The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Miserlou
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Bestiality should be legal so long as permission is given by the owner of the pet or animal.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,201 times Debate No: 2518
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (23)

 

DucoNihilum

Pro

I beleive that animals, being slaves to humans, have no rights against sex acts- and therefore there should not be laws against sex acts between a man and his property, whatever that property might be.
Miserlou

Con

Animals may be "property", but your argument assumes that there is no difference between an animal and a car, or a computer, and therefore they are deserving of some rights, especially where bestiality is concerned.

First and foremost, and animal is a living thing that can feel pain, and other emotions too depending on the animal. Because of this, we have responsibilities to them as we do to each other. Mental superiority does not give us the right to do whatever we want; I am mentally superior to someone with severe brain damage but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to hurt them. And bestiality is causing harm; sex without arousal is very painful, and it is doubtful that the animal would be aroused by a human. And if we say that we are more fit to take care of animals than the animals themselves, we have to take their overall well-being into consideration with our own needs
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Pro

There are major differences between animals and people. The simple fact that animals can feel pain does not mean we can or should afford them rights- every mildly complex living creature (even plants) react to 'pain'. Should we all die from lack of food? After all, wouldn't killing an animal, plant, insect, etc be a form of murder- or even worse- slavery? Most people would disagree, why? Because animals, plants, etc do not deserve human rights. They're not human, they can not possibly (as a species) ever follow by our laws or responsibilities. They are brutes.

Bestiality is most likely painful, but animals have no rights against such. After all, much more severe crimes than rape are subjected to animals with no consequences, included in those would be slavery and mass murder.

If you argue that animals should have rights, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that 'well, slavery and murder is legal, but rape- oh gosh no'.
Miserlou

Con

The "pain" felt by plants is not analogous to the pain felt by animals. Plants have a system of nerves that allow them to react to outside forces, but they do not feel the unpleasant sensation of pain that humans and animals do. If I hit a dog and then hit a human both would have similar reactions; crying out, moving away or trying to defend themselves.

We do have some rights over animals. Killing animals for food is within our rights because we need meat to eat; of course vegetarians get along fine but humans our omnivore's and meat is healthier and even necessary for some people. As for your "slavery" claim, most animals who do actual work for humans, for example pack horses, aren't in any abnormal amounts of physical pain, and because they do not have the emotional needs of humans slavery isn't torture for them. The same goes for pets, most of whom lead much better lives then they would in the wild.

But what the real debate here is whether animals have any rights at all. We may be the dominant species but this doesn't mean that other species can be treated without regard. Animals are essential to us, and they can feel pain as humans do, and so we have a moral obligation to treat them with some kindness and respect. It's true that animals can't take on human responsibilities, but as we are mentally superior we should be able to take on more responsibilities than animals.

Animals do have rights, and bestiality is a breech of them, because it causes unnecessary physical pain. We kill animals because we need to eat them, we don't need to have sex with them.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Pro

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
Miserlou

Con

Given the forfeit, my argument remains the same- animals do have rights and bestiality is a violation of those.
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Pro

Pain is simply a method by which an organism communicates with itself distress- while plants might not feel the same 'pain' we do, they still feel distress when harmed. Plants act to move away from harm and toward good, and have methods of trying to defend themselves from harm.

You seem to misunderstand the very concept of rights; you can't have 'rights over' something, rights are equal. If you were to kill a human, claiming that you would 'need' the meat it would clearly be unjust- but why? Because it's a human, an intelligent creature worthy of rights. The same claim you made of animals not being slaves could have easily been used by slave masters of a few hundred years ago.... In one case, an actual human is harmed (As with the human slavery). Most everybody would argue that slavery of humans is horrible, yet slavery of animals is infact beneficial to them- why though? Because we're more intelligent than them. We're essentially their gods, we have full rights over animals so long as we own them.

In other animal worlds dominance means that other species can be treated without regard. In fact, dolphins kill others young for the hell of it. While I agree civility is needed for each other (humans) we have no obligation to treat animals with any civility. If animals feel pain, they feel pain while being killed for food, while being harvested (plants) and while being enslaved.
Miserlou

Con

I do not misunderstand the very concept of rights. Humans have rights over each other- my parents have certain rights over me until I turn eighteen; rights over my bank account, where I go to school, anything that requires parental consent. At the same time, my parents are responsible if I do something wrong; if a minor is caught with beer then his parents can be held accountable whether they knew about it or not. If a child doesn't go to school his or her parents can be held responsible, and child abuse is illegal. The principle behind these laws that children are inferior in some ways to adults and therefore adults can have control over them. But children still have some rights, and adults are not allowed to just do whatever they want when it comes to kids.

I'm not saying animals and kids are the same, but the principle is the same: rights are not all or nothing. Children and adults are different, and animals and people are very different. Plants feel "pain", but they not the physical suffering that animals do, and at any rate bestiality does not involve plants at all.

As to your argument that animals kill in the wild, we say that we are superior so let's act like it; just because animals act a certain way doesn't mean we should act that way towards them- we have higher brains and higher morals. It's the idea of being the better person, or in this case, species.

You said yourself that animal enslavement is just, but that does not mean we are their "gods". Animals do not have no better purpose then to serve us; they would be fine without humans- the exceptions being domesticated cats and dogs, but they are only the result of our impact on evolution. We are not doing animals any favors, so it would reason that morally we should cause them the least pain possible after taking what we need from them.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysopoeia 2 years ago
Chrysopoeia
Contrary to popular opinion, humans are animals too - neither superior nor inferior, merely different in our speciality. Likewise, non-humans have and enjoy sexual activities, and the argument that zoophilic relationships are exclusively against the interests of the non-human involved is completely baseless; just as a human can be aroused by a non-human, a non-human can be aroused by a human. Mutual relationships are very possible, and happen frequently. The opponent's dismissal of non-humans' ability to consent is just as insulting to the dignity of non-humans as the proponent's treatment of them as property.

In summary: No, I do not believe that bestiality should be legal under these "property" terms as they are demeaning to the non-humans involved. However, I DO believe that bestiality should not be strictly illegal, as there is - in most species - a clear difference between sex and sex abuse between animals (even if casual or biased observers often fail to see the distinction).
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
Basically, cons only agrument, is against bestiality which results in harming the animal...

Imagine this scenario..
A girl drops her pants and her panties, she than spreads her legs, and excitedly shouts "Come here boy". And a dog appears frantically, jumps up and begins to hump her, girading it's hips back and forth.

where is the "harm'?

yes it is "yucky" But I guarantee you, that not only is the dog unharmed, but he is enjoying the HELL out of himself.

If you argue that it is because the animal does not "Know any better".. should it be against the law to allow animal on animal sex?
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
How well thought out!
Posted by CoronerPerry 8 years ago
CoronerPerry
this is a disturbing topic, and it leads me to believe that DucoNihilum has had experience in bestiality, and is fighting it so he can do it openly...
Posted by nitrogen85 8 years ago
nitrogen85
Miserlou, I would like to debate you. It would be interesting. You decide who is to pick the topic. By the way, I voted con.
Posted by nitrogen85 8 years ago
nitrogen85
Miserlou, I would like to debate you. It would be interesting. You decide who is to pick the topic.
Posted by JasonMc 8 years ago
JasonMc
lol...DucoNihilum: it's ok to love animals, it's just not ok to LOVE animals

great topic
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Korezaan put it the best.

My vote is for Pro, but excellent debate on both sides.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Thanks for your detailed comments Korezann!
Posted by Korezaan 8 years ago
Korezaan
RFD:

I voted on the following.

"If you argue that animals should have rights, wouldn't it be hypocritical to say that 'well, slavery and murder is legal, but rape- oh gosh no'."

The justification of the CON that he doesnt link into this hypocriticalness is that first:

"Killing animals for food is within our rights because we need meat to eat; of course vegetarians get along fine but humans our omnivore's and meat is healthier and even necessary for some people."

This isn't a reason, in my mind, that we suddenly have "rights over", as PRO suggests. The response to THAT, as I see it, is:

"Children and adults are different, and animals and people are very different. "

And I don't think that argument is true either cause it is an is-ought fallacy.

The second reason the CON gives is

"As for your "slavery" claim, most animals who do actual work for humans, for example pack horses, aren't in any abnormal amounts of physical pain, and because they do not have the emotional needs of humans slavery isn't torture for them."

1) You don't know if they're in pain or not
2) Pain is not a necessary part of slavery, therefore
3) You still say "slavery is fine".

Which I don't believe in, especially since the CON's response against it was insufficient.

Therefore, PRO.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HoosierPapi 8 years ago
HoosierPapi
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
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 
Vote Placed by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dlw7505 8 years ago
dlw7505
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by education4earth 8 years ago
education4earth
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 8 years ago
LandonWalsh
DucoNihilumMiserlouTied
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