The Instigator
ADreamOfLiberty
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ithacus
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Bestiality should be illegal

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...
Ithacus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,073 times Debate No: 42248
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

ADreamOfLiberty

Con

Many people have complained about the restrictive nature of my previous arguments for the proper legality of bestiality. Said restrictions were necessary to make a positive case since in reality the default is that something should be legal and acceptable until proven otherwise.

This debate is a chance for those who think they can make the case from scratch. No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it.

BoP is on Pro to show that bestiality should be illegal, this will certainly include giving the general reasons anything should be illegal, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make. No need for other debates, no room to complain about unfair preconditions.

First round is for Pros first argument, Pro types only "end" in his/her last round.

I lied, I will include one set of restrictions, the definitions section:

(D) Definitions

(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......... .
Ithacus

Pro

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate you on this issue! :) May the best arguments win.

I do not necessarily personally believe or endorse all the arguments presented here – I'm just representing my side of this debate.

I accept the burden of proof to prove that bestiality should be illegal. Unless corrected by my opponent I assume that "should be" involves ethical, moral and legal concerns, among others. I accept all given definitions. However, unless explicitly stated otherwise by my opponent, I assume I may extrapolate on them in an ethical, moral or legal context, with the understanding that these extrapolations are refutable and arguably subjective.



What makes an act illegal?

This is subjective, so perhaps my definition will not match my opponent's. However, I believe that every animal has certain inalienable rights. These rights include life, health, happiness, safety and freedom. Your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others. Most largescale issues (gun control, abortion, prayer in schools) concerns whether and to which extent it is acceptable to assert certain rights at the cost of others' rights. Somewhere in that spectrum, society, law, philosophy and justice draws the line "illegal". The violation of rights may be termed "abuse". Not all forms of abuse are "illegal", making the term all the more arbitrary. However, my argument states that bestiality is comparable to rape, and as such an abuse of such magnitude that it should be illegal.

Animals have the right to health. Humans violate that right when they beat, starve, or otherwise assault an animal. Under my guidelines this is abuse, and should be illegal. This raises the question whether bestiality is assault, is abuse.


What would make bestiality comparable to rape?

I think we can all agree (hopefully!) that rape is nonconsensual sex. To answer this question, the central issue is whether all, some or no bestiality is nonconsensual. I would note that just because the sex is nonconsensual does not mean the victim is incapable of consenting to anything. Take pedophilia – children are capable of consenting to various activities, but the justice system holds that they are incapable of consenting to a sexual relationship with an adult because they do not understand what it means and are ignorant of its consequences. Similarly, a person who is drunk or drugged and coerced into sex in that state of mind can under certain circumstances be a rape victim because he or she was not, at the time, mentally capable of consent.

I have the burden of proof to establish that bestiality is comparable to rape, except between species. My argument is that, like a drunken person or a human child, the non-human animal's mental capacities are not comparable to the human's mental capacities to the extent that the animal is capable of consenting to sex with that human. This territory is a little blurry because we aren't actually technologically at the point where we can determine whether animals feel or to what extent their thinking patterns are comparable to ours. As such, from a moral, ethical and legal standpoint, I would argue: rather safe than sorry! If you aren't sure whether or not an action is abuse/assault/rape, better refrain from doing it until you are certain it's acceptable behavior.


Can bestiality be an abuse of power?

At least one aspect of rape is certain in regard to animals, and this is found in the use of rape to abusively assert power. When your boss, parent or teacher makes sexual advances, there is always a coercive element: resistance will have negative repercussions on your subsistence and health, even if the act itself is not physically damaging. Pets rely entirely on their human owners to care for them. In the case of owner and pet, bestiality is rape because the animal is unable to survive without their caretaker, and thus the caretaker is all-powerful, and resistance is both futile and destructive, and thus not a legitimate choice. The sexual encounter is, to some extent, forced.

Humans also tend to have great power over the vast majority of multicellular species in the animal kingdom. With our weapons technology we can kill a shark or a bear in one shot. We have a responsibility not to abuse that power over the survival of animals.


Is an animal mentally capable of consenting to bestiality?

Now to the question whether animals are mentally capable of consenting to sex with humans. Decision-making skills are attributed to the prefrontal cortex. This is the part of a child's brain which is underdeveloped; this is the part of an adult's brain which is inhibited by alcohol consumption. Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com.... Humans have often been lauded as possessing the most complex and sophisticated, if not the largest, prefrontal cortex in the entire animal kingdom. "The prefrontal cortex [is] the brain region that most separates us from our nearest genetic neighbors. The human prefrontal cortex has not only been shown to be more developed than that of other mammals, but it also has unique morphology and gene expression." (2007) Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

However, not all scientists agree that the human frontal cortex is the source of our superior innovation, productivity and problem-solving. A very popular paper has attributed human neurological uniqueness to the brain's flexibility, and, in a hypothesis highly relevant to this debate, ability to put situations in context: "At the core of our uniquely human cognitive abilities is the capacity to see things from different perspectives, or to place them in a new context. We propose that this was made possible by two cognitive transitions. First, the large brain of Homo erectus facilitated the onset of recursive recall: the ability to string thoughts together into a stream of potentially abstract or imaginative thought. [...] We propose that the capacity to see things in context arose much later, following the appearance of anatomically modern humans. This second transition was brought on by the onset of contextual focus: the capacity to shift between a minimally contextual analytic mode of thought, and a highly contextual associative mode of thought, conducive to combining concepts in new ways and 'breaking out of a rut'." (2013) Source: http://users.on.net...

If both transitions took place starting with Homo erectus, the human species is the only known animal species which is capable of recursive recall and contextual focus, both of which massively improve our circumspection, analysis of consequences, anxieties and decision-making. A sober, adult, healthy, sane human can decide whether or not to have sex with another adult human; an animal cannot neurologically reach a comparable level of consent and understanding.


Conclusion: Why does bestiality qualify as an act that should be illegal?

Because animals are unable to comprehend actions and their consequences in any way approaching human cognition, they are unable to consent to interspecies sex with humans. Additionally, bestiality is abusive in cases when the animal in question is a pet or otherwise reliant on human caretaking. Thus, bestiality is rape; rape is assault and abuse; assault and abuse should be illegal; rape should be illegal; bestiality should be illegal.


Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 1
ADreamOfLiberty

Con

May the best arguments win.
They always do.

Unless corrected by my opponent I assume that "should be" involves ethical, moral and legal concerns, among others.
Would you look at that, someone who reads ‘should’ and immediately thinks of ethics? There is hope yet!

Your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others.
Rights as you stated them are also limited by reality. Does a man violate another’s right to safety by failing to protect him? If so how can that man have a right to liberty?

my argument states that bestiality is comparable to rape, and as such an abuse of such magnitude that it should be illegal.

Nice and clear, but I do have a few questions. Are you saying the law should ignore these rights in other cases? If not would you advocate that the more serious abuses are addressed before the less serious? Do you really think all animals deserve the same rights and if so why?

I think we can all agree (hopefully!) that rape is nonconsensual sex. To answer this question, the central issue is whether all, some or no bestiality is nonconsensual.

Some or none are irrelevant, if non-consent is an unnecessary quality of the act the law must (ethically) draw the line at non-consent not the act. This is no different from human sex where only some is consensual / nonconsensual.

I would note that just because the sex is nonconsensual does not ... at the time, mentally capable of consent.

The justice system is confused. It is blatant contradiction to say a mind is capable of consenting and then give a list of things it cannot consent to. It reminds me of Ford’s famous statement about the choice of color on the model T, pretending someone did not consent is no better than pretending they did. The idea here is informed consent, and the reason it’s causing this contradiction is the fact it is confusing and conflating three separate problems.

1. Doing something against another’s explicit or implicit consent violates their liberty, their right to make their own decisions.

2. Failing to communicate what can reasonably be expected to be relevant information about an interaction to another party capable of receiving that information, especially because that information would cause the other party to decide against one’s own goal is dishonest. This is fraud in its most general form.

3. Engaging in an interaction that is known to have a significant risk of negative consequences with someone who does not understand and consent to the risk is immoral unless the interaction is necessary to avoid an even greater risk to the person.

These are in fact three separate requirements, and the law should reflect that instead of trying to bind them up into one legal structure. Honestly communicating all relevant details possible can satisfy #2. Understanding and consenting to significant risks is a way to satisfy #3.

However the mere fact that the law has to say “that’s not good enough” to some consent is proof they are separate from consent. In reality only for rule #1 is the consent of the other person an issue. For rules #2 and #3 it is YOU who should not consent if you cannot satisfy them.

Thus we must face the truth, children can consent to sex; and so can drunkards. Their consent is not the problem in these cases. It is the significant risk of negative consequences which cannot be nullified that is the problem. It is the fact that they can’t absolve you of responsibility that is the issue.

Never the less it remains from this analysis that there must exist a significant risk, a possibility of information that has been withheld in order for immorality to exist.

For pedophilia it’s #3. There is a significant risk of shame and self-esteem issues (psychological harm) when and if the person comes to believe they were violated. For drunk or drugged people the risk is similar for when they regain their awareness (unless the person’s attitude is extremely well known to be OK with it).

For people who have sex without telling their partner they have STDs the problem is #2.

If you drag a drunkard out of a bar and put them in bed after they have passed out, that is no less done without their informed consent than having sex with them. This is moral, it passes #3 because there were no significant risks.

If you buy an apple without being told that the Peruvian condor is a magnificent glider you have not been cheated because that information is irrelevant to the interaction.

If you are brought unconscious into a hospital they can still save your life without informing you of the risks because you weren’t capable of receiving that information. Observe that if you were awake, lucid, and talking they would be legally and morally required to pose the question to you first.

I have the burden of proof to establish that bestiality is comparable to rape, except between species.

Anything is comparable to anything else so long as they have any common qualities. You probably mean to say bestiality is rape.

Also bestiality is by definition between species, I will assume that’s a typo.

My argument is that, like a drunken person or a human child, the non-human animal's mental capacities are not comparable to the human's mental capacities to the extent that the animal is capable of consenting to sex with that human.

Can you please define the minimum mental capacity and explain why it only applies to sex and only with humans?

This territory is a little blurry because we aren't actually technologically at the point where we can determine whether animals feel or to what extent their thinking patterns are comparable to ours.

I think it’s fairly obvious and has been since the dawn of time that animals have emotions. As for proving it that’s going to be a bit of a problem especially since nobody has bother to objectively define emotions relative to behavior or neural activity.

You may be interested in reading this article (yes I know I hate these news ‘recap’ articles about scientific studies but I am not providing this as some kind of proof just an interesting related read)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

I would argue: rather safe than sorry!
I would argue rather true than paranoid, if you have no reason to believe something is abusive that’s the best you’re ever going to get since there is no evidence for the non-existent in the universe. Maybe saying you don’t believe in fairies kills them, and if they exist that’s abusive. How do you know they don’t?

When your boss, parent or teacher makes sexual advances, there is always a coercive element: resistance will have negative repercussions on your subsistence and health, even if the act itself is not physically damaging.
That is not true, the other’s ability to negatively affect your life as ‘punishment’ for refusing to consent is not equal to them actually doing so. For instance a male and female on a desert island, all else being equal the man could beat the woman to death 9/10. Coercion does not occur unless he actually threatens to do so.

For animals especially given their limited intelligence it is wholly unreasonable to expect them to fear retribution where none has ever been imposed, to fear starvation when withholding food has never been a response to their behavior, etc..

Pick up any pet training manual and you will find the same thing, if you want them to understand a connection between their behavior and your treatment of them you need to respond quickly; they will not easily associate your behavior now with their behavior two hours ago. Such a mindset will certainly not associate your hypothetical behavior.

Pets rely entirely on their human owners to care for them. In the case of owner and pet, bestiality is rape because the animal is unable to survive without their caretaker, and thus the caretaker is all-powerful, and resistance is both futile and destructive, and thus not a legitimate choice. The sexual encounter is, to some extent, forced.

All of the critical elements of that statement are false.

1. Pets do not rely entirely on their owners to care for them, most could survive on the streets or in the fields for extended periods of time, and even if they couldn’t they may very well think they could (hence the runaway problem). If they stay with humans it’s because they are social animals and their instincts across the board mean they will only feel secure and happy within a group.

