The Instigator
ADreamOfLiberty
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Mockery
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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...
ADreamOfLiberty
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,755 times Debate No: 39444
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (1)

 

ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

(A) Explaining the Resolution

The resolution has proven itself vulnerable to misunderstanding or misrepresentation in the past therefore I will spell out exactly what it means.

Saying X should be legal/moral does not mean everything that belongs in that category is legal/moral; it means that something should not be illegal or immoral because it is X.

Example: driving a car should be legal and is moral

Misconception: running people over with a car is not moral, yet it qualifies as driving a car so driving a car shouldn’t be legal.

Clarification: Killing people is what is immoral and should be illegal in that action, not driving a car.

Therefore the resolution does not mean that every act of bestiality is moral and should be legal, but that an act is not immoral and should not be illegal solely because it bestiality.

(B) Preconditions

Because of the length constraints a completely specified argument is impossible, indeed it would take a small book. I will however assert some premises which my opponent must accept, if a potential opponent thinks these are unfair premises we can have a separate debate on that.

Premise B.1) Legality and morality are inherently linked, if something is moral it should be legal and if is legal it should be moral. Note this is not implying that if something is illegal at a given time or place it is immoral nor is it implying that if something is legal it is moral. Morality is independent of law, but law should be dependent on morality.

Premise B.2) Baring a full derivation and support of a moral theory, the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage. No other moral standard shall be accepted. For those interested I hold a more constrained view as a universal principle for human society, i.e. consent is the prerequisite of all moral interaction between humans.

Premise B.3) The resolution makes a claim about what law should be but does not rely on any existing law, precedence, standard, or tradition of any kind. The fact that law has traditionally defined consent in a manner that makes it impossible for animals to demonstrate it in court is irrelevant. Only the definition of concept given here is to be referenced or used.


(C) Implications: From these premises I would like to preempt possible strategies of my opponent by implication. The premises above prohibit these strategies.

(C.1) B.1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is somehow detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it.

(C.2) B.2 means that I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless whim. Consent and biological harm are well defined objectively verifiable concepts.

(C.3) B.2 & B.3 mean you are willing to debate the matter of consent or harm as defined here. A brief justification for excluding legally defined consent is given but the topic is still not open for contest in the scope of this debate.

I reserve the right to deem other strategies incompatible with the premises you accepted with the debate.

(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) Consentand this is important, is defined as “permission for something to happen or agreement to do something” http://oxforddictionaries.com... .

(E) Burden of Proof

My burden of proof is to show that it is possible that an animal can consent to sex with a human. The core argument relates this to the resolution. I believe this burden is met by the end of this first post. It is not sufficient for my opponent to simply assert I have not met the burden he/she must explain why my argument here does not do so.

My opponent’s burden of proof is to either defeat the argument for consent, or prove it impossible for a human to mate with any species without causing pain or physical damage.

(F) Informed/legal Consent vs Consent

I am fully aware that the idea of informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent. No one who has a pet, no one who has partook in any animal derived products has ever had informed consent from any animals. It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty.

In practice what is meant by informed consent is that one party discloses any information about the interaction which may reasonably be expected to affect the other’s decision. If one party does not have the information it cannot be given. If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement.

For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. This is implied consent but cannot be informed consent.

The point is that informed consent, while an objective standard, relies on the context of the typical human mind and language. It loses applicability beyond the scope of the human race, attempting to apply it to morals involving non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities.

If in the ‘eyes of the law’ no animal can ever consent then no animal has ever consented to another animal. That means every single sexual encounter in the whole of history before mankind was in fact rape. I consider the above a valid form of Reductio ad absurdum http://en.wikipedia.org...

Finally I would like to point out that current legal precedence and tradition never tries to apply informed consent to animals. All anti-bestiality laws appear to be based on either religion or the concept of abuse. The law does not care about informed consent of animals now and I am not advocating that change. If a potential opponent does not think I have laid out valid reasons why informed consent is morally and legally inapplicable to animals, we can have another debate about it before they accept this one.

(G) Core Argument:

/ If a practice is moral it should be legal (Premise 1)

/ Bestiality is a moral practice – see Support of Morality

// Bestiality should be legal

(H) Support of Morality - Consent:

Under the constraints set out above the question is:

(H.1) Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?

Remember since I only need one exception to break the rule, if there is ever a case where the answer to H.1 is yes I have established that immorality is not inherent in bestiality, I can say it is moral as per section A. There are two possible reasons why the answer to that could be no in all cases:

(H.2) No species is capable of communicating permission, agreement, or anything really to a member of another species implicitly or explicitly.

(H.3) No species is psychologically capable of granting consent to another species

That means if I can negate (show to be false) both of these statements then there must exist some cases where the answer to the question H.1 is YES.

/ ~H.2 / ~H.3 // H.1

(H.4) – Negation of H.3

Why would humans be the only species capable of accepting interspecies sex? How can observed instances of interspecies sex between two non-human species be reconciled with H.3?

(H.5) – Negation of H.2

(H.5.1) It is impossible for a creature to pursue an action to which it does not consent provided it does not fear retribution for failure to comply.

This can be established easily by looking at its negation which is “It is possible for a creature to pursue a course of action it does not consent to, even if there is no fear of retribution for failure to comply”. It’s a contradiction in terms.

(H.5.2) If a mind can agree with anything it must agree with itself.

Note: Reflexes are biologically and behaviorally differentiable from choice.

(H.5.3) Therefore even in the absence of verbal or body language, if an animal pursues a course of action where no negative consequences have ever been employed as the result of failing to pursue said course of action, then it has implicitly communicated its intention and its acceptance of the action. If that action is in fact an interaction it must also consent to the interaction.

(H.5.4) To compound that point most animals which zoophiles are interested in mating with are quite capable of body language and vocal communication of a basic sort. Note that “Yes” and “No” are very basic communications which any higher animal owner can attest to understanding.

These youtube videos are among thousands of publically available images, videos, and reports detailing the sexual advances towards humans by animals, it provides the last piece in my argument for consent, action implying consent absent negative conditioning. They may be posted as a joke but what they display is real.

http://scienceblogs.com...



(I) Support of Morality - Harm:

The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate harm is necessary.

(J)I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?

Mockery

Con

I'm going to say this and hopefully, I will only have to say this once.

AN ANIMAL CANNOT GIVE CONSENT TOO SEX!

An animal cannot speak in human words. It cannot tell you stop. Therefore, it's wrong for someone to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself.
Debate Round No. 1
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro


"I'm going to say this and hopefully, I will only have to say this once."


hehe, I hope you only say it once too; I despise debaters who feel the need to periodically restate their conclusions emphatically especially if they didn't support them in the interim.


“AN ANIMAL CANNOT GIVE CONSENT TOO SEX!”


YES HE/SHE CAN, and I can promise you that is the last time you’ll get that from me; I will not participate in an infantile yes no contest. My round one argument is my support for this statement, read section E again and explain to me what you think it means.


“An animal cannot speak in human words. It cannot tell you stop. Therefore, it's wrong for someone to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself.”


You’re missing an awful lot of premises for that to be an argument. Why does an animal’s inability to speak or tell you to stop mean it’s wrong to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself?


Have you considered that speaking is not the only way to communicate that you would like another creature to stop what it’s doing?


Have you thought about what it means to say “can’t defend itself”? Do you know that humans can have sex with animals that weigh 2,200 lb without use of ropes, whips, or even treats? An animal like that could crush a human to mush if they wanted to and all you would hear about is the naked corpse of a zoophile being found later.


Better update it, not “can’t defend themselves” but “don’t seem to think they need defending.”


Mockery

Con

You're sick, do you know that?

Basically, what you're saying it's okay to have sex with a creature that can't say no or fight back. You know that is basically rape right?

And if an animal kills someone who was trying to have sex with it, good for them. It's not a willing partner. It cannot say yes or no.
Debate Round No. 2
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"You're sick, do you know that?"
No, ad hom

"Basically, what you're saying it's okay to have sex with a creature that can't say no or fight back. You know that is basically rape right?"
The creatures I am talking about could communicate "no" and can fight back.

"And if an animal kills someone who was trying to have sex with it, good for them. "
ok?

"It's not a willing partner. It cannot say yes or no."
See my argument.
Mockery

Con

It's still wrong.

If humans were made to have sex with animals, then it would have been so. But it isn't. It goes against nature. Humans have no right to forcefully have sex with animals.

And again I say, an animal cannot give consent. All it can do is bark, meow, grunt or whatever. People can take that to mean many different things. Animals are smart but they don't have the ability to speak to humans in human tongue.

You also have to look at the animal's point of view. The animals probably doesn't want to have sex with a human. Why would it? It's an animal. It wants to have sex with other animals of it's species. This is a human idea created by sick perverts.
Debate Round No. 3
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"It's still wrong."
By what moral standard?

"If humans were made to have sex with animals, then it would have been so."
It is and was so, it's just illegal right now in most places. Didn't someone say this about man flying?

