." Because moral agency is a necessary pre-condition to having moral "rights" [since moral obligations must be reciprocal], animals have no moral rights [and therefore no entitlement to be treated a certain way].

The same conclusion is reached through social contract theory, which posits that humans give up certain rights when they become part of a society. As John Stuart Mills explained, humans agree that in order for the proper functioning of society, when their rights come in conflict with another person"s rights (and thereby harm that person), the State can adjudicate these competing rights claims and prohibit certain behavior. However, non-humans are not part of the social contract, in part because they are not part of "society" [since animals are property, not members of society] and in part because they do not themselves agree to be bound by the social contract (i.e., they never "signed" the contract). Therefore, under Mills" harm principle, harm to animals cannot be a basis for prohibiting conduct. Conduct can only be prohibited if it harms another human being.

In conclusion, animals are not morally considerable beings, and therefore humans can do anything they want to animals. In our current society, humans can legally kill animals for pleasure when they are hunting. Since rape is generally considered to be less bad than murder, raping animals for pleasure cannot be worse ethically than murdering animals for pleasure [hunting]. The United States has no moral leg to stand on in banning bestiality unless it also bans hunting.

In addition, animals rape each other all the time and are never held to account. For example, approximately one-third of all duck sex is forcible rape.[5] If the concern about animal rape is the violation of bodily autonomy, there is no moral distinction between a duck raping another duck and a human raping a duck. Once again, the US has no moral leg to stand on unless it starts incarcerating ducks for committing rape.

Lastly, humans facilitate animal rape all the time. When humans breed animals, they often lock the female animal in a cage with an extremely enthusiastic male, and she is forced to copulate with him - whether or not she consents. There is no moral distinction between forcing an animal to copulate with another animal versus a human [because the violation of bodily autonomy is the same]. The distinction cannot be out-of-species sex, since we force lions and tigers to breed (to form ligers) and donkeys and horses to breed (to produce mules). The only way that it could be morally permissible for us to facilitate animal rape is if animals are not morally considerable beings and are therefore merely property that the owner can do with as he or she likes.

Liger:



---(B)--- Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism posits that policies that cause more harm than good should be abandoned and policies that cause more benefit than detriment should be adopted. However, when evaluating harm in the utilitarian calculation, "harm to animals" is not considered (in our society). As philosopher Peter Singer has argued, if you take into account harm to animals, this mandates vegetarianism is most cases because humans could sustain themselves on nothing but vegetables and this avoids a great deal of suffering on the part of animals. The harm to animals would outweigh any marginal benefit to our diets or the pleasure from eating meat. Since the US is not a vegetarian nation, it cannot adopt a utilitarian framework that considers harm to animals as a factor. Ergo, if harm to animals does not matter, there is no reason that a human cannot have sex with an animal, even absent consent.

In addition, the costs of illegality are not worth the benefits. Between 2 and 8 percent of the US population are zoophiles.[7] It would cost $5.4 trillion to incarcerate every zoophile in the United States. [6] In addition, studies show that sexual frustration leads to rape. [8] For example, when prostitutes and pornography are more available in a society, the amount of rape declines drastically.[8] If zoophiles are not allowed to satisfy their sexual urges on animals, they may take out their sexual frustration on other humans. On balance, making bestiality illegal does more harm than good.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] $28,000 average cost of incarceration per year (assuming 2 years in prison); $10,000 cost to arrest [http://tinyurl.com...]; $42,000 per hour court costs (assuming a short 3 hour trial) [http://tinyurl.com...]
[7] http://tinyurl.com...
[8] http://www.debate.org...
bubbatheclown

Pro

My conditions of victory state that I must prove bestiality should be illegal in the US in all cases. HOWEVER, likewise I ask my opponent not to give an impossible or extremely unlikely scenario to ensure victory, to make this a fair debate.

"If the only reason that humans cannot have sex with animals is lack of consent, Pro loses because there are clear examples of animals that can give consent. Chimpanzees have advanced cognition and language skills, including the ability to learn human sign language.[1] In theory, a person could teach a chimpanzee enough sign language so that the chimpanzee could actually consent to sex with a human."

"An intelligent alien species that met this characterization would therefore be considered an "animal." If this alien species was equally as intelligent as humans, it could most definitely consent to sex with humans. I don"t think anyone would contend that it would be immoral for the two main characters in Avatar to have sex, even though one was a hyper-intelligent blue alien female and other one was a normal human male."

Rebuttal 1. Animals cannot consent

Based off the information provided by my opponent, I will accept his/her claim that at least some animals will voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with a human being.

When engaging in any sexual activity, especially unnatural sexual activity, there is a risk for receiving a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) or a Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI).
Even condoms don't guarantee that this won't happen.
http://www.theguardian.com...
Even if these microfractures don't exist, the birth control device used could tear. Also, such devices are not made for animals, as far as I know. Of course, I could be wrong about this.
No matter how clever a monkey or a dolphin might be, you cannot make them aware of this risk. Therefore, in this way they cannot decide for themselves whether this behavior is safe or not. They'll simply engage in sexual activity because they're animals, and they want to do it.

As for the aliens, this is an extremely unlikely scenario, and unless the existence of extraterrestrial life is proven, this argument is irrelevant.

Let me add something else: my family has had a cat (we still have her), three dogs, chickens, and goats. And guess what: none of these animals have ever tried to do with a human (as far as I know) what you're talking about. Also, if most pets were prone to do this, countless disgusted pet owners would euthanize or give away their animals. My conclusion: it must be relatively rare for an animal to do this. Also consider that only a tiny percentage of animals in the Animal Kingdom have been domesticated. The rest will run from human beings.

Rebuttal 2: Humans Have No Right To Do This To Animals

Yes, humans are allowed to own animals and slaughter them for food. HOWEVER, humans are not allowed kill animals in an excruciating way. Many sexually transmitted diseases are quite painful.
http://www.cdc.gov...
So when an animal gets an STD, it will suffer, and thus you shouldn't do anything that gives it an STD, which will make it suffer at your hands.

Rebuttal 3: Humans Themselves Will Suffer From This
Animal Diseases That Can be Transmitted Sexually to Humans:
Brucellosis, Leptospirosis, Q Fever, Rabies, Flea Tapeworm, Echinococcosis, Campylobacter, Cryptosporidium, Cysticercosis, Giardia, Salmonella, and Toxocariasis.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Also, monkey are incredibly strong, including small spider monkeys. Regrettably, individuals have been murdered by "pet" chimpanzees that became out of control for whatever reason. Therefore, every monkey needs a trained handler because of their remarkable strength.
If a human and a monkey engaged in sexual activity, the monkey would almost surely (though perhaps not intentionally) cause a severe injury in the human.

Finally, my opponent says...

"In addition, the costs of illegality are not worth the benefits. Between 2 and 8 percent of the US population are zoophiles.[7] It would cost $5.4 trillion to incarcerate every zoophile in the United States. [6] In addition, studies show that sexual frustration leads to rape. [8] For example, when prostitutes and pornography are more available in a society, the amount of rape declines drastically.[8] If zoophiles are not allowed to satisfy their sexual urges on animals, they may take out their sexual frustration on other humans. On balance, making bestiality illegal does more harm than good."

So people cannot restrain themselves?
I admit that this law would be extremely difficult to enforce, but it should still be illegal regardless, in the same way that heroin or cocaine should remain illegal.
5.4 Trillion dollars does not have to be spent, because:
A. Every Zoophile would not be caught
B. Any Zoophile who respected the law would simply restrain himself
C. Incarceration and court costs could be lowered

Also, In 2012, an estimated 23.9 million Americans aged 12 or older"or 9.2 percent of the population"had used an illicit drug or abused a psychotherapeutic medication (such as a pain reliever, stimulant, or tranquilizer) in the past month.
http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Clearly it would take a lot of money to incarcerate 9.2 percent of our population. So does this mean we should legalized cocaine, heroin, and meth? This is a faulty argument on your part.

Finally, I say:
If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Leviticus 20:15-16
Of course, if you're not a Christian then you can ignore this one.

