Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

My Final Refutations"Your link...."It did not directly contain that claim, your right. However, if you take direct quotes from sources, your supposed to put quotations marks and italicize them. That wasn't a direct quote. From the information from the source, I came to my own conclusion, which is what you're supposed to do. The source did explain how bestiality lead to harm against animals, so I summed it up in my own words. I don't think Pro gets the point of sources, you are supposed sum up the information in your own words."consider your BoP for harm unmet"I don't know how may times I have to say this, but I'll say it one final time. The BoP is on Pro, not me, his burden was to show that bestiality should be legal and prove that it's not inherently immoral. My job is to negate the resolution. This common knowledge for all debates. "Maybe they are attracted to humans"Notice the word maybe... First of all, even if they are, you don't back it up with a source. Two, your videos prove nothing, and aren't even examples of bestiality. Even if we assume that animals can perpetrate sexual intercourse, bestiality involves many forms. By legalizing all bestiality, we are also legalizing a human raping animals without their consent.Me:"Again, the dog was not stimulating it's sexual organs inside another human's body.” Pro:Yet videos exist of dogs (and horses) doing just that.At the very least, you could've linked an article on this, instead of pornography. Besides, what percentage of the time do animals perpetrate bestiality? Again, just because an animal "humps" another human, doesn't mean that they have perpetrated bestiality. Animals could do this for a wide varity of reasons i.e. masturbation... "animal is willing to do those actions the animal is doing"Again, you have no proof. If an animal is forced to have sex with a human, does that mean they have consented to this. No, as I mentioned before, bestiality comes in many forms and that means legalizing every form. This includes a human perpetrating the sexual intercourse."burden of proof is on the state to prove the animal was not consenting."In this case, the BoP is on the lobbyists that want to legalize bestiality, by showing that animals can consent. Even if most governments ignore the consent aspect, they have done psychological and physical evalutations on bestiality and deemed it illegal since bestiality is essentially abuse. All I was saying was that in order to fairly debate the legalization of bestiality, it would be better to show consent in court."We are debating the ideal legality of bestiality."I believe the resolution above is: Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral. In the opening round, you never mentioned anything about the ideal legality of bestiality. All we're debating the legalization of bestiality and the morality of it."Finally bestiality benefits humans:"I find this newly introduced point hilarious. Although, normally new arguments aren't introduced in the last round, I will counter Pro's newly introduced point. You say it will result in less STD's, but the diseases from bestiality are astronomical. STD's could theoritically be transmitted from animal to human if an animal had multiple sexual partners in a short time frame. Potential disease include: Brucellosis from dogs, peritonisis, Q fever, Leptospirosis etc. Did I mention that bestiality also increases penile cancer by 46%? Yep, bestiality sure benefits humans (sarcsm). [1][2]"You have almost as many reading problems as wrichcirw...."Okay, now Pro's just blatantly insulting me. For sure a conduct point should be taken off from Pro. Also even if you said unambiguous, I did put a comma between animal products, and neccesary for survival in the first round. I don't see what you're getting at here.....Me: "We presume the animal does want to be healed”Pro: "Which is somehow acceptable where a presumption of wanting sex is not...)Presuming that animals want to have sex is unacceptable for the following reasons. First, assuming that an animal wants to have sexual intercouse, can lead to humans forcing them to something they don't want to do. Hence, leading to rape. However, when an animal is ill, we help them since it's benefiting their well-being. Sexual intercourse, however, does not."If law should be dependent on morality that is an inherent link."In premise B1, you stated that they already are an inherent link. In round 3, you stated that it should be an inherent link. That indeed is a contradiction. Therefore, if you amended changes to your Core Argument, it would look like this:"/If a practice is moral is should be legal since law should be based on morality/Bestiality is a moral practice// Bestiality should be legal"However, your last point would've been invalid since you stated that law and morality should be linked, implying that they aren't. By that logic, bestiality shouldn't be legal because law and morality aren't inherently linked. In an ideal world, the probably would, but this isn't an ideal world."I claimed that animals can consent to sex"Indeed you did. However, you didn't back it up with any credible scientific sources. You just assumed they did, and never backed it up with anything. You have not me your BoP regarding that point."I claimed that there is no inherent harm."Pro always has the BoP on everything he/she says. In criminal law in America (where my oppnent ADreamOfLiberty lives), the Prosecutor always has the BoP. If the Prosecutor were to make a negative claim, the BoP wouldn't be on the Defence to contradict that statement. Similarily, this applies to debates. Pro (Prosecutor), Con (Defence). By the way, you made a generalization of all forms of bestiality. If a man forces a dog to have sex with him, is that doing inherent harm? The answer is yes, Pro made a false generaliztion on all forms of bestiality."No you didn’t you posted a claim that I couldn’t even find in your links."The point of citing something isn't to post a direct claim as I mentioned before: It's to come to your own conclusions. I did not put quotes or italicize that statement, therefore, it wasn't a direct claim. I just came to my own conclusion from that report of Animal Abuse by the RSPCA."Wagging of the tail is well known to mean excitement or happiness."Again, the BoP is on you as I've explained a million times. You don't back this up with a source. Therefore, I cannot accept this to be true."Under the definition given bestiality is not abuse"Again, even though the definition of bestiality isn't abuse, bestiality can take may forms. Since bestiality is abuse if perpetrated by a human, it is rape since animals cannot consent. Since legalizing bestiality means legalizing all forms, we cannot make the generalization that bestiality is not inherenly abuse. For example, killing somone in some situations is not inherently immoral. Does that mean, we should legalizing killing people? No, because we can't make generalizations about all killings. Similary, we can apply this to the legalization of bestiality.“The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time”Again, where did you get this information from. Since you haven't proven this, it can't be accepted to be legitimate.Pro quoting Dr. Andrea Beetz: "penetration of the animal can be practiced without causing pain or injuries." It can be practiced without pain or injury, but the above resolution would legalize every form of bestiality. Again, this would include humans forcing animals into sexual intercourse which would be considered rape.My ArgumentsBestiality negatively effects animalsSince legalizing bestiality, would legalizes man on animal rape, most countries deem this illegal. Bestiality can lead to pain and suffering amognst animals without any necessary benefits to humans. Pro hasn't even shown that bestiality benefits animals, so I think I win this argument. [3]Bestiality doesn't benefit humansBestiality is more detrimental to humans then beneficial. Bestiality leads to humans contracted a wide variety of diseases and does certainly not benefit their health. At least when your having sex with a human, you have a low chance of getting bitten. All in all, since bestiality mainly harms animals and doesn't benefit humans, it is deemed illegal.Conclusion**Pro fails to show that animals can consent. He only assumes that they can and doesn't back it up with any scientific evidence. Ultimately, Pro fails to uphold the BoP. I have proved that bestiality is more harmful then beneficial to both humans and animals. Hence, I think I should win this debate.Sources:1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://www.livescience.com...3. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...%