"But it isn't. It goes against nature."
Maybe Nature should have taken this debate instead of you then? I can show you pictures of animals sexually advancing on animals of another species, would that do, or do you mean God when you say nature?

"Humans have no right to forcefully have sex with animals."
Ceded

“Animals are smart but they don't have the ability to speak to humans in human tongue.”

They don’t have the ability to speak any tongue even with each other. And no they can do more than make one sound, there are different types of barking and more for dogs.

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com...

There is body language:

http://www.equisearch.com...

http://www.aspca.org...

And as I said in my round one argument there are their actions themselves.


"You also have to look at the animal's point of view."
Ok, what ADOL thinks of an animals point of view:

I'm a domesticated animal and there is nothing to do in the world but eat, sleep, play, and have sex; but most humans don't like me to have sex, so much so that they cut off my genitals and lock me in houses and enclosures of all sorts. Boy I wish I had one of those perverted humans who will leave my body parts intact and is willing to have sex with me regularly.

Sorry that's probably a bit beyond your average domesticated animal, maybe more like:

eating good, humans good, sex good, you can have sex with humans too! yay!

"The animals probably doesn't want to have sex with a human."
By what power did you determine this for all cases? Are you a telepathic super alien? Didn't think so.

"Why would it?"
mmm, hopefully I'll only have to say this once. If you do it right, sex is fun.

"It wants to have sex with other animals of it's species."
Among other things.

"This is a human idea created by sick perverts."

Check out these photos of sick human perverts who have been transformed into animals, they just can't help themselves:





Mockery

Con

You haven't proven anything. Those are animals trying to have sex with other animals! There is nothing wrong with that.
Debate Round No. 4
ADreamOfLiberty

Pro

"You haven't proven anything. Those are animals trying to have sex with other animals! There is nothing wrong with that."

....
You know humans are animals too, this whole thing is about animals having sex with animals of another species. So yes I have proven that it's not only humans who think it might work. Humans aren't the only ones who are willing to try.

If there is anything unique to humanity on this issue it's our cultural resistance to the idea. It's a relic of religion just like homophobia that remains strong because many people think of their pets as childern, call themselves pet parents. They ignore the fact that these creatures are fully grown and even if they will never reach human intelligence their sexual desires and capabilities do develop.

That's not what people want, they just want an eternal psuedo-baby to take care of. They can't imagine that their little puppies could ever see them as objects of sexual interest so they tell themselves absurd stories about how they are just playing or trying to asert dominance.

Even though you haven't tried at all to meet the burden of proof I guess we'll see if some good can come of your last round. So I have a question for you, throughout the world artifical vaginas and mounting contraptions are used to collect stallion sperm.

What if (as in the story of the minotian queen Pasiphaë and the white bull) you put a human in one of those collection machines? Do you think the stallion would care? When does it become rape and why?
Mockery

Con

Actually, I honestly don't want to talk about this anymore. Nothing is going to change your mind so I'm going to leave you with your sick ideas. You're an idiot. Enjoy the rest of your life
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by IndigoWolf 3 months ago
IndigoWolf
At the end of the day, you won the argument. You made the most valid points and take animal intelligence into account; animals can give consent, animals have ways of saying no. Those who say otherwise underestimate animals way too much.
When a dog humps a kid, people laugh and smile and find it to be a joke...but if it were the other way around, he'd be a vicious horrible monster who loves to torture animals!! That's the logic most people think with, which makes no sense. I mean the dog didn't wait for consent of the human, it just straight up mounts it. That isn't a display of just dominance, it's obvious sexual attraction. Without the sexual attraction, the dog would just jump over the kid and just bite it.
But eh, I guess it's horrible if a human does it but if an animal does it, "duhh, it's just a stoopid animal it can't think duhh."
Humans are animals as well, we're no divine creature. We can just pick objects and put them together, that's the biggest difference that sets us apart from most species. I'm sure if tigers had thumbs, they would probably create bladed weapons to hunt down prey more easily, but they can't that's why they don't do it. Without our thumbs, we would mostly likely be in the same situation. Just my two cents about this argument.
I don't find beastiality to be as horrible as rape; obviously if the human does the animal when it clearly doesn't want it, but it's strapped to a table, then it is highly wrong and rape. It's the same thing with humans. But there's this girl I've seen on YouTube who openly talks about having sex with her dog; you notice the dog is very friendly towards her, loves her, and stays by her side as she explains it. He is completely comfortable around her. So obviously, the dog doesn't have a problem with getting some of that human booty.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
@imabench

If you think it is very winnable debate there is an identical one open now.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
Alright, say I wanted to argue that bestiality should be legal, and used the exact same argument here but said the premises were challengeable in this debate. You think that would be better?