I apologize if I didn't respond to everything you said, but your argument was quite lengthy. Hopefully I answered your main points, though.
I look forward to ColorfulMetal's rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
bluesteel

Con

Remember, my opponent has the burden of proof because he is arguing for a change in the law. He asks that I not use extreme examples, but I already made clear that if I prove bestiality should not be made illegal in a single instance, I win. My opponent accepted the topic by accepting the debate.

== Rebuttal ==

STD"s

"[T]he STIs (sexually transmitted infections) we associate with person-to-person sexual contact, including HIV, cannot be transmitted through sexual contact between humans and animals because these infections are species-specific." [1] Most infections cannot cross the species barrier because they are designed to bind to certain specific sites in the body of one specific species. Therefore, all of my opponent"s arguments that humans will get STD"s from animals or that animals will get STD"s from humans are wrong based on basic biology.

-->My opponent cites a number of non-STD"s that can cross the species barrier, such as rabies, fleas, tapeworms, and salmonella. However:

===>(1) Many of the diseases are not transmitted via seminal or vaginal fluid (e.g. tapeworms, cysts).

===>(2) Many of the diseases can be transmitted to humans by mere contract with the fur of the animal or being bit by the animal (e.g. ticks, salmonella, rabies). People should be careful around these animals anyway.

===>(3) Most zoophiles have sex with their pets, who are unlikely to contract these diseases and can be tested on a regular basis. It"s probably easier to get your animal tested regularly than to convince a significant other to get tested regularly for STD"s.

===>(4) Similar risks of STD"s are present for human-to-human sex. If anything, the risk is higher for human-on-human action. By the time people reach their 40"s, 26% of Americans will have genital herpes. [2] Around 2 million people in the US have HIV. [3] 12 million new Americans are infected with an STD annually. People should be given the freedom to assess these risks and decide for themselves what to do, whether their partner is a person or an animal.

===>(5) If the human is a male, he can wear a condom. If the human is a female, she can buy special pet condoms for cats and dogs. [5] My opponent claims condoms do not prevent STD"s. His source says that the Catholic Church has told members that condoms do not protect against HIV because of micro-tears, but the same source says that the World Health Organization has debunked this myth.

Consent

My opponent concedes that there are some intelligent animals, like chimps, that can consent. Therefore, my opponent loses. I only had to prove that bestiality should be legal in some cases. My opponent claims that chimps would go crazy and attack people, but obviously, if a chimp says in sign language, "Let"s have sex," then it is not going to attack a person for doing just that. So my opponent loses off this example alone.

--->Aliens

My opponent claims that I win this argument if I prove that aliens exist. However, based on the number of habitable planets and the time scales involves, the existence of another intelligent life form is nearly a certainty. [6] Physicists testifying before the House of Representatives concluded that "[the discovery of] life on other planets is inevitable." [6] If we find intelligent life, we should be able to f**k it too [as long as those life forms consent]. Because aliens are part of the Animal Kingdom in our taxonomy system, legal sex with rational aliens would prove that sex with non-humans should not be illegal in all cases. Therefore, Con wins.

--->My opponent"s animals

My opponent claims that his dogs have never tried to have sex with him. However, my opponent has probably witnessed his dogs humping his legs or various other things. If not, his dogs are either female or neutered. Given this behavior, my opponent probably just misinterpreted this as something funny, when really it is the dog conveying a willingness to use the human body for its pleasure. Dogs don"t seem to care what they hump, so consent for many dogs comes easily.

My opponent therefore concedes my argument that when the animal initiates sex, particularly when it is male dog on female human, there is obviously consent. Therefore, my opponent fails to provide a moral justification for why bestiality should be illegal.

Humans have no right to do this to animals

My opponent"s only argument is that animal cruelty laws prevent gratuitous cruelty to animals. However:

===>(1) Hunting for pleasure is not deemed a gratuitous reason for causing harm. Likewise, sex for pleasure should not be considered a gratuitous cruelty, particularly if the animal consents.

