Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Having read it, I can assure you that my understanding was noticeably affected by the rich structure. That said, any such structure will not be seen in my argument simply because I don't want to. The asterisk (*) will indicate when I am directly addressing my opponent. It seems to me that my opponent has had significant experience in the competitive debate realm. They (I will refer to the contender as "they" from here on out) should then recognize that the argument that they have constructed, as it goes, is impossible to debate. *Like, I dunno if you picked it up, but it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to debate this. * Firstly, I'd like to point out the futility of creating multiple debates about different parts of their argumentation. Okay, so if we do decide to argue about the framework and create a new debate, how do we go back and edit this one? We can't. We have to make a new debate. So what happens to this one? I'll assume it ends in a wash. The point is this: Because the instigator also happens to be the one who frames the resolution, the round is already skewed to begin with. This is because the instigator has the ability to create rather arbitrary guidelines to the debate under the rationale that they were the ones to create the debate to begin with. This is exemplified in quite a few places. Under the B tagline: "I will however assert some premises which my opponent must accept, if a potential opponent thinks these are unfair premises we can have a separate debate on that. ". Under premise B.2 : "No other moral standard shall be accepted. ". Under premise B.3: "Only the definition of concept given here is to be referenced or used. ". The list goes on. The opponent does state that we (the contenders) "can have a separate debate on that". This is futile for the same reason that this debate is. In any sort of prospective debate, the instigator will indeed carry that power skew. Fairness is impossible when the instigator is the only one that can interpret the resolution, my opponent should be very familiar with this. The only way to have a fair debate is for the instigator to remove themself from total control of interpretation. Interpretation should be left to be debated about, in round. This is called framework debate and is thus a huge part of competitive debate. All that said, even though this debate is hugely biased because the arbitrator also happens to be a debater, I'll try and debate under the guidelines provided. Concede all framework issues and inherent immorality. The only remaining point of contention is morality as per consent. My opponent lines out two neg strategies under H.2 and H.3 and goes on to show why these methods have no ground. He does, however, forget to mention a third method, which I will be substantiating now. H.4. Nobody can ever give informed consent to anything. Nothing is moral. My opponent said it himself, "It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action. Something that requires the ability to predict the future with 100% certainty. " His only rationale as to why we shouldn't entertain this idea is engrained in the idea of reductio ad absurdum. The neg sees this as a petty excuse to be try-hard in debate (I'll get into that later) and will not tolerate such idealism. MoM COUNTERPLAN: Plan- Prior to the affirmative advocacy, the Ministry of Magic will be consulted A. This is an extra-topical counterplan- though the plan is passed through the instigator's mind, the Ministry of magic is consulted prior to passage of the advocacy B. Net Benefits: The CP stops unfairness through the use of magic. They can travel in time and tell us what to do. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban clearly exemplifies time travelling abilities. C. Wizards are ([Censored Word]) awesome Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 and Lord of the Rings in 1954 and 1955 If you have seen Lord of The rings or read the books, or seen any of the Harry Potter or read the books, you'll agree. Wizards are ([Censored Word]) awesome Gandalf killed a Balrog (Big Fire giant), went through Fangorn Forest unharmed, removed power from Sarumon, the dark white wizard, destroyed legions of orcs and fought off a Nazgul (A Dragon, except a whole lot angrier) unharmed Dumbledore took down the dark wizard Grindelwald, researched the philosopher's stone and succeeded in creating one, found the dozen uses of dragon blood, is the only wizard Voldemort ever feared, successfully dueled Voldemort, and told Harry Potter how to beat Voldemort. Not to mention was in general, the greatest (In-world in Harry Potter) Wizard ever. D. Solvency Magic gives witches and wizards abilities reaching the infinite in number Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased) Magic allows wizards the ability to ignore natural laws, such as instant production of food, water, and other necessities, including medicine or prevention of terminal illnesses E. Advantages Aurors are the Special Forces paramilitary operators in the wizarding world-they are the best at killing dark wizards Harry Potter in 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased) Wizards and Witches go through extreme training measures in order to join the ranks, requiring at least five Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests, and excellent marks in potion-making, stealth, disguise, location and concealment, among other tests. They are also proficient in all manners of information extrapolation, brilliant, and among the best in spell-casting Dark Wizards cause extinction Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased) Voldemort organizes the Death Eaters, his loyal group of witches and wizards who pursue the dark arts, freely kill muggles and track down and murder witches and wizards who tolerate Muggles and "mudbloods," magic makers from Muggle families. " NEXT ONTO WHY I WIN THE ROUND: The role of the ballot is to accurately represent the will of the judge. As a written form between the judge and the reader, the ballot serves only as communication. That said, judge, you are obliged as a human being to indicate on the ballot whatever you so desire. Going on, we observe that the burden is on the pro to prove to you that it is the most desirable for you to indicate a pro ballot. As the con, we"re going to tell you all the ways it would be not. "The purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience" said by Eleanor Roosevelt. Moreover, Albert Einstein goes on to say, "gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love". Now, when we cross-apply relating philosophies, we understand that although debating about what the instigator says may be in accordance with the natural order of what may be expected, it fails to efficiently fulfill the ultimate purpose of life which is fulfillment itself. We"ll state our first contention. The philosophy of hedonism fulfills ultimately. Heathwood "06 says "the most plausible form of hedonism is extensionally equivalent to the most plausible form of desire satisfactionism" How can a single theory of welfare be a version of both hedonism and desire satisfactionism? The an- swer has to do with pleasure. " we humans ultimately desire only pleasure. The answer, rather, lies in what pleasure is: pleasure" is the subjective satisfaction of desire. " We therefore conclude that the judge should indicate the most pleasurable ballot option. Our contention two is that laughter is inherently pleasurable. From the New York Times in 2011, "In five sets of studies in the laboratory and one field study at comedy performances, Dr. Dunbar " tested resistance to pain both before and after bouts of social laughter" The findings" eliminated the possibility that the pain resistance measured was the result of a general sense of well being rather than actual laughter" "The causal sequence in laughter triggers endorphin activation," [Dr. Dunbar] said. " As a subpoint B: Laughter literally heals you. There are three main reasons. . http://stress.about.com... ; Scott "13 " 1)Hormones: Laughter reduces the level of stress hormones like cortisol, epinephrine (adrenaline), dopamine and growth hormone. It also increases the level of health-enhancing hormones like endorphins. Laughter increases the number of antibody-producing cells we have working for us, and enhances the effectiveness of T cells. All this means a stronger immune system, as well as fewer physical effects of stress. 2)Internal Workout: A good belly laugh exercises the diaphragm, contracts the abs and even works out the shoulders, leaving muscles more relaxed afterward. It even provides a good workout for the heart. 3)Social Benefits of Laughter: Laughter connects us with others. Just as with smiling and kindness, most people find that laughter is contagious, so if you bring more laughter into your life, you can most likely help others around you to laugh more, and realize these benefits as well. By elevating the mood of those around you, you can reduce their stress levels, and perhaps improve the quality of social interaction you experience with them, reducing your stress level even more! " " As you can see, judge, the incredible effects of humor justify a clear ballot in favor of the most humorous side.