The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
13 Points

Bestiality should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,538 times Debate No: 42249
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (89)
Votes (3)




Many people have complained about the restrictive nature of my previous arguments for the proper legality of bestiality. Said restrictions were necessary to make a positive case since in reality the default is that something should be legal and acceptable until proven otherwise.

This debate is a chance for those who think they can make the case from scratch. No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it.

BoP is on Pro to show that bestiality should be illegal, this will certainly include giving the general reasons anything should be illegal, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make. No need for other debates, no room to complain about unfair preconditions.

First round is for Pros first argument, Pro types only "end" in his/her last round.

I lied, I will include one set of restrictions, the definitions section:

(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” .



Greetings members of Debate Dot Org (DDO). My name is Logical Master and I represent the PRO position in this case. As such, it is my job to demonstrate that bestiality should be illegal.

As you'll notice, the Instigator has provided us with a list of terms and conditions for this debate. His request is that I prove that bestiality should be illegal without simply citing laws/moral standards already in place. In other words, he doesn't want me to say anything to the effect of "Bestiality should be illegal because it's already against the law!" I gladly accept this condition. I also accept the list of definitions he has taken the time to offer us.

CONTENTION 1: Bestiality should be illegal because humans tend to have an undue influence over animals.

Members of DDO, we live in a society where humans have dominion over animals. We take them in as pets, put them in zoos, use them to help further scientific research. In general, animals don't rebel against us. The domesticated ones, especially when trained, tend to be subservient to our demands. If I tell my dog to "sit down", "be quiet" and "go to your cage", he readily complies, even if these demands make him unhappy. Many animals will do a great deal of things they don't want to do, especially when it's made clear to them that they are subservient to humans.

Ergo, humans tend to have an undue influence over animals.(1) Our society has gone to great lengths to review relationships premised upon undue influences with a great deal of scrutiny. (2) For example, one of the reasons our society has created statutory rape laws is because " the crime of statutory rape is meant to prevent older people, who may wield undue influence over younger people, from taking advantage, especially sexually, of younger people." (3). Although younger people are certainly capable of saying "yes" or "no" to sexual intercourse with an older person, an undue influence over a younger person can easily serve to manipulate the younger person towards saying yes.(4). The existence of this influence is why our society presumes that a child is unable to consent, regardless of whether there is any indication that the child "gave permission for something to happen."(5) One could post a mildly amusing video of a child "humping" an adult's leg and that wouldn't be sufficient to overcome the presumption that a child cannot consent.

In the instant case, what the instigator is effectively proposing is a regime where humans can use their undue influence over animals to engage in frequent sexual intercourse with them. Much like the reasoning used to reject child/adult intercourse, we should extend said reasoning to rejecting human/animal intercourse and thus identify human/animal sexual intercourse as statutory rape. Based on his prior debates, I'm sure the instigator has access to a couple of mildly amusing videos portraying dogs dry-humping humans and whatnot. However, none of these videos (or any video for that matter) is sufficient to overcome that presumption of non-consent based upon the undue influence humans have over animals in the first place. Is the presumption of non-consent a legal fiction? Certainly, but it's one well-needed to serve the greater good.

Furthermore, it's no secret that the intellectual capacity of an animal is very much inferior to that of a human. For example, canine IQ tests indicate that the average dog has the mental abilities of a 2 year old human.(6) Dogs are far moreso susceptible to a human's undue influence than the average human child, further pushing the need to presume that an animal cannot consent.

CONTENTION 2:Bestiality is dangerous to human society

The best known example of an illness that originally began in animals is none other than HIV/AIDs, one of the deadliest diseases known to man.(7) Sexual activity with animals puts society at a wide range of significant health risks.(8). Although its true that one can acquire diseases from intercourse with other humans, human bodies simply aren't built to accomodate other species, thus activities/fluids which may prove nigh-harmless to animals may prove to be life threatening to humans. The wiki page I provided list some examples of this.