"Affirming that animals "can" consent to sex does not = Beastiality should be legal."
That is not the only premise in my argument...
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
Yes, debate requires a common premises. Once again, the common premises you seek takes for granted all of the reasons why most people object to the resolution. Like the point of your analogy, it does not fit the real world.

This really isn't that difficult.

Your resolution should read: "Animals can consent to sex", since that is all you are allowing your opponent to argue against.

Affirming that animals "can" consent to sex does not = Beastiality should be legal. Therefore the title of the resolution is invalid. That is all I have been saying. Maybe you don't see that as a problem. If so, that is all you have to say.

Agree or disagree. I'm done.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"No, the resolution does not reflect the actual debate."
You've heard my response to that...

"The arguments you left open for your opponent to challenge do not affirm that bestiality should be legal."
They do given the premises. Nothing could absent premises. I barely fit what I have in 10,000 characters, there is no room to support the premises, and the denizens of this site don't seem to have the attention span to consider them in the subsequent debate.

"Not allowing your opponent to make valid arguments to refute the resolution is just silly."
There's the thing though, anyone can happen by and make a valid argument which refutes my resolution, but is it sound? Can't tell without common premises... and I already said I am willing to drill down as deep into the tree of knowledge as it requires to get that common foundation with a challenger. Just not in this debate.

"It defeats the purpose of debate."
I tell you what defeats the purpose of debate, pretending that you can have one without common premises. I could challenge you about whether cars can go over 50 mi/h and you can end up disagreeing that speed exists or that it is defined as speed per time.
Posted by Double_R 3 years ago
Double_R
ADreamOfLiberty,

No, the resolution does not reflect the actual debate. The arguments you left open for your opponent to challenge do not affirm that bestiality should be legal. Like I already said and you never responded to, there are plenty of other valid objections. Not allowing your opponent to make valid arguments to refute the resolution is just silly. It defeats the purpose of debate.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"So this looks like you opened a debate but made all the possibilities for counter argument to be against the rules."
Against the rules of this debate, I'll have supporting debates but in those the rules will be "not allowed to argue that animals are necessarily harmed or can't consent." This structure is not an issue unless an opponent is planning on running around in circles, flitting off to the next point the moment the one they just put forward is challenged or debunked. (I really hate that)

If you think this argument is undefeatable given the premises then you imply that my argument here is valid. I agree. If you don't think it's sound, telling yourself I am not playing fair is just an excuse since I clearly stated in the argument and in the comments that I will accept debates on the premises.

"Sex with animals is just plain wrong on so many levels"
I'll debate you on every single one you think you know about.

"and admitting to it publicly is either a humorous act or lost bet or you're just wild about wild"
The public is a poor judge of what they have no experience of.
Posted by BEM1019 3 years ago
BEM1019
Wow this is big. So this looks like you opened a debate but made all the possibilities for counter argument to be against the rules. Hmm you are either a budding lawyer gaining experience for winning the unmentionable battle or you've got a hot budding romance with another species going on. Sex with animals is just plain wrong on so many levels and admitting to it publicly is either a humorous act or lost bet or you're just wild about wild. Good Luck I think?
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
@Double_R 7
Oops, you didn't say my debate was poorly organized.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 3 years ago
ADreamOfLiberty
"Your resolution should reflect the actual debate."
My resolution does reflect the actual debate.

If I wanted to argue 'Obamacare is good for the country' (and I most certainly do not) there is no way in the universe that could be done completely in 10,000 characters.

No matter what I or anyone else did my argument would rely on premises, such as what is good; it's meaning in the context of federal law and the American spirit etc...

If someone wrote an argument saying Obamacare is good, held as a premise that economic concerns are secondary to determining what laws are good I would actually accept that argument because I agree with that premise. If I didn't I would challenge them to a debate about whether economic concerns (i.e. practicality) is non-essential to the proper character of the law.

It was not that I was unwilling to argue foundational premises in the argument before, but what I learned was there was nothing but honour constraining my opponent to foundational premises. For instance in this debate http://www.debate.org... my opponent decided that he was just going to replace the word consent with informed consent in all of my arguments, and he got a voter to go along with it. He never made an argument as to why I had to use informed consent. In essence lacking the constraints in this argument he simply replaced the my foundation with his, and felt no need to argue against mine or support his own.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
ADreamOfLibertyMockeryTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: con took a very winnable debate and flushed her side down the toilet by resorting to personal attacks and general idiocy. Pro gave arguments, sources, and had better conduct despite posting literally a half dozen pictures of animals f*cking each other.