2. The inability to survive without your partner is not the hallmark of rape non-consent is. Otherwise a husband and wife would be obliged to stop having sex if one of them ever became disabled (in most societies in history).

3. Resistance is not both futile and destructive unless you’ve got a nutjob caretaker. Zoosexuals go out of their way to make sure an animal knows he/she can say no to sex.

4. The sexual encounter is not forced to any extent without force or threat of force being involved.

Now to the question whether animals are mentally capable of consenting to sex with humans.

First another question. We know latex and other building materials are incapable of consenting to anything no brain, not even basic control systems.

So is sex with an inflatable sex toy rape? Why not?

A sober, adult, healthy, sane human can decide whether or not to have sex with another adult human; an animal cannot neurologically reach a comparable level of consent and understanding.

You start off with describing circumspection, analysis of consequences, anxieties and decision-making and then say an animal cannot reach a ‘comparable’ (read as similar) level of consent.

That does not follow, based on your three paragraphs of discourse and final summation your conclusion would be that animals cannot reach a similar level of circumspection, analysis of consequences, anxieties and decision-making. Consent is thrown in at the end without any connecting logic.
Ithacus

Pro

My argument in this debate remains that bestiality, like pedophilia, is intrinsically rape because an animal is incapable of consenting to the act of sex with a human. I will address some of my opponent's counter-arguments and continue to defend my position :)

I don't think humans are not animals, but I will occasionally use the term "animal" more informally to refer to non-human species just for the sake of brevity.


I have the burden of proof to establish that bestiality is comparable to rape, except between species.

I was using the term "except" to clarify that I meant rape between species, as the conventional definition of rape is restricted to within a species, along the lines of: Antarctica is like the North Pole, except with penguins. Apologies for the confusing wording.



Are you saying the law should ignore these rights in other cases?

Which rights, specifically?


If not would you advocate that the more serious abuses are addressed before the less serious?

Not necessarily, but more serious abuses ought to be illegal; the less serious the abuse, the stronger the argument that the freedom to commit them overrules the extent to which they violate others' rights. For instance, raping someone once is illegal, but slapping someone once is not illegal, due to differences in severity. I do think ethics and law should take the severity of an offense into account when debating whether it should be legal.


Do you really think all animals deserve the same rights and if so why?

That's a whole other debate :) I think that every individual is unique, and different species may have totally different ways of functioning. However, I hold that harming a living thing is abuse. The question is a) whether bestiality qualifies as abuse, and b) whether it qualifies as an abuse of a magnitude which renders it illegal. I answer yes to both questions because I defend the premise that all non-human species have one thing in common: they are unable to consent to sex with a human.



We know latex and other building materials are incapable of consenting to anything no brain, not even basic control systems. So is sex with an inflatable sex toy rape? Why not?

You mistake me. Sex with a toy is not rape in my opinion (so long as the human is consenting) because the sex toy is inanimate, it is not a living thing. A dog, on the other hand, is alive. I only extended the inability to consent to sex with humans to "all non-human species". Latex and other building materials are not animal species. Recall that the consequences of rape do not only involve physical damage, but also emotional and mental trauma and distress. We don't know whether animals can feel as humans do, but we are certain that inanimate objects cannot.


Some or none are irrelevant, if non-consent is an unnecessary quality of the act the law must (ethically) draw the line at non-consent not the act.

Not exactly. If no bestiality is nonconsensual, you win. If all, I win. If some, we debate whether or not it is possible for a human to accurately judge an animal communicating consent or non-consent. If an animal is capable in some cases of consenting, but a human is sometimes unable to understand whether or not the animal has consented, bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to control that all bestiality be consensual. You could make the argument that some 17-year-olds are mature and informed enough to vote, but because the consequences of and amount of exceptions are considered significant enough, US law places voting age at 18.



The justice system is confused. It is blatant contradiction to say a mind is capable of consenting and then give a list of things it cannot consent to

Like I said, I assume I may extrapolate on the given definitions in an ethical, moral or (as in this case) legal context, with the understanding that these extrapolations are refutable and arguably subjective. The legal parameters for consent are stricter than an informal definition because the law must always grapple with relativity – all actions fall across a spectrum, and the law must be concise if it is to designate certain areas criminal and others legal.



What is consent in a legal context? What definition of consent should be legally recognized?

I think it is quite rational to argue that only "consent in law" should be legally recognized. Let me clarify my usage of consent in regards to an animal consenting to sex with a human. Once more, I agree that consent is defined as permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. However, by this definition, consent can be induced coercively, or in an irrational or ignorant state of mind. You agree to sign the warrant – because a gun is held to your head. You agree to sign over possession of your house to a stranger – because you're so drunk you can barely stand. You agree to lend money to a charity – because you don't know they're actually a fraudulent sham.


(Excuse the density of the following sentence.) Because the law is looking at consent as a transaction between defendant and plaintiff, where one (let's say A) accuses the other (let's say B) of behavior they (A) did not consent to, while the other (B) claims the accusing party (A) consented to B's behavior, consent is only valid if the one who purportedly consented (A) was at least equally conscious of what they (A) are consenting to as B, i.e. the one claiming they (A) were consenting to the accused party (B)'s behavior. Thus it is perfectly possible to partially but not fully consent to the accused party's behavior. Hence the phrase "consented in fact but not in law".

Since we are debating the legality of bestiality, not moral or ethical standards alone, I argue that there must be consent in law in order to make the act legal. Thus, I am arguing that an animal cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. A warrant signed under threat of death should not be valid. A transfer of property in a drugged state should not be valid. The transfer of money to a fraudulent organization should not be valid. Bestiality should not be valid. In essence we are discussing the legitimacy of an agreement – a contract – reached between two parties, that ought only to be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way. This premise is not confused, it is enlightened.


Are animals incapable of "consenting in law"?

Forgive me some repetition so I might construct a clear, concise line of thinking:


1. Legally speaking, an agreement is a contract with certain terms (not necessarily equal terms) which both parties mutually agree to by entering into the agreement.

2. Both parties must enter into the agreement consciously and have both the freedom and capacity to consent. This is "consent in law".

3. The contract ought only be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way.


Now my (understandably arguable) conclusions based on these prerequisites for what constitutes legality:


4. By extension of #3, the one who consents must be at least equally conscious/aware of what they are consenting to as the other party.

