lit. Bestiality rematch
Literary bestiality 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 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 married to the Kitsune with a child on the way. My second 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 them demons?
I would like to point out to pro that Both parties is a key part of the debate and that instinct would NOT fall under Verbally etc.
In response to his previous rebuttals I will post my previous answers. 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 correctly this type of bestiality 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 Pokémon 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 Pokémon 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 Pokémon 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 examples I will refer to my aforementioned fic's.
This debate follows standard DDO format with the exception that first round is arguments also.
C1) Real world action
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.
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.
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.
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.....
Now I will respond to my opponents rebuttals to the aforementioned arguments
First of all my opponent concedes to the fact that this literary fiction would lead to real world action. He states that this does not affect the debate because of a series of 'ifs' and 'resoltuional technicalities' that my opponent puts forth.
my opponent states that in literature it is possible for animals to give consent, but this doesn't matter; because of the fact that this literary fiction leads to real world action, and in the real world animals cannot give consent. Since literary bestiality increases harm to animals in real life, ones that cannot give consent, it is wrong.
Next my opponent states that 'if' the literary fiction reinforces the idea of no means no and that you have to have consent, then the literary bestiality is not wrong. We have to look at literary fiction, not these 'ifs', the facts are that literary fiction involving these specific aspects are very limited.
on the issue of cross breeding my opponent asks the question about a mule.. My answer to this is that a horse and a donkey are closely related, so are tigers and lions, horses and zebras, llamas and camels, Wolfs and dogs. They are genetically similar, but a humans and animals are not genetically similar whatsoever.
To the human devaluation, my opponent states that in literary fiction, animals can act more human than humans..... First off, what do you consider "acting like a human", because the only thing I can think of is the intelligence level that separates us..... Love is not specifically a human trait, so saying that because they can love like humans do, they should be able to screw around with humans, is inherently flawed. If you are however stating that the intelligence level can be "human-like" in literary fiction, I would refer you to my previous argument that because of real world action, and animals not having that intelligence in real life, it is wrong to depict.
examples of specific situations in stories will not do because not only is it limited to the specific story, but it transfers into real world action a point that my opponent concedes to.
An animal cannot give consent in real life no matter how much that animal would be able to in fiction, and when compounded with real world action from literary bestiality, it hurts these animals and so is therefore wrong.
An animal is no replacement for a human counterpart, depicting that devalues humans.
In responce to the statement that an animal cant say no, I have to disagree, an animal can say no with there actions such as growling, hissing, ect.
To put it straight, my opponent seems like he/she is very fond of animals; an animal lover, just maybe not in the form of bestiality. Anyone who loves animals should be offended by any type of bestiality, written or real because it harms real animals..
My opponent also states that I should define 'closely related' and is right to point that out. What I mean by closely related is that we are part of the same evolutionary line, specifically the same genus. All of the other species in the "homo" genus are extinct. horses are a part of the same genus as donkeys and zebras; wolfs are in the same genus as dogs and so on.
My opponent seems to ignore my point about love not being a singularly human trait, and he also seems to think loyalty is as well. the only singularly human trait is really our level of intelligence.
However, next my opponent brings up a good point, http://3.bp.blogspot.com... this is the type of things that happen to our animals, humans treating them like this. Whatever would cause something lie this is wrong. We should be working to reduce these sort of things in the world, not empowering them. Sexual abuse of an animal is a terrible atrocity to commit, we should stop it.
Lastly my opponent states that animals can say no through their actions. this is simply not true, as I have said before, things like love and loyalty are not singularly human traits; intelligence is. The ability to give consent comes with intelligence.
in fact the first instinct of a female dog or cat when sexually advanced upon is to fight, because if the male isn't strong enough to impregnate her while she fights him, then she doesn't want to have his babies. A person who molests his animals is likely to know this and will just think its normal response
Make note, my opponent didn't address the fact that literary bestiality involving a no means no theme would be extremely limited.
My opponent also conceded to the fact that reading this literary bestiality causes real world action, then that it also harms animals in the real world.
I look forward to hearing from my opponent in round 3
but to get back to the debate....
My opponent tries to provide a definition late in the debate of 'human'.... This definition is actually just a list of traits, and in fact it is a very redundant list of traits as it can be boiled down to basically compassionate, loyal, and loving..... these three, and the rest of the traits in the list are not singularly human.... so stating that this is what human is, and then to try to say that animals act more human than us humans do sometimes, is wrong...... Yes it is true that many times animals are more loyal, loving, and compassionate. This does not mean that they are more human, and it certainly doesn't mean anything in this debate.... Is the fact that animals can be more loving than humans a justification for the two species to mate... It certainly is not, there is no connection here. The only trait that is singularly human is our level of intelligence, and these animals do not have that.
As none of my contentions were attacked, extend them to this round as well.
I look forward to the final round.
nreed2 forfeited this round.
The one thing my opponent seems to disagrees with in this line of reasoning is that because of this, the literature is wrong.... and as my opponent is someone who loves animals in the traditional sense, it should be blatantly obvious that things causing animal cruelty are wrong.
My opponent argues that it isn't animal cruelty because animals are more human than humans sometimes..... My argument is that this wouldn't justify animal cruelty and trying to mistake it for inter-species love. As well animals aren't more human than us.... sometimes they are more compassionate and loving... but these aren't singularly human traits....
So vote Con