===>(2) Many states, such as Texas, only ban cruelty to domesticated animals [not wild animals]. [7] These laws exists so that if someone shoots your dog with BB pellets or otherwise hurts your dog, there is a criminal statute to punish the person. It has more to do with protecting your property interest in your pets. These laws do not prove that animals have their own rights or are morally considerable beings. My opponent drops all my arguments about how no system of morality can support granting rights to animals. Animals are not part of the social contract because they do not agree to play by the rules of society. Harm to animals cannot be considered under utilitarianism or else we couldn"t hunt animals, could not breed animals (because this often involves the male raping the female), and could not even eat animals. Because the US does not plan on changing any of these other laws, there is no moral justification for banning bestiality. Pro therefore fails to meet his BOP.

--->My opponent argues monkeys will attack humans if they try to rape them

I agree, this would probably happen. People attempt to rape monkeys at their own risk. However, we allow people to do other things that are dangerous, like skydiving. Unless my opponent proves that animals have rights, which he has so far failed to do, then there is no moral justification for disallowing animal rape.

Utilitarianism

--->My opponent claims that illegality would not cost trillions of dollars because we simply wouldn"t lock up every person that has sex with animals. However:

===>(1) What is the point of the law if we don"t enforce it? My opponent claims that we have drug laws and selectively enforce those laws. This result is precisely what is wrong with drug laws in this country. They are almost exclusively enforced against black males, but not any other drug users. The fact that we don"t care enough about the law to enforce it against all drug users proves that drugs should be decriminalized.

===>(2) My opponent has raised a new point: it is impossible to enforce a bestiality law without violating the Constitution. People have a right to privacy, and the Supreme Court said in Griswold v. Connecticut and reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Texas that the bedroom is a private place that the state should not be barging into. The Constitution does not allow the law enforcement tactics that would be necessary to enforce bestiality laws because such methods violate the Constitutional right to privacy inherent in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, because bestiality laws are unconstitutional, vote Con.

===>(3) Even if only 10% of zoophiles were arrested, the cost is still $500 billion. Many people are exclusive zoophiles, so it is hard to believe they would not break the law since they are only sexually attracted to animals and not humans. This cost of incarceration is hard to justify since people are not harming another person and usually not even harming an animal because the animal often consents. In addition, my opponent drops my argument that if zoophiles are denied an outlet for their sexual urges, they may resort to rape against other humans. Thus, on balance, making bestiality illegal is simply not worth it. Very few people benefit from illegality, but many people are potentially harmed.

The Bible

The US has separation of church and state. The Bible cannot justify the adoption of a particular law. Regardless, Leviticus also says that gay sex should be illegal. Lawrence v. Texas says it is unconstitutional to outlaw gay sex. Leviticus is also not even a good source of morality, since it also says to stone disobedient children to death.

== Conclusion ==

My opponent loses because I only needed to show a single case where bestiality should be legal. I showed that it should be legal with (1) primates that can verbally consent using sign language, (2) hyper-intelligent aliens, (3) when the animal consents. Alternatively, I show that under various philosophical theories, animals cannot have moral rights, so Pro fails his BOP to justify why we should adopt such a law. And lastly, I show that such a law is net harmful to the extent it costs a lot of money and potentially causes rape. Because I offer five independent reasons to vote Con, I urge a Con vote in today"s debate.

P.S.



[1] http://goaskalice.columbia.edu...
[2] http://commonhealth.wbur.org...
[3] https://www.cia.gov...
[4] http://www.iaff.org...
[5] http://petcondoms.org... (lol)
[6] http://www.upi.com...
[7] http://www.animallaw.info...
bubbatheclown

Pro

Dude, there've been times in this debate where you completely misunderstood what I've said.

For instance, I did not say that monkeys could consent. I said that as intelligent as they are, they still cannot consent because they cannot be made aware of the risks involved with sexual activity between humans and animals, and thus they cannot make an intelligent decision on whether they should or shouldn't do it.

As for aliens, I didn't say that proof of their existence would mean that you won. I said that your point couldn't even be considered until alien life was proven. Also, that they "probably" exist isn't good enough.

I wasn't talking about people raping chimps. In any sexual situation between a human and an ape, if the ape grabs the human's shoulders for some reason, *snap* it'd rip the unfortunate guy or girl's shoulder's off. Then again, I suppose he'd be asking for it.