5. Non-human species cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties.

6. In the case of bestiality, the human party takes advantage of the non-human party by exploiting it since it is unable to give consent in law.

7. Bestiality violates #2 and #3.

8. If bestiality violates #2 and/or #3, bestiality should be illegal.


Does bestiality violate #2: Both parties must "consent in law"?

I discussed at length in Round 1 why animals are incapable of "consenting in law" to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. It startles me why my opponent would consider humans' superior capacity to analyze consequences, make accurate predictions, have doubts and anxieties about the past, present and future, and make informed decisions, irrelevant to the question of consent. Regardless of whether we use consent informally or legally, our language was crafted by and is used by our own species exclusively. The dictionary definition of consent has a meaning made by and understood by humans. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that animal consent is at all comparable to human consent, and for my part I have produced several studies to show that humans have a vastly more sophisticated neurological arsenal for achieving much more comprehensive, insightful and accurate levels of decision-making and consent than non-human species. I think it follows quite clearly that animals cannot consent to sex with humans wiht an awareness in any way comparable to the human's awareness of the act. I look forward to supporting this argument with even more evidence in the coming rounds.


Does bestiality violate #3: Neither party should deceive or exploit the other?

One method of exploitation is the use of a living thing in an unfair way. Participating in an activity (such as sex) with an entity that cannot consent in law to that activity is illegal, unfair and exploitative, and as such it is abusive. Not only should bestiality be illegal, but the intrinsically abusive action of the human involved means that any human found breaking the law against bestiality ought to be punished additionally for animal abuse.



Conclusion: Why does bestiality qualify as an act that should be illegal?

Animals are incapable of consenting in law to bestiality. In addition, bestiality exploits the non-human species involved. Thus, it rests on a purported "agreement" which is legally invalid. Bestiality is rape; rape is assault and abuse; assault and abuse should be illegal; rape should be illegal; bestiality should be illegal.

Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 2
ADreamOfLiberty

Con


I was using the term "except" to clarify that I meant rape between species, as the conventional definition of rape is restricted to within a species


I provided definitions in round 1 to avoid this confusion.



Which rights, specifically?


‘These rights include life, health, happiness, safety and freedom’


All those rights are violated by the slaughter of animals for food.


Right to health is violated by medical experiments.


Right to freedom is violated by fences, leashes, and laws requiring animals to be placed in shelters when they aren’t in someone’s care.


Right to freedom is violated by all animal derived products that don’t require harming the animal.


Right to safety is violated by using animals in dangerous situations such as police dogs.



Not necessarily, but more serious abuses ought to be illegal


Good enough.


That's a whole other debate :)


Rofl, yes it really is but apparently that is not something that the denizens of this site really understand is it?


You said all animals had those rights, I am challenging that premise so I guess another debate won’t do, it’s going to be this one or abandon the premise.


b) whether it qualifies as an abuse of a magnitude which renders it illegal.


What is that magnitude? What is your objective justification for that magnitude? How do you measure the magnitude of an abuse?


I defend the premise that all non-human species have one thing in common: they are unable to consent to sex with a human.


Why just human?


Sex with a toy is not rape in my opinion (so long as the human is consenting) because the sex toy is inanimate, it is not a living thing.


What does animation have to do with it?


Recall that the consequences of rape do not only involve physical damage, but also emotional and mental trauma and distress. We don't know whether animals can feel as humans do, but we are certain that inanimate objects cannot.


So it’s not rape unless there is a possibility for mental trauma and distress?


Not exactly. If no bestiality is nonconsensual, you win. If all, I win. If some, we debate whether or not it is possible for a human to accurately judge an animal communicating consent or non-consent.


Incorrect, this debate is about whether bestiality should be illegal. A law is a universal. Banning bestiality bans all bestiality.


The analogous resolution would be “human on human sex should be illegal”. To win that you need to show all sex is illegal, the fact that some humans rape each other is not sufficient to justify a ban on all human on human sex.


If an animal is capable in some cases of consenting, but a human is sometimes unable to understand whether or not the animal has consented


Accused human rapist have claimed they didn’t thought the other human had consented. If the possibility for misunderstanding rendered the practice unacceptable then human on human sex would be unacceptable.


bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to control that all bestiality be consensual.


The law cannot control everything its purpose is to define what actions warrant punishment when those actions are proven to have been committed.


You could make the argument that some 17-year-olds are mature and informed enough to vote, but because the consequences of and amount of exceptions are considered significant enough, US law places voting age at 18.


Appealing to other subjective standards won’t make yours objective.


I think it is quite rational to argue that only "consent in law" should be legally recognized.


That is circular logic. ‘Consent in the law should be what consent in the law is.’


However, by this definition, consent can be induced coercively, or in an irrational or ignorant state of mind.


Consent is the opposite of coercion, you don’t truly agree or give permission if you are being threatened with force or fraud. People have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance.


Thus it is perfectly possible to partially but not fully consent to the accused party's behavior. Hence the phrase "consented in fact but not in law".


Hence my phrase ‘inaccurate law’ since it doesn’t reflect the facts.


Since we are debating the legality of bestiality


We are not debating the legality of bestiality we are debating the ideal legality of bestiality, you must prove that it should be illegal; not that it is illegal or that based on other legal traditions it would be illegal.


In essence we are discussing the legitimacy of an agreement – a contract – reached between two parties, that ought only to be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way. This premise is not confused, it is enlightened.


A contract is precisely what we are not talking about. You can’t sue an animal for not living up to their side of the bargain. The law does not evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement unless it must enforce that agreement, that is not asked for not required.


Now there was a pearl of wisdom in this paragraph:


if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way.”


That’s what it boils down to as I illustrated in round two [The justice sys]. Not ignorance, for none of us knows how ignorant we are of what we are ignorant of, but deception. Not intelligence for none of us know how unintelligent we are compared to a greater intelligence, but deception.


The refusal to give pertinent information, the direct telling of lies is the only common thread which separates what people think of as ‘informed consent’ from ‘consent.’


The word exploiting is ambiguous.


Are animals incapable of "consenting in law"?


Do not forget you have not established that animals must consent before the law or at all yet.


4. By extension of #3, the one who consents must be at least equally conscious/aware of what they are consenting to as the other party.


