The Instigator
icetiger200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Con (against)
Winning
2 Points

there is nothing wrong with zoosexuality/beastiality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 588 times Debate No: 85525
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

icetiger200

Pro

I'll let my opponent state his/her argument on why it's wrong.
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Con

My first debate so take it easy on me, like with that little veal cutlet.

How very sporting of you to let me go first with arguments. However, I will decline your generous offer in the spirit of fairness. Your criteria permits, but does not require, me to provide the first defense.

I'll defer the coin flip to the second half. I'll bat in the bottom of the ninth.

In this topic, I'm afraid that the burden of proof is yours, not mine. Semantically, proving a negative is folly. If one were to make the assertion that there is nothing wrong with genocide or dropping nuclear weapons on a hated minority, and then asking an opponent do state why something that is pretty much universally considered wrong is wrong, the debate becomes an exercise in questioning God and good vs evil and societal laws. That's too far off topic for my tastes.

And since you've brought up the topic with the intention of taking an obviously counter-cultural stance, yet defined no criteria, then it would only make sense for you to assume the "pro" stance instead of the ambivalent "not-con" stance.

Grab that bull by the horns. Get a good grip and hold on tight to your position. Don't back into this. Grip it and rip it. Tell me first, why it's RIGHT for you to put the lamb on the lam, to rotisserie your own chicken, and to downward face your dog.

I accepted this because I'm truly curious to see where you could possibly go with this. Offer me some definitions on the subject for "wrong" so I may understand your moral framework and those dirty big words that shan't be repeated.
Debate Round No. 1
icetiger200

Pro

Lol well that was a waste of a round.

But I guess I'll start with something.

Zoophilia/zoosexuality should be allowed because it is a sexual orientation that people don't chose to have. You can't go around punishing or jailing or murdering people just because they where "born" with the "wrong sexual orientation"
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Con

Oh, Rick Santorum logic. I get it!

Sorry the first round was "wasted". You're not exactly giving me a lot to work with here.

But I understand. This is allegory. I was kind of hoping for an opening argument with definitions and sources to cite. But it's an agenda debate. You're inverting the homophobic illogical (ph)allacies, hoping I do your homework for you.

See, you don't really want to debate about racoon-poon. You don't really ride a camel with extra long reins. You don't really have issues with wool stuck in your teeth or trying to spit out that last, un-sheared hair.

You want me to prove that bopping beasts is bad. Therefore, ergo, tipsy fatso, a man can't put another man's meat post in his chocolate chute. It's like, a comparison, man. It's the transitive property.

I make lots of fancy arguments and cite all these sources like a good debater.

It's not for procreation. The bible says! It's an abomination of nature! It's just plain nasty.

Then you use my own words to say gays are evil and homosexuality is a sin. Since beast sex is wrong, gay sex is too. It's science.

Does that pretty much sum up the strategy here?
Debate Round No. 2
icetiger200

Pro

icetiger200 forfeited this round.
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Con

He would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for those meddling kids.

It seems that given the choice between defending bestiality or admitting I was right, he ran away.

Vote con, please. Just one measley point for not running away.
Debate Round No. 3
icetiger200

Pro

"Oh, Rick Santorum logic. I get it!"What?

"But I understand. This is allegory. I was kind of hoping for an opening argument with definitions and sources to cite. But it's an agenda debate. You're inverting the homophobic illogical (ph)allacies, hoping I do your homework for you."What?

"See, you don't really want to debate about racoon-poon. You don't really ride a camel with extra long reins. You don't really have issues with wool stuck in your teeth or trying to spit out that last, un-sheared hair."What?

"You want me to prove that bopping beasts is bad."U92;I haven't asked you to prove that since you have not claimed that bopping beasts is bad." (I assume bopping = having sex?)

"Therefore, ergo, tipsy fatso, a man can't put another man's meat post in his chocolate chute. It's like, a comparison, man. It's the transitive property.What?

"I make lots of fancy arguments and cite all these sources like a good debater.Haven't see you do that. If anything, you have made several nonsensical comments so that makes you a bad debater.