Since there's no assurance that one who has sex with animals simply sticks to having sex with animals, frequent involvement in these high-risk activities spreads such risks to society as a whole. Moreover, this places a burden on society in that it has to utilize numerous resources come up with a cure/treatment for an illness that was originally only found in animals. HIV/AIDs is the known example of this burden. No matter what the instigator says throughout the remainder of this debate, bestiality but for a few malcontents simply doesn't justify the potential burdens it places on society

CONCLUSION:What the instigator is proposing is a society where animals are effectively sex slaves and where we as a society have to put up with having and treating the illnesses found in a vast number of other species. For the reasons provided, such a society should be rejected without hesitation and bestiality should remain illegal.





(4) (noting Jerry Sandusky's criminal conduct in luring young children into sexual activities)





Debate Round No. 1


COUNTER CONTENTION 1: If humans have undue influence over animals the solution is to reduce their influence, bestiality has nothing to do with that.

1.1 Pro begins his support of this contention by noting all the ways humans use animals for our benefit to show how they don’t rebel and seem generally obedient. I believe he meant to show that animals will not rebel even when something makes them unhappy, but he has also made my point for me. If we use animals in so many ways and they don’t rebel, how do we know we aren’t hurting them or contradicting their happiness just as severely as we would with sex (presuming sex regularly does that at all)?

Pro states that a dog will go to his cage even if it makes him unhappy, yet if we had a means of determining what makes dogs happy or unhappy could we not simply apply that knowledge for every interaction?

Pro’s argument here seems to boil down to, “everything else we do with animals is already bad enough, so let’s just pick something and ban it… hey why not bestiality?”

1.2 Pro describes the purpose behind statutory rape laws, but again proceeds to undermine his point by admitting society is making a false assumption in presuming younger people cannot consent despite being capable of saying “yes” or “no”.

Actually it would in the context that the child used the exact same technique to have sex with another child.

Pro then rejects all evidence based on objective analysis of animal behavior by rejecting the relevance of any video. This especially reinforces that this contention is completely disconnected from what animals want or why they want it. It is entirely focused on an appeal to what is admittedly legal fiction to support some greater good.

So I ask (and I have been wanting to do this for some time so thank you for the chance) Good?-by what standard?

If the truth does not give you the result you want, if you think the good is incompatible with the facts what gives you the right to bind others to your fiction? What makes your good any more than your delusion?

The reasoning Pro asks you to extend is not reasoning at all but your classic “end justify the means” applied to belief.

We don’t want old people to have sex with young people so we are going to pretend they don’t consent, we don’t want humans to have sex with animals so we are going to pretend animals can’t consent, we don’t want homosexuals to have sex with their own gender so we are going to pretend they’re crazy (and thus can’t consent).

I reject, and any rational person would reject this house of cards which is held up only by an appeal to consequence fallacy. . Pro’s inability to find a better reason than lack of consent to condemn pedophilia does not support his position or change the facts.

COUNTER CONTENTION 2: Bestiality is not dangerous to human society any more than intraspecies sex is, any more than consuming animal products is, in anyway more than keeping pets is.

2.1 Pro brings up the HIV virus as an example of one of the deadliest diseases known to man. He links to a Q&A website which establishes that HIV came from chimpanzees. What he failed to mention was that the answer cited eating chimpanzee meat as the likely infection vector. Pro’s point appears to be targeted more towards meat eating than bestiality.

I would also like to quote from another one of Pro’s sources (8) : “It [HIV] only lives in primates (humans, apes and monkeys) and is not believed to survive long in other species or away from the human body and fluids.”

Primates are far from the typical animal partner for zoosexual contact. Therefore if a human has sexual contact with a relevant animal and transfers specimens of HIV to them, and another human then has sexual contact with that same animal a couple days later the new human will not contract HIV nor will any other human who has sex with that animal in the future.

If the ‘middle man’ was another human the final result would be three people infected by HIV. In the case where bestiality is mixed in with human sex only the original person is infected, the animal and the other human are fine.

If any kind of wide spread bestiality took the place of sex with prostitutes or random hook ups, that would significantly slow the spread of HIV and other STDs relevant animals don’t carry. If no such wide spread bestiality would occur then there would be little effect from bestiality in any case since isolated sexual relationships pose no danger to the public.

2.2 Furthermore even if HIV was transmitted via sex, saying this event would justify banning all bestiality for all time is just as fallacious as claiming because one mold gave us penicillin growing any mold in any quantity should be legal for all time. It is not possible to live on this planet without exposing yourself to possible contagions and probably never will be.

If we were to ban every such act we may as well pull the trigger on all the nukes right now you’re all guilty.

The only fair question to ask about bestiality is whether it is biologically, particularly dangerous and the clear and resounding answer is NO. There are not more zoonoses than normal diseases, they are not on average more dangerous than normal diseases, there aren’t even any that are transmitted only by sex (from the wiki look for any example lacking M, F, and B).

The enemy here are dangerous diseases and they are created at random. All else equal it is less likely that a disease evolving in an animal host will be able to survive in our bodies than the same in another human (or close relative such as chimps).

This contention is similar in quality to the argument against homosexuality that commits the same fallacy. Confusing vectors of infection with the creation of the contagion. Homosexual sex between uninfected people will never result in HIV. Neither will zoosexual sex between uninfected people.

2.3 Pro makes the claim that human bodies aren’t built to accommodate other species activities and fluids. This is true, and it’s why the actual number of species humans can really have sex with is quite small in comparison to all the species that exist. However those species which do live with us are not selected at random, they are quite close to us on the evolutionary tree (all things considered). They use many of the same hormones, compounds, etc.. Even with species known to be compatible some individuals have problems. What Pro again failed to mention is that there is a word for this, it’s an allergy. Allergies are not contagious, they cannot pose a risk to ‘human society’.

2.4 As per my arguments in 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 there is no extra burden from bestiality placed on society and what little potential for burden there is does not constitute an extra danger to society. By extra I mean more than allowing free sex between humans, allowing the consumption of animal products, and allowing unsupervised human-animal contact in general.

2.5 Pro refers to zoophiles/zoosexuals as a few malcontents. How many malcontents does it take before society must give them equal rights?

2.6 We do not need to guess at what a society with legal bestiality would look like, there are already a few countries where it is legal. Denmark for instance. Yet the explosion of terrifying diseases has not occurred, clearly they are trying to lull us into a false sense of security.


Pro is simply completely wrong about the health risks of bestiality.

Pro says I am proposing a society where animals are effectively sex slaves. Well in order for an animal to be a sex slave, first it needs to be a slave.

Therefore Pro is proposing that a society where animals are effectively (food, experiment, house, labor) slaves is acceptable but a society where they are sex slaves isn’t.

I cannot see any reason for this to be the case other than a special emotional fear of anything sexual.



CONTENTION 1: Bestiality should be illegal because humans tend to have an undue influence over animals.

1.1. The instigator begins his round by telling us that “If we use animals in so many ways and they don’t
rebel, how do we know we aren’t hurting them or contradicting their happiness just as severely as we would with sex (presuming sex regularly does that at all)?” However, this question is completely irrelevant to the arguments I’ve put forward. My argument is not a question of determining whether animals are happy, but whether humans have an undue influence over animals much like adults have over children. The fact that humans have complete dominion over animals is proof of this. Since the instigator doesn’t contest human dominion over animals, we need not delve any further into line of discussion.

1.2. Next, the instigator addresses my analysis of current statutory rape laws. He points out that I’ve somehow undermined my point by admitting that “society makes a false assumption in presuming younger people cannot consent despite being capable of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’.” However, this doesn’t undermine my point in the slightest. Rather, the instigator simply doesn't the understand the very concept of legal presumptions in the first place.

In the case of statutory rape, we presume that children cannot consent regardless of whether they actually say “yes” or “no.” Adults tend to have an undue influence over children and children can thus easily be manipulated into sexual activity, the most recent and infamous example of this being with Jerry Sandusky. There’s also the numerous cases of catholic priests, but I don’t imagine I need to get into that. Thus, no, my point isn’t undermined in admitting that non-consent from children is simply a presumption. From the standpoint of public policy, we wish to protect children from being abused by adults. The fact that we can (and should) presume that children cannot consent to sex with adults makes any argument the instigator has about an animal’s capacity to consent completely irrelevant.

Thus, again turning to the instant case, we as a society should presume that animals cannot consent for the greater good. The good being that we prevent a regime where animals are simply sexual servants. Sexual servitude is simply another form of rape. When you, as an adult, engage in sexual activity with a child as a result of your undue influence over them, you’ve effectively engaged in nonconsensual sex, hence why we have statutory rape laws. By this same standard, we, as a society should simultaneously reject bestiality.

Humans already sexually abuse animals at a disturbing rate.[1] Making bestiality legal will simply open the floodgates for animal abusers in our society. All the instigator accomplishes is creating a society where animal cruelty is much more difficult to contain and prosecute.

CONTENTION 2: Bestiality is dangerous to human society

2.1. The instigator begins his rebuttal to my second contention by pointing out that the HIV virus was brought about as a result of man eating chimpanzee meat. However, my argument is not a matter of whether HIV came about as a result of bestiality, but rather to emphasize on the large risks involved in humans acquiring diseases found in other species.
The fact of the matter is that one of the deadliest diseases known to man came from another species and that bestiality is a very high risk activity sexual activity due to the multitude of illnesses one can acquire by engaging in it. What the instigator wants is a regime where more illnesses from other species come into being at a much greater frequency. Illnesses that individual species are more naturally equipped to deal with than humans. Nothing the instigator says justifies the burden he is placing on society.

2.2. The instigator attempts to make a comparison between growing mold and bestiality. Not only is his comparison specious (given that it’s not possible to live in a society without mold, but possible to live in a society without bestiality), but mold has proven to have many practical uses that benefit society.[2] The benefits of mold make it worth keeping (albeit subjected to reasonable regulations). The same cannot be said for bestiality.

He further makes the claim that engaging bestiality is NOT biologically dangerous. However, the instigator is considerably mistaken. For example, research indicates that men who engage in bestiality are 42% more likely to develop penal cancer.[3]

The instigator is correct in that dangerous diseases are an enemy to society. What he fails to realize, however, is that animals have virtually no understanding of this enemy and are thus likely to engage in all sorts of behaviors (i.e. eating feces and drinking waste infested water, humping just about anything under the sun, etc) that we humans have sufficient intellectual capacity to grasp the dangers of. Use your common sense, members of DDO. I love my dog, Fitzwilliam Darcy, as much as most people love their pets, but Mr. Darcy, despite being well groomed and cared for, is a flea bitten mongrel who I wouldn't even allow 5 paces near the dinner table, much less to the kind of activity the instigator talks about. Yet the instigator, is telling us that this sort of activity, activity that involves the complete physical exchange of waste and body fluids is not dangerous? You don't need to have a medical degre to see that this is complete utter nonsense.

He goes one to yet again make a comparison with homosexuality, but this is yet again a matter of using your common sense, members of DDO. Humans don't wade through filfth and eat feces. Animals do. Humans are perfectly capable of protecing themselves against the enemy the instigator talks. Animals are practicaly in love with the enemy the instigator talks about.[4] There's no comparison.

2.3. Honestly, I'm not too sure what CON is getting at in this subsection. Is he attempting to claim that zoonoses aren't contagious?

2.4. CON's argument basically boils to acknowleding the diseases one can acquire from animals, but insists that there is no extra burden from bestiality since one can acquire many of these diseases without engaging in bestiality. This argument is weak and defies common sense. We're talking about sexual activity with an animal. Directly and intentionally making close physical contact and exchanging fluids. This doesn't compare to petting your dog or rubbing his belly. Of course there is an extra burden.

2.5. CON should first prove that one has a 'human right' to sex with animals in the first place. Then we can discuss whether anyone's rights are being violated.

2.6. CON's argument is ad hoc. Although I argue that banning the practice of bestiality curbs the risk of new and dangerous diseases in society, laws aren't the only force keeping this from happening. The fact of the matter is that most people, such as myself, simply find bestiality repulsive. Nonetheless, should that change, then it goes without saying what happens when people spend too much time in physical proximity with filth ridden beasts.[4]


As I've stressed, the health risks to having sex with animal are quite real. What CON is suggesting is that you disregard common sense.

CON is correct to the extent that one could certainly make the case that animals are already food/experiment/house-labor slaves. What he disregards is the simple that the societal good food, medical products and shelter far outweighs the bad. Nevertheless, we as a society still believe in animal cruelty laws. As I've demonstrated, the act of effective rape simply crosses the line and we as a society should reject it as well as reject the prevalent threat of animal sex abuse.






Debate Round No. 2


1.1.1 The contention that humans have undue influence is irrelevant to the resolution. What makes influence undue and what does that have to do with the proper legality of sex? Pro has failed to relate his contention to the resolution.


Adults can’t have sex with children

Adults have dominion over children

Therefore adults can’t have sex with children because adults have dominion over them.

Is a fallacy of questionable cause.


Adults can’t have sex with anything they have dominion over.

Adults have dominion over animals

Therefore adults can’t have sex with animals.

I challenge the major premise.


Pro claims:

“The fact that we can (and should) presume that children cannot consent to sex with adults makes any argument the instigator has about an animal’s capacity to consent completely irrelevant.”

I am directly challenging that supposed fact. If Pro is saying he does not need to support it then this debate is over, he may as well claimed “the fact that the resolution is true makes any argument the instigator has irrelevant.”

1.2.2 I also directly challenge the presumption that just because society should presume something about children it should presume the same about animals.

1.2.3 Pro claims:

“Thus, again turning to the instant case, we as a society should presume that animals cannot consent for the greater good.”

I claim that we as a society should presume that animals can consent for the greater good…. and I will demonstrate that good and how great it is if and when Pro does the same for his statement.

1.2.4 (Most important)

“Sexual servitude is simply another form of rape.”

Let’s review Pro’s logic to get here:

A) Society should presume animals can’t consent for the greater good.

B) The greater good is preventing sexual servitude

C) The greater good is good because sexual servitude is simply another form of rape

Now let’s examine some other facts:

a) Rape is sex without consent.
b) Since sexual servitude is a form of rape it must be a form of sex without consent.

Substituting this into Pro’s logic:

C) The greater good is good because sexual servitude is simply another form of sex without consent.

Eliminating the extraneous term ‘sexual servitude’ his logic is thus:

A) Society should presume animals can’t consent for the greater good.

C) The greater good is good because sex with animals is sex without consent.

How do we know that animals don’t consent? We presume animals don’t consent for the greater good. How do we know the greater good is good? Animals don’t consent. How do we know that animals don’t consent? We presume animals don’t consent for the greater good.

Pro is using circular logic, formally a begging the question fallacy.


“Humans already sexually abuse animals at a disturbing rate.[1]”

The link hardly proves that. Not only does this list span two countries and 31 years while only containing 121 cases; but it contains mislabeled acts. For instance “Dog sexually assaulted” but the description is not sexual assault, just sex.

“I had to tell Adam he didn't do anything wrong. The man did something wrong."

Neither did anything wrong based on the contents of that webpage.

Even if we assumed every single other case was truly a case of sexual abuse of animals that means we are looking at 3.9 cases per year which is 1.09e-8 cases per year per capita.

Consider that 22500 people are arrested for rape in one year in the United States. 5769 times more than this alleged animal abuse.

1.2.7 Pro has not established that bestiality is animal cruelty therefore.

2.1 Pro confirms that his point about HIV wasn’t confined to bestiality.

2.2.1 The proposition is not between no bestiality and some bestiality, but between legal bestiality and illegal bestiality.

2.2.2 “For example, research indicates that men who engage in bestiality are 42% more likely to develop penal cancer.[3]”

I thank Pro for reminding me why I hate junk science with abandon, it gets everywhere and no matter how many times you clean up the mess it’s always waiting in the next debate or conversation. I will copy paste my response to this from both other debates where it has been brought up.

(-) From :

First and foremost lets find the source of this claim, it's here and I can't see more than the abstract.

"New studies are required in other populations to test other possible nosological links with SWA"

No kidding. Why?

"Penile cancer is a very frequent pathology in Brazil, predominantly affecting low income, white, uncircumcised patients, living in the north and northeast regions of the country."

They got a problem there, there is a nasty thing called Human Papilloma Virus. It is likely transmissible via sex... you guessed it not just sex with animals.

United States: 1 in 100,000 men.

Denmark: 0.82 per 100,000.

Why is that important? Bestiality is legal in Denmark. If bestiality caused penile cancer it would be higher in Denmark.

So if you are following me the inconclusive identification of bestiality as a risk factor NOT CAUSE of penile cancer in rural Brazil for uncircumcised people having promiscuous group sex really has nothing at all to do with bestiality as a practice got it. No one should be afraid of this

(-) From :

Just one excerpt should be enough The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time”

It’s an interesting phenomenon that doesn’t scale with exposure… eh?


The excerpt was from

In conclusion Pro is quite wrong. Men who participate in bestiality are not 42% more likely to get penile cancer.

2.2.3 You should get some flea medicine for Fitzwilliam Darcy and stop projecting. If you tolerate any one of the zoonosis you linked to you are an irresponsible pet owner IMO. If Darcy does not have those diseases he cannot give them to you no matter how ‘dirty’ you think he is. Regardless of how clean a homosexual man may seem, he can carry HIV and give it to you. Last but certainly not least the term ‘dangerous’ does not just include the chances of infection but the danger of the disease in question. HIV is incurable. None of the zoonosis linked to are. FYI waste fluids are not exchanged during sex.

2.3 Allergies aren’t contagious.

2.4 Eating animal meat is just a surely a transfer of body fluids, so his licking on the face which I have observed in a great number of dog owners.

2.5. Pro implies he would uphold his burden by presuming everything should be illegal. If a law against something cannot be justified you have a legal right to it by the nature of law.

2.6. If people in Denmark find bestiality repulsive and this somehow keeps them from being overridden with zoonosis then the same would be true elsewhere.

“What CON is suggesting is that you disregard common sense.”

The deadly disease he picked came from eating meat. The zoonoses he linked to are treatable, detectable, rare, and not transmitted by sex alone. There are far less zoonoses than other diseases and there is a good reason for that; it is harder for a contagion to adapt to two hosts.

Pro cannot change these facts, so he uses emotionally charged language in an attempt to caste animals as filthy unclean animals ridden with dangerous diseases just waiting to infect humans, he then calls this common sense.

“What he disregards is the simple that the societal good food, medical products and shelter far outweighs the bad.”

With what scale did you weigh these goods and bads? What benefit does Fitzwilliam Darcy give society that justifies the risk of keeping a filthy flea-bitten mongrel around?



Since CON has refrained from proving an affirmative-argument today, you need merely be persuaded by one of my two contentions in order to vote PRO today.

CONTENTION 1: Bestiality should be illegal because humans tend to have an undue influence over animals.


Unable to refute the substance of my arguments, CON shifts to attempting to refute them syllogistically. In doing so, he ignores the entirety of my previous two rounds. This can be seen in questions like “what makes influence undue and what does that have to do with the proper legality of sex?” As my definition in R1 showed, undue influence is “such influence as prevents a person from exercising his own will and substitutes in its place the will of another.”. The existence of such influence is the justification for statutory rape laws regarding children. Humans wield an even greater degree of undue influence over animals than they do children.

We have statutory rape laws in place with good reason. The idea of consent is not so simple as a “yes." We presume children cannot consent because we know how easy it is for adults to say “yes” regardless of whether the answer reflects their will. The Sanduskys of the world have demonstrated such time and time again. Animals are even easier to control and one can engage in all sorts of abusive behaviors with them without law enforcement agents being any the wiser.

1.1.1. See overview

1.1.2. Strawman fallacy.

(1) Adults have dominion over children.

(2) Therefore adults can unduly influence children into saying “yes” to having sex with adults.

(3) Consent to sex brought about through undue influence is not true consent.

(4) Therefore we should presume that children cannot consent to sex with adults.

1.1.3. CON has done nothing to challenge the major premise.

1.2.1 Nope, CON isn’t challenging anything. If he were, he would have addressed the explanations of statutory rape I’ve put forward in the very paragraph he’s quoting from (as well as throughout R1).

1.2.2 Again, CON simply hasn’t reviewed my arguments. I’ve discussed the reason we make this presumption about children. The same reasoning can be applied to animals since animals are even more susceptible to undue influence. CON appears to agree that people shouldn’t be able to rape animals. His problem is that he thinks consent is simply fave-value agreement.

1.2.3 CON had his opportunity to make an affirmative argument in both of his previous rounds. If he makes one in the next round, disregard it.

1.2.4. CON goes back and forth with himself on a tangent, concluding that my reasoning is circular because I claim that we should presume that animals cannot consent.

The problem is that he disregards the basis of this presumption. First, humans have dominion over animals. CON could post all the silly dog humping videos in the world, but none of that changes the fact that pets can and are made to do just about anything their masters tell them to do, whether it be out of reward or punishment mentality. Second, there’s consent at face value and then there’s true consent. Given the relationship between pets and their monsters, most of their behaviors aren’t actually consensual.

What CON is telling you is that Sandusky didn’t rape those little boys and that the law was wrong to presume he did. That because the little boys didn’t resist during any of these acts, it was ‘consensual’ and we are to accept that. There’s more to the idea of consent than a simple “yes” or “no” or even a lack of resistance. If someone can unduly influence you into having sex, that’s not truly consent, hence the presumption numerous societies have adopted.

1.2.5. [No Space].

1.2.7. [No Space]

CONTENTION 2: Bestiality is dangerous to human society

2.1. Irrelevant (see R2 explanation).

2.2.1 Also irrelevant. Making laws from the standpoint of public policy (i.e. health concerns) does not require that every single instance of X be detrimental to society. Every single instance of going past 70 mph is not detrimental to society, but we nonetheless have laws saying that one cannot exceed 70 mph on certain roads.

2.2.2. CON’s argument is non-sequitur. He assumes that because penal cancer is common in Brazil, that the research I provided is false. This completely disregards the research’s findings however. The fact remains that subjects engaging in animal sex were 42% more likely than other groups to get penal cancer. The fact that there are other ways to get penal cancer in Brazil is immaterial to the research’s findings.

He repeats his ad hoc argument regarding Denmark, this time asserting that “if bestiality caused penile cancer it would be higher in Denmark.” Higher compared to what? CON’s argument is based on unsupported assumptions (i.e. that Denmark’s cancer rate was about the same before bestiality was legalized, that there isn’t a social stigma against bestiality in Denmark, etc).

I couldn’t agree more with CON when he tells us that bestiality is a risk factor as opposed to the cause of penile cancer in Brazil just as I’d agree with many that speeding and drunk driving are risk factors as opposed to the causes for vehicular homicide (killing somebody with a car).

2.2.3. CON appears desperate to find a connection between homosexuality and bestiality. As I pointed out in the last round, there’s no comparison. If two human males are having anal sex, chances are, the dominant partner has the sense to clean himself, use a condom and stop if the condom tears or if the submissive partner is in pain. CON is pretty much using sophistry and asking you to disregard common sense by comparing human sex with animal sex.

I don’t tolerate any of the disgusting behaviors my dog engages in, but him being a dog, he’s disgusting by nature. He’s going to do something disgusting no matter how many precautions to prevent this.

2.3. If CON agrees that zoonoses can be contagious, then there’s nothing to discuss here.

2.4. Animal meats are well regulated and people tend to clean their faces after their dogs lick. Animal semen pumped into orfices is a different matter entirely.

2.5. No proof of a right to animal sex.

2.6. Just because people already find an activity repulsive/reprehensible doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a law against said activity. Murder and thievery are good examples of barred activities that society is already strongly against.

Debate Round No. 3


ADreamOfLiberty forfeited this round.



(Per R1 stipulation)

Debate Round No. 4
89 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 5 years ago
ocd disorder to always be right? If that's what I have I wish it was mainstream, maybe that way more people would look at the logic instead of the votes.... and I mean that in every conceivable sense.
Posted by 2-D 5 years ago
Imagine being attracted to animals combined with an ocd disorder to always be right. This debate makes me glad that my DNA is more mainstream.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
Thanks TheLastMan! I can't take all the credit though. He kind of defeated himself! He kind of defeated himself. He seems to keep begging for more punishment, but I'm no sadist! ;)
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 5 years ago
Why I won: #244
Posted by TheLastMan 5 years ago
Congratulations Logical Master for winning this debate. Your opponent forfeited in the last round because you outbrained him. Way to go!
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 5 years ago
kbub, I will happily debate you on undue influence in my thread about bestiality.
Posted by Logical-Master 5 years ago
My apologies if I offended you. That was not my intention.
Posted by kbub 5 years ago
I think Logical-Master's Contention one was excellent, but contention two was boardering offensive (slightly reminiscent of anti-interratial marriage and same-sex marriage arguments).
Posted by ADreamOfLiberty 5 years ago
I take that to mean you cannot find where in the rules it says that. I knew that the points were decided by voters and that the system would generate text that claims the winner is the holder of the most points, and I knew that most members of this site place stock in such a subjective appeal to popularity.

Those are the facts, I did not know that the winner is decided by voters because that is still not the case.
Posted by wordy 5 years ago
*will not reflect
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "Animal semen pumped into orfices is a different matter entirely." This made me LOL. So I came into this debate unbiased. At first, I thought I was going to vote for Con, until the second to last round. This was close, and Con had a real chance, had he not forfeited the last round like a total douche. I hate when people do that. Both sides sourced Wikipedia -.- Pro used tinyurl links... not appreciated at all. But he was the only to use a .edu source, so he gets source points. I thought it odd that Con cited his own debates so much. Had Pro not reminded me that Con never challenged his major premise, I might have given argument points to Con. Then there's also the fact that Pro pointed out how all of Con's excuses for a higher penal cancer rate among people who have sex with animals failed. Awesome debate! Although, I'm a bit worried because of Con's determination to prove that having sex with animals should be legal. Just kidding! =D
Vote Placed by whiteflame 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a really fascinating debate with a lot of moving pieces to be analyzed, and frankly, I was just disappointed that it ended with a forfeit from Con. But, that aside, I think the arguments were all out there beforehand. Given that, I the question became whether there was a significant health harm, and whether it could be considered cruelty to animals. Con uses most of his argument to point out hypocrisy, which would have worked better if he had made a case for why, while these might be reasons to dislike beastiality, it should not be illegal. But I don't think that came through clearly. The animal cruelty point remained relatively strong even with this point. The health point could have been stronger - Pro could have brought up the recombinations that occur when diseases jump to new species and the dangers involved in transmission (i.e. these diseases could begin to jump between human beings), but this was still an issue. I pull the trigger mainly on cruelty.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for forfeit. Pro made a case that analogized certain factors of bestiality with pedophilia. Adults have undue influence over children so that children can't really give proper consent, which is even more so the case with animals who also have the intellectual abilities of that of a child/baby. If I were to agree with con I feel I would also have to disagree with the law's stance on Sandusky actually raping those kids which I would rather not. Animals cruelty is already very common and allowing bestiality would spike it. In addition, sex with animals significantly increases the chances of sexual diseases which furthermore is dangerous to other persons who come in contact with persons who had sexual activity with animals. Much of con's syllogisms were pretty unfair strawmen and there was nothing circular about pro's contention. Con's format was tiresome as well. He shouldn't have cut the contentions into so many subsections.