Sex with animals is ethically permissible

Note: I am not allowed to respond to criticisms made in this round, so voters do not take his supposed refutation as acceptance.What's wrong with my opponents case?The vast majority of my opponents case is irrelevant as stated in my case, it matters not whether Animals have rights or they can be apart of ethics, the point of this debate is what is permissible for us to do. Should we be allowed to have sex with animals is the basic question. But as my opponents case hinges on whether animals have rights, I will attempt to refute his view that animals have no rights. The truth is if my opponent cannot make the case that ethics do not also belong to animals then he has been successfully refuted. Furthermore my opponent fails to define terms non-circularly, for example, he says freedom is to be extent of all things which do not insult another person's freedom to be. You, for one, cannot define something by putting it in its own definition, I will define freedom in a non-circular manner:" To be able to do what is ethically permissible"The Incapacitated Human Argument My opponent conceives a world where in order for someone to have rights they must(albeit very implicitly) accept ethical responsibilities and acceptance of the community. Now what does that entail? In plain terms, all it means is that someone must consent to accept ethical values of others as their own. While I completely disagree, let me run this further to what this entails for humans that are unable to make that commitment. My opponent brings up two groups that are equally ethically questionable. Lets move to what my opponents conception of how one gets freedom. My opponent conceives freedom as something one needs to accept responsibility in order to hold. This is so arbitrary its hard to know where to start. Nobody implicitly or explicitly accepts societal responsibility to be ethical. But even if they did there are people which cannot accept responsibility. Under my opponents definition people who cannot accept responsibility can therefore be imposed on because they do not have freedom. Now that entails anyone can have sex with not only animals, but people are currently incapacitated or permanently incapacitated. Furthermore, what about necrophilia? Is that permissible as well? I submit even his argument with mentally disabled people is blatantly false, humans cannot be considered property even if they are irrational. Being irrational is not a reason to be allowed to imposed on. Especially not sexually.My opponents ethical subjectivismMy opponent is clearly advocating ethical subjectivism without defending it. He offers the societal form of ethical behavior. He submits that must consent to community values in order to be apart of them, now lets think about what that means. He submits if we fail to commit to societal values then we to can be forcibly raped. Therefore, rape in prison is perfectly permissible. My opponents whole argument is contingent on the acceptance of community values, so going against these morals is not only immoral according to my opponent but also warrant of removal of all rights. My opponent misconstrues legal rights vs natural rights, in that he doesn't understand that natural rights are not contingent on the societies right to revoke them. The reason why my opponent is advocating this form of ethics is because there is no way to conceive ethics to accept sexual relations with animals. "In order to claim freedom, one must consent to imposition of responsibility, an acceptance of the community of people and their ethical value." This is subjectivism at its highest level. Anyone who values freedom remotely should join me in negating this resolution because if the definition of freedom is contingent on community values many people have lost their complete natural and legal rights. Furthermore, my opponent does not understand the implications of this definition, if we were in Nazi Germany according to my opponent then we must accept their ethical values or lose all natural rights, and it is important to note the extreme difference between me and my opponent, he conceives rights as given to you by the government, I do not. Freedom is inherent. Let me propose one more situation before I move on to the Argument from Commonsense.Argument from Daniel Kaye and the Andrew SistersMy opponent conceives ethical responsibility to be given to only those who are rational, and those who can accept the community values, but I ask my opponent a question, are we supposed to be allowed to rape them simply because they are irrational in societies view? What constitutes rationality if it can only be conceived in a community? I would hope my opponent would say no. There have been example of many cultures with lesser ethical values, yet we all almost universally agree raping them would not be appropriate. This is the exact parallel of animals because both parties are irrational at least in societies conception of morality.Argument from CommonsenseThe argument from commonsense is clearly a invalid deductive argument, maybe my opponent means it to be inductive like the majority of his case. I will show that this invalid anyway. Imposition is a interesting concept, I submit the majority of the situations my opponent supposes are impermissible and I would suggest my opponent report this to PETA if he sees any of these things(with the exception of a couple exceptions). Clearly some of these things are to help animals, such as forced coupling but no one would say a non-trained individual do anything of sort. My opponent says we regularly cut off animal penises and molest them but clearly this is false, I ask the reader when was the last time you(just for one example) masturbated your cat. One hopes that no one says last week. With regards to killing, there is a obvious reason why we allow killing animals and sexual intercourse is impermissible, it is simply because freedom doesn't naturally entail not being killed. Think about it this way. What gives us the right to kill people in war but not rape them, clearly it is a similar situation. It is commonsense in war time that we can kill people but not rape them. It is because not being killed isn't a natural right, it is a right granted by a government. This is one of the reasons we made societies in the first place so that we were free from death and despair. What separates us from animals isn't merely our rationality but our ability to live without fear. Sex and killing are different categories, this can further be explained by showing ethical implications of domesticated and farm animals. Now with farm animals we can kill them to feed ourselves, but we generally treat them well up to that point, they are conditioned to a certain end. However we would never kill our dog without provocation, certainly this is a right granted to him by us. Nevertheless we would never consider it ethically permissible to have sex with either the dog nor the farm animals. The difference between sex and killing is the difference between natural and legal or government granted rights. My opponent claims the imposition of commonsense=truth but then to the audience what does your intuition tell you? Usually commonsense will dictate that sex between members is actually ethically and pragmatically impermissible for many reasons. ConclusionMy opponent wants to justify the bestiality affection some people show but it is clearly ethically impermissible because although animals do not have legal rights they have to a limited extent natural rights. My opponents next post clearly illustrates his lack of understanding of contemporary ethics. But I am forced to wait to refute his outlandish statements. I would say the resolution stands refuted. Please vote Con today, thank you.ClarificationThe reason I use many frameworks for my case is very specific. I want to show that any framework that can be possibly used with inevitably lead to bestiality being impermissble.