"It's not for procreation. The bible says! It's an abomination of nature! It's just plain nasty.Fictional books has no place in debates bout real life.

"Then you use my own words to say gays are evil and homosexuality is a sin. Since beast sex is wrong, gay sex is too. It's science."U92;Well, if you make the argument that zoosexuality is wrong because is a sin, then by logic you also believe that homosexuality is wrong for the same reasoning.

"Does that pretty much sum up the strategy here?"What strategy?
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Con

I’m sorry. Did you not pass your TOEFL? I’ll talk more slowly in this argument. [1]


Let me get to most of your questions. First, I should answer the “Santorum” reference. Let me google it…

1. The frothy mixture of … “ [2]

Oh, sorry wrong link.

Here it is. Rick Santorum said,

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” [3]

You see, Rick Santorum got a little confused by equating, or at least paralleling, homosexuality and bestiality and pedophelia. So, when I say you used “Santorum Logic”, you were doing the same.

“This is allegory.”

An allegory is “a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning”.

Like when you say “Bestiality is not wrong” you’re hidden meaning is actually an anti-gay debate.

That is not to be confused with an euphemism, which is “a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.” That seemed to lose you, too.

Like when I said, “a man can't put another man's meat post in his chocolate chute”. I’m really saying you’re against two men having anal sex. You see, “Meat post” is an euphemism for “penis”. “Chocolate chute” is referring to the colon and intestines that contain fecal matter. Following?

“you have made several nonsensical comments so that makes you a bad debater.”
1. In the first argument, you said nothing I could debate.
2. In the second argument, you said noting I could debate.
3. In the third argument, you forfeited.
4.If the fourth argument, you said nothing at all, except "what?" and I’m a bad debater.


Let me get this straight. I’m the bad debater. It’s my fault I’m forced to sit here talking to myself. Allegory, euphemisms, alliteration, onomatopoeia…. BOOM! All wasted. I'm basically tossing you a free conduct point here simply out of boredom because you're not helping. You're like my McDonald's apple pie (caution, contents may be hot). I have to do all the work myself and pretend it's real interaction. Dammit, Jim, I’m a doctor, not a porcupine proctologist. “What?” *eye-roll* - I know I lost you again, didn't I?

So, you have one more argument. You have a choice in tack to provide me something I can work with. I’m “Con” bestiality. I'ts just freaking wrong. Be “Pro” for once, ok? Get off the fence. Argue something.

You can either:

1. Tell me why you like to Porky the Pig, peanut butter the nutters for a little fido felatio, begin a bloody banging to the back end of a bi-curious black bear (alliteration, woo!), or pound the poon of a female baboon.
2. Tell me why you’re against homosexuality, because you’re making a bad beastiality comparison.
3. Admit it was just a troll debate topic gone horribly wrong.

Look, it'll take me all of about three sentences to state why it's wrong and support it. I'm giving you the opportunity to serve & volley. Last chance.

[1] https://www.youtube.com...

[2] http://www.spreadingsantorum.com...

[3]"Excerpt from Santorum interview". USA Today. Associated Press. April 23, 2003. Retrieved March 13, 2008.

Debate Round No. 4
icetiger200

Pro

icetiger200 forfeited this round.
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid

Con

And in conclusion...

Pros argument proved to be duplicitous. Note the careful avoidance of anything material to his assertion that he likes to wild thing the wild kingdom.

My approach, as Con, was asymmetrical. Hidden in the turns of phrase were traps and misdirection geared towards revealing Pros true motive. He mentioned sexual orientation as a key element in arguments 2 and 4. My efforts at painting graphic depictions of beastial acts forced him into his own snare.

Rather than face the duplicity and admit the ruse, pro forfeited twice. That was fun.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SmellTheGlove 1 year ago
SmellTheGlove
Leaning toward Con here. The Pro side hasn't presented anything of merit (yet). Naturally, I will wait for more arguments, but I would be surprised if Pro can pull this one out of the fire.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 1 year ago
kkjnay
icetiger200diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeit this debate
Vote Placed by FlamboGus 1 year ago
FlamboGus
icetiger200diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kidTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF