The Instigator
nreed2
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
ProgressiveSlayer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is literary bestiality if both parties are intelligent, can, and do consent verbally, etc.

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 1 vote the winner is...
nreed2
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,239 times Debate No: 31373
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

nreed2

Con

Literary beastiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. is not wrong because both parties have said that they want to mate with the other party specifically and are not just doing it on instinct. In literature it is possible that the bond between human and "animal" is closer than any two people in the Inheritance Cycle fanfiction "The Uncertain Future" by Dragonknight - Beta 26, Eragon and his dragoness, Saphira mates which brings them even closer than before when they are literally part of each other's soul.

http://www.fanfiction.net...
ProgressiveSlayer

Pro

So first off I would like to thank nreed2 for the intriguing debate topic. To begin I will start of by stating that I stand in firm negation to the Resolved: Literary bestiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. is not wrong.

to preserve the integrity of this debate as being the affirmation, and having the duty to be against literary bestiality, I put forth the following resolution change, "Literary bestiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. IS WRONG." whereas my opponent is on the negation, as indicated by his taken position in the argument presented, and I am on the affirmation.

To start off i will go directly into my contentions
C1) Real world action

A
Video games and movies are accused in today's society of causing violence, school shootings, and bloody massacres. Granted not everyone who plays Call of Duty is going to go kill 20 people in the mall, or shoot up their school, but as well as mental illness being attributed, in many cases so are violent video games and movies. The actions of bestiality are far less seemingly harmful and far more likely to happen and be re enacted from a story. When this happens in real life, the animal isn't intelligent, can't provide consent, and can't say no. Anything that contributes to the harm of these innocent animals should be seen as immoral, Literary bestiality is included.

B
The relation of things to things of a sexual nature increase the sexual appeal of the first thing. Furthermore even the association of something with sex will increase its appeal. This is how fetishes are formed, the brain associates something with the sexual nature, that way when you see, taste, touch, smell, or hear these things you become aroused. To associate animals with sex is morally wrong; for someone to further their fetish with bestiality is to further the likelihood of them committing this atrocity against animals in real life. Animals that cannot consent, leading to the harm of these animals.

C2) devaluation of humans
To say that animals can be intelligent enough to consent is to say the the notion of autonomy means nothing. that it is nothing special to be human and that humans can be replaced at anytime. Which is a misrepresentation and so therefore should be seen as the devaluation of human life and autonomy to a primal level.

C3) inter-breeding
The primary function of sex is to reproduce, if other species are thrown into the mix, then suddenly see that new interbreeds would arise, further leading to devaluation of humans. As well is just plain gross.

to address the point my opponent makes, first of all, I read the story, and the very story that my opponent cites recognizes that they could not be together until eragon was transformed into a dragon, as saphira is also a dragon. therefore the story is not one of bestiality, and does not uphold his own point.

and the second point that in literary fiction it is possible to build a stronger relationship between human and animals, doesn't constitute morality. It is also possible to build stronger relationships between siblings, but that doesn't make it moral.

For all of this I stand firmly for the notion that Literary bestiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. IS WRONG, and urge everyone to vote affirmation.
Debate Round No. 1
nreed2

Con

no time to write will be back next round
ProgressiveSlayer

Pro

ProgressiveSlayer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
nreed2

Con

First of all I would like to thank pro for pointing out my bad example in the fact that Eragon is physically a dragon before they participate in intercourse due to physiological differences. However, Eragon is still very much a human mentally. With that addressed on to the counterpoints.
The first point, real world action. This I will agree with as far as the fact that what you read effects your act. The key part of why this argument is invalid is in the core of the debate. The can and DO render consent. If used corectly this type of bestialitic literature can reinforce positive behaviors such as" No means no." For example, if a teenage boy reads a story wherein there is a buff/ripped male human and a female Pok"mon that is a psychic type which is slight in stature and can only use telepathy as far as psychic goes. The human asks if the Pok"mon would have sex with him and she refuses. Even though he could easily overpower and force her, he accepts her answer, then a few years later the situation is repeated, a few more years later he asks again but this time the Pok"mon accepts. This would reinforce the idea of no means no because most people would consider her sub-human and the fact that he could force her but he still asked and respected her decision.
Second, the issue of cross-breeding. I would like to ask pro, why is it wrong for humans to crossbreed but not for other animals? A perfect example is a mule, a mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse, yet that is perfectly acceptable, so why not humans? The answer to that is that the mule is useful to us.
Finally, human degradation. This one I take issue with because sometimes the "animal" or "demon" acts more human than the humans. For example any Narutoxfemkyuubi fanfic. For the purpose of this debate I will cite only two. The for example I would like to present is My Loving Demons by Elder Predator. In the first chapter a civilian women disembowels the "'demon'" (a young Naruto) for killing her newborn son during the kyuubi's attack a few years prior then the bijuu commences to heal him. Some years later the kyuubi essentially sells her soul to him on the conditions that he lets her out and she finds him a girlfriend. One thing leads to another and Naruto is unofficially maried to the kitsune with a child on the way.
My seccond example I would like to present is A Loving Heart, A Body of Steel by renegadeofficer89. Again at the beginning of the story Naruto is tortured to the brink of death and then is pulled back by the "demon" later Naruto, in order to free the kitsune from the juubi's rage Naruto mates with her knowing full well that he will either lose his humanity or be killed purifying the youki of the reason that he got tortured to the brink of death for year after year. And the villagers call her a demon?
ProgressiveSlayer

Pro

ProgressiveSlayer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
nreed2

Con

Seeing as my opponent has not responded to my points I will assume that they are uncontested but I would like to point out that both BOTH parties consenting verbally etc. was a key part of the debate and autonomy would not fall under verbally etc,
ProgressiveSlayer

Pro

ProgressiveSlayer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nreed2

Con

I am unable to debate due to my opponent's failure to debate, I would just like to point out that so far my opponent has forfeited3/4 rounds and I have forfeited 0/5 rounds
ProgressiveSlayer

Pro

ProgressiveSlayer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by nreed2 4 years ago
nreed2
I recently found out that the correct term for said intercourse is zoophilia
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
nreed2ProgressiveSlayerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF