Sex with animals is ethically permissible
Debate Rounds (5)
First I would like to thank bbowhan for accepting this debate topic. I would like to additionally offer to all interested that I would be glad to debate this topic with other people. Finally, I would like to encourage bbowhan to collaborate with others n the assembly of his arguments, as per rule 8 below.
The topic of bestiality and zoophilia are questionable and oft sticky topics (pun intended), which generally produce a visceral reaction in the course of their discussion. Historically, sex with animals has been among the acts considered most obscene, an abomination above most -if not all- other things considered abominations. Despite this, there are in fact a great many things which human emotion arguably gets wrong about ethics: the human desire for revenge, forced heteronormativity, fear of change. In many people the list of emotional malfunction goes far deeper, into neuropathy, and psychopathy. Emotion is an approximation at best of "what is right", and as such, it becomes a valid question as to whether the visceral but none-the-less emotional animus against sex with animals is appropriate.
As such, this debate is to explore whether such an animus is philosophically justified, or whether that animus is something that we ought overcome.
1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and final round is closing. Upon mutual agreement, round 5 may also include a final counter-rebuttal.
2) *CON may go first; if CON uses his first round for argument, CON agrees his last round shall be a blank post, and for the purposes of voting, rounds shall be offset by one post
3) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only. Round 2 "initial arguments" are to be independent.
4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.
5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored during final evaluation, retracted, or negated.
6) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.
7) Shared BoP; all positive claims must be defended, and all arguments must be supported with reasons; this is a philosophical debate, and first principles must be mutually accepted, if used as a basis of argument. Argument from authority, argument from tradition, and the naturalistic fallacy are all accepted as fallacies by CON.
8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced and picked up by the formal debators.
9) First principles accepted in this debate must include that: "The universe exists"; "knowledge exists"; "all descriptive models have greater value than any non-descriptive model"; and that "equals OUGHT be treated equally".
10) Additional rules as presented by CON shall be discussed in comments before being accepted.
Thank you BBOWHAN for accepting this debate. In the pursuit of clarity, I’d like to detail that the “animals” of the resolution are specifically not “people”, and further that the ethical acceptability is applying to “sex with animals”, and not some other thing that is neither necessary for, nor necessarily caused by, said sex. QUESTIONS about these distinctions are to be addressed in comments or PM.
Additionally, any claim I have made to which there is some doubt or misunderstanding, I will gladly provide additional support or clarification in my next post; my opponent has merely to ask.
Applying to an activity performed on or with a entity: Lacking informed consent.
Pros I. Animals have pragmatic value to People, at best
I am not aware of any aspect of game theory that purports to establish "people are optimally a community apart from other entities" and I will vehemently disagree with the assertion both in terms of societal health and in particular this subject. After all, sex with animals will not be an issue under such strict segregation as Pro implies.
1. Stipulated. Perhaps the final word word "tribes" could be broadened to "communities"?
2. Here there is a problem- memetic evolution is at best a metaphor, as the "meme" is not actually a unit in an evolutionary sense . Further, cultural evolution, like all evolutions is by nature competitive in a direct biological way- rich successful rock stars versus a struggling street performer for example. It is true that animal have little direct contribution to culture, but their presence as companions cannot be termed a negative. Also, this topic on pragmatic value has little to do with the ethical question, as Pro has not yet demonstrated an "is therefore ought" connection.
Pros B> People have ethical responsibilities from the basis of first principles, which animals cannot take part in.
1. Definition of freedom: stipulated
2. Definition of responsibilities
Here Pro overextends his definition, in that he claims that is a person's responsibility to defend others freedom as well as his own. It is superior ethics to do so, but not a responsibility.
3. Definition of fairness: Stipulated, and quite good.
4. The claim of freedom:
i. Here, Pro is wrong for the first time. Different animals are well known to have widely varying concepts of identity and theory of mind - which is good from Pros point of view, as otherwise the tricky concept of consensual bestiality could not be addressed.
ii. I"m just going to assume that Pro has no analogue to my experiences with horse corralling, were "offering" freedom to an unaware, fleshy automation with no concept of personal liberty was obviously not the issue.
Pros C> People are existentially sustainable, animals are not.
This entire paragraph is of topic. In the unlikely event of a global pandemic or asteroid collision, we may be able to survive- including taking sufficient living foodstuffs past the crisis to sustain us. In either event, the permissibility of sex with animals is not related.
Pros II Difference between Ethical and Pragmatic Concerns:
Pros A> "debate is not about pedophilia or the mentally disabled". I'll stipulate to that as well. Hey look at that, three entire paragraphs we both agree belong in another debate!
Pros B> This is actually the question at hand, which I hold has not been sufficiently addressed.
1 and 2. These statements seem to be flatly contradictory, in fact I think I must not understand these points- unless Pro is arguing that Reason and Ethics are subjects forbidden forever to all other animals?  If so he is wrong, both as far as the far as the future is concerned (an excellent SF series on Uplifting is available from David Brin's Uplift http://www.davidbrin.com...) and right now. Having known (as I alluded to) a large variety of farm animals up close, I find it impossible to credit the claim that animals don"t have such feelings as we do. Unlike our intellect, there is not even a discernible difference between our emotional  and moral  capabilities and those of several different species, rather far apart cladistically.
Pros III Argument from Common Sense
1. The impositions of fertilization may not be different from one of gratification, which unfortunately for Pro, opens the question of whether artificial insemination is part of an ethically abhorrent "sex with animals" topic.
2. Again, a very fundamental "is ought" problem is not being addressed. Even if sex approaches "nothing" in the spectrum of human cruelty to animals, Pro has not given a rationale why a lesser evil is somehow not evil.
1. It is a simple fact that humans use animals for food, however that is subsumed by the fact that all animals eat other living things- by definition that"s what animals are. That impositions is axiomatically necessary by the dictates of survival. However, the existence of vegetarianism is a proof that that we don"t need to eat animals- again raising the specter of whether we should.
2. Stipulated, but again pointless. Defending ourselves is not anywhere near the question of whether we can commit an offense against an animal. One question, though- would and animal have a right to defend itself against a rape?
IV. Pros conclusions
A. Ethics are NOT shown to be for people alone and I hold that the opposing argument is more compelling 
B. I'll stipulate to this, but note again' that ethical acceptability is is not shown by the arguments so far.
C. Some imposition may be acceptable by necessity (not demonstrated so far) but I deny the ethics of adding anything to that necessity by choice.
D. Having sex with animals is not ethically permissible.
I'd like to point out to CON rules 1 and 3 of the debate. Wait until "round 3" to bring rebuttal. CON will see a counter-rebuttal, but not until "round 4", and not until after CON raises his rebuttal in "round 3". I will not waste my time and space on actual counter-rebuttal here; that is not what this space is for, and I have no responsibiliy to do so until then.
bbowhan forfeited this round.
CON has forfeit. I will refrain from posting anything else, pending his return.
bbowhan forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.