Counter-example, I hire a professional expert to solve a problem I am unable to. I am not equally aware of what I am consenting to, by definition I don’t know how they’re going to do it.


5. Non-human species cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties.


Again, why just humans?


6. In the case of bestiality, the human party takes advantage of the non-human party by exploiting it since it is unable to give consent in law.


Define exploit please.


8. If bestiality violates #2 and/or #3, bestiality should be illegal.


To recap I have not ceded that consenting to sex is a contract and therefore that 1-3 are applicable. I have not ceded that 1-3 are valid criteria for accepting or rejecting the enforcement of a contract. I have not ceded that consent of any kind is required from an animal for proper legality. Pro is getting ahead of himself.


I discussed at length in Round 1 why animals are incapable of "consenting in law" to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties.


No you entitled a section “Is an animal mentally capable of consenting to bestiality?” and then proceeded to thoroughly establish that humans are smarter than animals, something that I readily cede. You did not however make any progress towards addressing whether they are mentally capable of consent nor did you mention ‘consent in law’ at all.


It startles me why my opponent would consider humans' superior capacity to analyze consequences, make accurate predictions, have doubts and anxieties about the past, present and future, and make informed decisions, irrelevant to the question of consent.


Startled or not if you want to win this debate you will explain why it is relevant.


our language was crafted by and is used by our own species exclusively.


Actually animals have used bits here and there.


My opponent has the burden of proof to show that animal consent is at all comparable to human consent


Do not forget you still have a burden to prove that the law should outlaw non-consenting interactions with animals.


Animal consent and human consent, let me compare them.


A higher animal (capable of intelligent self-determination) perceives the world, the other life forms in it, and his interactions with them in a certain way as determined by his experience and his intellectual faculties whatever they may be. He decides which actions or interactions he desires based on whatever structure of values he may hold no matter how simplistic. If he decides to desire and indeed perform an interaction with another life form, and subsequently communicates this via any means to the other life form he has given consent.


A human perceives the world, the other life forms in it, and his interactions with them in a certain way as determined by his experience and his intellectual faculties whatever they may be. He decides which actions or interactions he desires based on whatever structure of values he may hold no matter how simplistic. If he decides to desire and indeed perform an interaction with another life form, and subsequently communicates this via any means to the other life form he has given consent.


There appears to be no meaningful difference. Since I have just compared them, they are comparable.


In conclusion the most important hole in my opponent’s arguments is that he has not established that all animals have a right to freedom, that is their consent should be legally required for any interaction.


Ithacus

Pro

Your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others. These rights include life, health, happiness, safety and freedom. My argument states that bestiality is comparable to rape, and as such an abuse of such magnitude that it should be illegal.

Are you saying the law should ignore these rights in other cases?


In response to the list of rights violations: I will happily debate you at a later date on whether these violations ought to be illegal. We are, however, not discussing slaughter for food or animal testing for scientific progress, but bestiality. I stand by my position. I also don't think the law should "ignore" rights; however, recall that "your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others". The law should only limit people's power if that power is used to violate the rights of others. However, not every minor instance of violation can or should be illegal – it's a question of how severe the violation is, this is what I mean by "magnitude".

I roughly contrasted raping vs. slapping someone. Rape is a violation of extreme severity; one slap is a violation of negligible severity. In the case of one slap, the severity is so negligible that the slapper's right to be free to slap someone once overrules the severity of the violation. It is true that these are subjective standards, but when they are on the extremes of a spectrum – as rape is – it shouldn't be too difficult to say that nobody is "free" to legally rape others. As my argument compares bestiality to rape, i.e. sex without consent from at least one party, and rape is an abuse of such magnitude that it should be illegal, so should bestiality. Anyone on this site is welcome to argue with me over whether rape should be illegal, and I hope very dearly that they lose miserably.


You said all animals had those rights, I am challenging that premise

What are your reasons? Since we are speaking about the legalization of an interaction with animals, I find the question whether animals have those rights very relevant. Here is an example excerpted from Virginia law:


VA. CODE ANN. § 3.2-6570 (2013). Cruelty to animals.

A. Any person who: (i) tortures, ill-treats, abandons, willfully inflicts inhumane injury or pain not connected with bona fide scientific or medical experimentation, or cruelly or unnecessarily beats, maims, mutilates, or kills any animal; (ii) deprives any animal of necessary food, drink, shelter or emergency veterinary treatment; (iv) willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal; (v) carries or causes to be carried by any vehicle, vessel or otherwise any animal in a cruel, brutal, or inhumane manner, so as to produce torture or unnecessary suffering is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

I stand by my beliefs, but for the purpose of this debate, I will narrow it down to one point: animals have the right not to be abused by humans, particularly not for a purpose as selfish and destructive as rape.


Why just human?

Because we know for a fact that humans are far more capable of faster, more complex and more sophisticated decision-making. Surely animals can consent to sex within their own species. Whether or not they can consent to sex outside of their species is irrelevant to the debate, with the exception of the human species.


What does animation have to do with it?


Um, everything? You can't rape a non-living thing. However, animals are alive.


So it’s not rape unless there is a possibility for mental trauma and distress?

Wha? When did I say that? I was pointing out that rape is not only a physical, but also an emotional crime, and that the emotional aspect is applicable only to living things that can feel.


Incorrect, this debate is about whether bestiality should be illegal. A law is a universal. Banning bestiality bans all bestiality.

That's literally what I said in the next 2 sentences :) As we know, human-human sex can sometimes be nonconsensual, but it should only be made totally illegal if there is no way for one or more parties to (a) communicate and (b) understand consent. This is the debate I was referring to. We could come to the conclusion that only some bestiality is in fact rape, but if animals are incapable of communicating consent to humans, and/or if humans are incapable of understanding consent from an animal, both in all cases, bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to legally discriminate (through "consent in law") between sex and rape.



If the possibility for misunderstanding rendered the practice unacceptable then human on human sex would be unacceptable.

Not what I said. If the law cannot discriminate between a case where both parties reached an understanding and a case where there was a misunderstanding, the practice should be illegal because there is no legal way to distinguish abuse from non-abuse.



The law cannot control everything its purpose is to define what actions warrant punishment

Among other purposes, two other relevant purposes of law are (a) preventing crime and (b) protecting those under the jurisdiction of the law from damage/harm/abuse. As you said, law is universal.



Appealing to other subjective standards won’t make yours objective.

I thought we agreed that this was going to be a "from scratch" debate. You can't possibly expect a random debater to come up with an objective standard for defining rights and abuses, thousands of years of human history were unable to accomplish it and I personally don't think it's possible. However, I consider modern law a pretty reasonable standard. After all, the standards of legitimacy of the law are what you wish to extend to bestiality. You have yet to provide objective arguments for that yourself.


That is circular logic. ‘Consent in the law should be what consent in the law is.’

Please explain what about "legal recognition of [an action]" is synonymous with an action which applies to legal standards. I said, "Only 'consent in law' should be legally recognized." If I had said, "Only a will signed in the presence of two witnesses should be legally recognized" would that be circular logic too? I'm referring to the fact that "consent in law" has certain standards; consent which meets those standards should be legally recognized. These standards do not include legal recognition, they are a prerequisite to legal recognition.



Consent is the opposite of coercion

Now that's subjective! The dictionary begs to differ. Consent: permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. Persuade: (1) cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument; (2) cause (someone) to believe something, esp. after a sustained effort; convince; (3) provide a sound reason for (someone) to do something. Something … such as consent? Nothing about the definition of consent you provided demands that the permission/agreement be given freely. The opposite of consent is dissent, which, by defintion, excludes coercion.



People have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance.

The argument is not that they do not have that right, the argument is that these decisions are not necessarily legally valid due to the condition of the decision-maker. And we aren't even talking about "people", we are talking about non-human animals. Do non-human animals have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance? A seven-year-old child may have the "right" to make the irrational decision based on ignorance to "consent" to sex with a thirty-year-old, but this act is not recognized as "consent in law", nor should it be, because we understand that this condition renders the decision invalid. It is your job to prove to us that bestiality is any different.



you must prove that it should be illegal; not that it is illegal or that based on other legal traditions it would be illegal

Strangely, I find whether bestiality is illegal or whether based on other legal traditions it would be illegal very relevant to the question of whether it should be illegal. Please explain to me why this is an illogical or inappropriate position.



The law does not evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement unless it must enforce that agreement

Incorrect. The law may evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement if there is reason to believe a party that entered in the agreement was illegally victimized by it. For instance, before the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, a contract where a master had legal ownership over his slave in certain states was valid. After, it was rendered invalid, not because it hadn't been enforced yet, but because slavery was deemed abusive, a violation of basic rights, and as such unconstitutional. In other words, the contract may have been enforced and executed already, but the defendant suffers from its consequences.


Again, we aren't talking about a contract that you sign with witnesses present – you don't do that in human-human sex either (unless you're just weird). However, a contract is any formal and legally binding agreement. Because we are discussing whether bestiality should be illegal, we should examine whether the agreement reached by both parties to participate in the act is at all legally valid – and if not, it should be illegal. One definition of agreement is "a negotiated and typically legally binding arrangement between parties as to a course of action". Because we are debating this agreement's validity in a legal context, I took the liberty of using the term "contract" to refer to it, in the sense of "a formal and legally binding agreement".


The word exploiting is ambiguous.

I provided a clear definition of the relevant meaning I was using: "
the use of a living thing in an unfair way".


you have not established that animals must consent before the law or at all yet

But I have established that sex without consent is rape, and my argument remains that animals are incapable of consenting in law to sex with humans.
Debate Round No. 3
ADreamOfLiberty

Con

In response to the list of rights violations: I will happily debate you at a later date on whether these violations ought to be illegal. We are, however, not discussing slaughter for food or animal testing for scientific progress, but bestiality.

Oh no, afraid it doesn’t work like that. Otherwise I could just go “we are not discussing pedophilia” every time someone brings that up (you did remember). Nothing moral or legal should ever be considered in isolation, it is all from general principle to more specific rule all the way down to applying it to a specific situation.

If you want to use a principle you are going to admit the other consequences of that principle. If the only way you can make bestiality immoral is to make all human-animal interaction immoral I will see you cede that long before I agree to that principle.

I stand by my position. I also don't think the law should "ignore" rights; however, recall that "your rights are only limited in that you should not violate the rights of others". The law should only limit people's power if that power is used to violate the rights of others. However, not every minor instance of violation can or should be illegal – it's a question of how severe the violation is, this is what I mean by "magnitude".

I roughly contrasted raping vs. slapping someone. Rape is a violation of extreme severity; one slap is a violation of negligible severity.

If you slap an animal who you have not hit before, and sex(which you are claiming is always rape) is a more severe violation then can we expect the animal to react worse to the first time sex then to the first time slap no? Why or why not?

It is true that these are subjective standards

Why do people get into arguments only to destroy any hope of supporting their position by admitting it’s subjective?

You know what that means right? It means it’s in your head and possibly some other people’s heads. By definition you cannot support it with reason or evidence.

I will thus ignore any further appeal to the magnitude of a violation vs rights since you have admitted to being unable to establish the magnitude of this proposed animal rape.

Anyone on this site is welcome to argue with me over whether rape should be illegal

You’re relying on that premise here in this debate. Support it here or lose this debate.

What are your reasons?

Causing you to be unable to meet your BoP before we run out of rounds to be perfectly honest.

I stand by my beliefs, but for the purpose of this debate...icularly not for a purpose as selfish and destructive as rape.

Nice but you didn’t support those beliefs. The Virginia law does not prove a right to non-abuse, no law can.


Because we know for a fact that humans are far more capable of faster, more complex and more sophisticated decision-making. Surely animals can consent to sex within their own species. Whether or not they can consent to sex outside of their species is irrelevant to the debate, with the exception of the human species.

It has every relevance. Here you put the contradiction you have implied before on clear display.

Humans are capable of better decision making, totally irrelevant to what an animal is capable of.

You are treating consent like a function of two minds but it isn’t, it’s just a function of one. One mind is capable of consent or one mind is not.

A human is not rendered incapable of consent because a smarter human or a smart alien walks into the room.

There is no definitive evidence of telepathy in the real world, there is no supportable mechanism by which human intelligence could interfere with an animal’s mental capacities.

I will illustrate the contradiction with a hypothetical scenario, and no it doesn’t matter that this can’t be done currently.

I go through some kind of machine that allows my brain to control an animal (seen avatar?). I go out finds some animals of the same species as my host body. I act just like they do. I have sex with some of them.

You said Surely animals can consent to sex within their own species’, Does the other animal consent to sex in that case or do they not?

If you say they do, then you admit my intelligence does not matter to whether they consent.

If you say they do not, then you admit that your idea of consent is independent of their perception or mental processes (since to them I am just another animal their process is identical).

The latter case is in contradiction with the definition of consent which is a communicated mental decision, it can never be independent of the deciding party’s mind.


Um, everything? You can't rape a non-living thing.

Why? you can have sex with a nonliving thing and they can’t consent.

there is no way to legally discriminate (through "consent in law") between sex and rape.

If a private citizen can discriminate so can the law. If neither can discriminate then assuming it’s all rape is just as fallacious as assuming it’s all consensual.

If the law cannot discriminate between a case where both parties reached an understanding and a case where there was a misunderstanding, the practice should be illegal

The same is true of petting under your premises. Remember you can’t invoke differing magnitudes you admitted they were subjective.

(b) protecting those under the jurisdiction of the law from damage/harm/abuse.

Including abuses and harm from the law which includes being punished despite doing nothing wrong.


I thought we agreed that this was going to be a "from scratch" debate. You can't possibly expect a random debater to come up with an objective standard for defining rights and abuses, thousands of years of human history were unable to accomplish it and I personally don't think it's possible.

I expected the exact opposite: that no one would ever be able to do that in the space given; I knew from the moment I created the debate that you could not win since you would never be able to meet the BoP. I must confess I was trying to prove a point to those who claimed my earlier challenges made debating impossible. The truth is this, from scratch; nothing is given is what is really impossible (for the positive position). Unfortunately you accepted the debate. From round one:

No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it.”

“giving the general reasons anything should be illegal, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make”

It’s not fair, and voters are probably going to vote for you despite failing to meet your BoP, but that is not my concern.

If I had said, ‘Only a will signed in the presence of two witnesses should be legally recognized’ would that be circular logic too?”

If your supporting argument was that only a will signed in the presence of two witnesses is legally recognized.

I'm referring to the fact that "consent in law" has certain standards; consent which meets those standards should be legally recognized.

Support those standards.

The opposite of consent is dissent, which, by defintion, excludes coercion.

I hate it when this happens… the dictionary appears to be in contradiction with itself.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...+

It does use the word persuade in the definition of coerce but in the definition of persuade it says “induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument” and an appeal to force is a fallacy.

The dictionary should not have used the word persuade in the definition of coerce.

because we understand that this condition renders the decision invalid.


I do not understand it. A decision is a decision, unless it is induced by force, fraud, or threat of force it is not essentially any different from any other decision.


It is your job to prove to us that bestiality is any different.

Then it is your job to prove that violating consent of animals in order to eat them is any different from violating their consent to have sex with them.

Please explain to me why this is an illogical or inappropriate position.

What the law is, does not tell you what it should be, regardless of which part of the law is the subject at hand.

For example if we were debating whether blacks should be slaves, and you relied on another legal tradition whereby kidnapping someone from Africa gives you the right to enslave them. That is no less begging the question than just appealing directly to a law that says blacks are slaves.


The law may evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement if there is reason to believe a party that entered in the agreement was illegally victimized by it.

Circular logic again, you can’t use terms like illegally when the question at hand is proper legality.

For instance, before the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, a contract where a master had legal ownership over his slave in certain states was valid.

There was not contract, the consent of the slave was not required. It was a deed or bill of ownership that was considered valid.

Again, we aren't talking about a contract that you sign with witnesses present – you don't do that in human-human sex either (unless you're just weird).

Human-human sex is not a contract either. There are no binding agreements. Consent is given in real time and can be retracted at any time. There is no need to establish the terms and verify that both parties understand them since neither party is bound to honor any terms (except maybe the implicit term that you don’t lie about what happened or break any other laws).

"the use of a living thing in an unfair way".

Well in that case bestiality is not inherently exploitive. In theory pleasure, consent, and benefit are all equal in the long run.

But I have established that sex without consent is rape, and my argument remains that animals are incapable of consenting in law to sex with humans.

You have equally established that they are incapable of consenting in law to sex with other animals. Thus you have established that every breeding program is organized rape. I hope you’re not advocating that?

Ithacus

Pro

Firstly, please stop taking my words out of context. Often, when you read the whole paragraph you find I was referring to something else, or quickly followed up with an explanation that made my claim more reasonable or identified exceptions. Much of your Round 4 argument rests on the incorrect assumption that I called my standards for positing that rape should be illegal subjective. This is patently inaccurate. Reading the quote in full context reveals that "these standards" I was referring to were legal standards; I was describing a legal perception of magnitude. Since the parameters of the debate involved no pre-existing legal standards, I assumed it should be obvious to everyone that in the context of this debate, all legal standards are subjective. What I did not expect was that you expected me to make objective arguments to support subjective legal standards.

Additionally, you ended on another mistaken note by saying, "You have equally established that they are incapable of consenting in law to sex with other animals", then proceeded to make ridiculous statements based on that foolish premise. I said exactly the opposite. I said: "Surely animals can consent to sex within their own species. Whether or not they can consent to sex outside of their species is irrelevant to the debate, with the exception of the human species." I really have no idea how this can be interpreted to mean that I think breeding programs are organized rape. It may surprise you to learn that a "species" is biologically defined by its inability to produce fertile offspring with partners not in its species.

I am not interested in what the voters think, or whatever emotionally driven judgment you accuse them of. I'm not asking for their sympathy for my plight at your "unfair" demands, I'm interested in losing this debate to a lesser extent than you did – or winning to a greater extent than you did – based on the power of logical reasoning alone. I was perfectly aware of the parameters of the debate when I entered into it, although I was perhaps surprised by how literally you planned to pursue certain aspects. I have always respected the preconditions you set for this debate, even when I disagreed with some extensions of those preconditions.