As for the Biblical reference, I said that you could ignore that point if you weren't a Christian. However, I am also against homosexuality, just so that you know, and I recently did a splendid debate with Luckystars on this subject.

Having cleared up these things, I will finish off my turn in this Round.

Okay, I concede that PERHAPS (and that's a big perhaps I think) you will not contract a sexually transmitted disease from an animal upon engaging in a sexual activity with it.
However, not much research has been done on the subject of bestiality and Zoophilia, because the scientific community is yet to be motivated to make arguments supporting it and deeming it normal. Most likely there are biological repercussions of this activity that we do not know about.
HOWEVER, humans got AIDS from monkeys. That's one STD that can be transmitted from species to species.

As for point number three, I suppose it would lower the risk. But what happens if your animal has one? Are you just going to give it away? This process sounds inhumane, inhumane and expensive.
As for point number four, that's like saying that smoking's fine because you can get lung cancer even without smoking. Of course, I'm not saying that smoking should be illegal. Even if I were to say this, it'd be a subject for an entirely different debate.
As for point number five, how do they know that there are no microfractures? Do they examine each one of those thingies under a microscope before they put it in a box?

As for my dogs, they were all outside, except for one that my family had when I was about four or five. My cat has been indoors, but pretty much all she's ever done is rub her head against my stomach. Then again, she is neutered. But like I said, would not thousands of disgusted owners be getting rid of their animals were this the case?

As for point number two in "Humans have no right to do this to animals." perhaps the laws on animal cruelty should be changed, as well as the laws on bestiality.
But like I said, if you give your dog AIDS through sexual intercourse, it's gonna suffer from it. and you should be held responsible.

Then, under "Utilitarianism." my opponent questions laws that we cannot enforce.
It is impossible to enforce every law out there. but we don't throw them out. We have immigration laws, even though probably thousands of Mexicans jump the border fence every day.
Also, drug laws are not exclusively targeting black males. I'm white, and if I got caught using cocaine, I'd be whisked off to jail just as fast as a black man would. Likewise, if you're black and you have no drugs in your car when the cops search you, you have nothing to worry about.
If 10% of the population is criminal, it's not necessarily the court's fault; why can't it be 10% of the population's fault? If 50% of the population consisted of child rapists, would you let them all go because it'd be too expensive to lock them up?

P.S. I thank my opponent ColorfulMetal for not displaying another profane (and almost pornographic) picture.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
I can't believe I completely missed this debate!
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Well, if I ever catch anyone committing beastiality with an animal I'm reporting them and I hope they get charged with assault on an animal. Animal Rights trump the human demand for sexual gratification!
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
If things go according to plan I should be able to post my Round 2 later today.
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
I must admit, your extremely strict standards that I must live up to in order to win will probably cost me victory. However, I will still try my best. I wish the best of luck to ColorfulMetal, and I ask him/her not to post another disgusting picture here.
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
Pervert (I'm saying this because of that picture you posted)
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
thanks for accepting - can you say "I accept" or something for your first round now? (plz)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
bluesteelbubbatheclownTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: This does not require much of an rfd. Cons utilitarianism argument ended this debate, pro had no response to it and it was just a steam roll. Most of cons other contentions went un refuted mostly but the utilitarianism was hands down his best and just was the nail in the coffin. I normally do not award sources but this is pretty clear as well
Vote Placed by Risen 2 years ago
Risen
bluesteelbubbatheclownTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt that pro did not meet his burden of proof! Therefore I must vote for con!
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
thett3
bluesteelbubbatheclownTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty clear decision. Pro doesn't really provide a compelling justification for prohibition of bestiality, and even if he did he lacks any solvency due to getting destroyed on the utilitarianism argument. I think the entire issue is largely irrelevant because the Supreme Court has decided that what happens in the bedroom is protected under the constitution, which makes the Pro case hard to make. I don't buy any consent based arguments--Pro is probably right that animals could never sufficiently be explained the risks associated with sex, but at the same time if we can kill and eat animals why shouldn't we be allowed to rape them? I think Con controlled the flow of the debate easily, and his impacts were simply so much greater that there's no way Pro came even close to meeting his BOP. Now let's hope casting a vote in favor of bestiality doesn't ruin my political career later on...