Perhaps you're right in assuming that it is impossible for me to uphold my BoP – but at least I tried bringing reasonable and insightful arguments to the table to support my views, instead of pecking at feeble strawmen. Thus, I shall devote my remaining characters to attempting to objectively, by the parameters of this debate, defend the premise that rape should be illegal. We shall see whether I am able to make a strong case for my perspective. Again, my position remains that animals are incapable of consenting to sex with humans, and thus bestiality is rape, and should be illegal. Thank you for an interesting debate :) May the best arguments win.



I will place my objective argument on a neurological basis, though I will oversimplify for clarity. Animal brains are equipped with pain receptors. Injury – for instance, a cut or burn wound – results in suffering in order to discourage the animal from repeating behavior which resulted in the injury, such as stepping on glass or touching fire. While unpleasant, the biological purpose of suffering is self-preservation, giving the organism a better chance at survival, and survival is the ultimate biological aspiration of all life. Activities that benefit survival or perpetuation of genes, among them intraspecific sex and eating, are "rewarded" with pleasant sensations to encourage such behavior.

The natural "goal" of life is the perpetuation of life, through both the survival and reproduction of the individual. All actions and experiences either improve the chances of survival and/or reproduction – in essence, work constructively towards life – and are biologically pleasurable, or reduce the chances of survival and/or reproduction – in essence, work destructively against life – and are biologically painful. When deciding what we humans in a society should and should not do, for the purpose of furthering not only the survival of our own species, but all life, surely this objective principle of construction vs. destruction could be a reliable consideration when law and ethics fail us. As members of living things on the planet, rationally speaking we should minimize unnecessary destruction against all living things to ensure maximum survival and minimum suffering, for the best interest of our own survival.

Why needlessly induce suffering in an animal that cannot defend itself against the harm? This is not a constructive action. Trauma, both physical and emotional, is suffering, and thus biological destruction. There is no objective net biological benefit which arises from rape [1], only biological trauma, i.e. destruction. When the tiger mauls the antelope, the victim is also subject to great pain, but as it is necessary for the tiger's survival and thus the survival of the tiger's offspring, it is both a destructive and constructive act. Rape is not necessary for the rapist's survival, nor is it biologically constructive: social psychologists share a consensus that human rape is about (a) anger or (b) power, not pleasure or procreation [2], and interspecific rape is certainly not about reproduction. The destruction of inflicting harm on a living thing for no constructive purpose hurts the chances of survival of all living things, and as such should be avoided on the grounds that we humans, as living things, should act in favor of our own survival.

This is not to say that evolutionary or natural selection principles should be applied to human society; that is social Darwinism and it is deeply flawed because it assumes that our culture's goal is survival of the most powerful individuals, when really a humanist philosophy which embraces the rights and freedoms of all humans works in tandem with the objective argument that, as a society, we should maximize life and minimize suffering, which would certainly discourage slavery and genocide, among other grievous human rights abuses. There is a sound biological basis for objecting to rape and other destructive violence, namely the insistence that life forms (such as humans) exhibiting purely destructive behavior against other life forms is destructive to life as a whole, and thus self-destructive and counter-productive to our collective survival.


[1] http://www.academia.edu...

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Since I still have some characters left I might as well delve more into the question of whether animals are capable of consenting to sex with humans, since you continue to express skepticism about this rather well-supported premise. I have already mentioned two central aspects of the mental flexibility which makes humans a unique animal species, namely recursive recall: the ability to string thoughts together into a stream of potentially abstract or imaginative thought, and contextual focus: the capacity to shift between a minimally contextual analytic mode of thought, and a highly contextual associative mode of thought, conducive to combining concepts in new ways. http://users.on.net.... I consider both highly relevant to my argument that humans are capable of far more sophisticated levels of cognitive thinking and decision-making, which animals cannot mentally match.

Furthermore, Marc Hauser, director of the cognitive evolution lab at Harvard University, published that "mounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin's theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind." "Hauser and his colleagues have identified four abilities of the human mind that they believe to be the essence of our [unique] mental traits and abilities that distinguish us from [other animals]." http://www.livescience.com...

These are (1) generative computation, (2) promiscuous combination of ideas, (3) mental symbols, and (4) abstract thought, all of which are exclusively human mental faculties. "This is not to say that our mental faculties sprang fully formed out of nowhere," Hauser wrote. "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement foot print of the skyscraper that is the human mind." We cannot equate the decisions made by a human mind with the decisions made by a non-human animal mind. This is not to say that animals are inferior in all forms of thinking or perception, it is to say that the cognitive abilities essential for consent – abilities undeveloped or impaired in children and drunk adults – require certain mental functions that animals factually, biologically, objectively, do not possess.


Animals do not have the mental faculties necessary to consent to the extent that a human can.
Again, if you wish to make bestiality illegal, whether or not you agree with the law, you must argue that bestiality meets the law's non-rape standards, and this includes the animal's capacity to consent in law. This capacity is nonexistent. Therefore, bestiality is, legally speaking, rape, and rape should be illegal. Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 4
ADreamOfLiberty

Con

ADreamOfLiberty forfeited this round.
Ithacus

Pro

All arguments extended. May the best arguments win :) Happy holidays.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Logical-Master 2 years ago
Logical-Master
Leaning towards a PRO vote here since it doesn't appear that CON restricted this debate to disregarding what already is the law.
Posted by UserNameThatIsBeingTyped 2 years ago
UserNameThatIsBeingTyped
http://www.debate.org... #191

I apologize for forfeiting. When I start using my true account again I will deal with your response in that thread.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 2 years ago
Logical-Master
ADreamOfLibertyIthacusTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: [Conduct Verdict: PRO] Last round forfeit. Sorry, but a forfeit, unless for reasons beyond your control, is bad conduct in my book. [S/G Verdict: Tied]: I saw nothing of merit a S/G vote for either party. [Convincing Arguments]: CON didn't make any restrictions on the type of evidence acceptable in this debate, thus put himself at a grave disadvantage. PRO's argument that animal's cannot consent in the eyes of the law is next to impossible to overcome. PRO demonstrated this brilliantly by demonstrating that animals simply don't come close to have the mental faculties humans do. Thus, since there's no consent, bestiality is rape from a legal standpoint. [Reliable Sources Verdict: PRO] PRO's scientific sources helped corroborate his arguments greatly.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
ADreamOfLibertyIthacusTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff last round