Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

I do this in every debate, but in this one I mean it especially sincerely. It is a wonderful topic, and my opponent has done a great job explaining it. I predict that this will be my favorite debate. I will say this again later, but just so the voters see: I hereby concede that bestiality/zoophilia is NOT inherently immoral. In an ideal world, humans having sex with animals would be fine. We are not in an ideal world Acceptance============= 1. I am fairly certain that my opponent and I agree on what is the heart of the matter in this debate, so I have accepted her/his challenge. I understand that accepting the debate usually entails accepting the framework; however, my opponent gave a very long analysis on what this debate will entail, so I don't think it would be wrong for me to try to contest a few minor points, just to make sure we have a good debate. 2. Let me point out that my opponent used 7,000 characters to set up the round EXACTLY as (s)he wants it to be. (S)He basically is making the debate for me. Then, (s)he threatens me that if I disagree with any point I cannot debate the round. 3. This would be unfair to me. I though that my only real requirement is to attack my opponent's argument in a way relevant to the topic. I intend to do so. 4. I will not be bullied out of the debate, and I hope that is not my opponent's intention. 5. Because my opponent has put so much space in setting up the round, I have to waste this entire debate round ONLY on debating the framework. Voters, please note this fiat/framework abuse in your arguments and especially conduct section. 6. I'll go down the framing flow: A) Clarifying the resolution: a. I of course agree and concede that Pro does NOT have to prove that bestiality is never immoral. b. I also agree that Pro does NOT have to show that every aspect of Zoophilia/Bestiality should be moral; I accept that Pro is discussing limited action related to Bestiality/Zoophilia, and not every action c. The way I see it, there are two parts to the resolution: 1) Show that Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and 2) Show that Bestiality/Zoophilia is not inherently immoral. d. I want to clarify, though, that as the Con I have the ability to attack either of the options in any way I choose, as long as I am attacking the actual resolution and not a strawman/woman :) e. As for the legal aspect, my opponent must demonstrate that the world would be worse with the law, whereas I merely need to advocate that the world will be neutral or better with the law (perfect neutrality is a nearly impossible of course! ). B1 is slightly problematic. My opponent is advocating that bestiality should be legal. I'm simply proposing that it should not be legal. My opponent certainly has the right to define the criterion of the round to be morality, but (s)he cannot make my arguments for me. I reserve the right to attack the legality of bestiality/zoophilia in any way that I choose that is consistent with the case. B2) My opponent said that "no other moral standard will be accepted. " I'm cool with that, and think her/his moral standard very astutely gets to the bottom of this: that is it very important to keep in mind that the damage done by bestiality/Zoophilia is important, and not what people think of bestiality/Zoophilia. I think this might have been a minor mistake on the part of my opponent, but psychological and social damages are also important (i. e. , if someone is raped gently while in a coma, this causes social humiliation and psychological trauma, which are obviously bad). Again, this is just a minor adjustment. B3) In order for you to say that bestiality should not be illegal you must talk about a law that you think should not prohibit bestiality. Federally, there is no law that prevents bestiality, but there are several in the states of the United States. Might I recommend Florida's if you have a hard time finding some. If not--if you don't have any laws that you think are prohibitive of bestiality/zoophilia, then I've already won. The burden is not mine to come up with a law, but yours. D) a. I understand and like your definitions, but I do not want to get involved in a semantic war, which I guess is not what you want either. Therefore, if I find that you are not being topical, I will say so in round. Definitions are meant to be helpful in understanding a topic--except for legal definitions, they are not meant to shackle a debate subject. b. Keep in mind also that definitions display how people use words, not actual meanings. For example, your definition of rape seems to explicitly NOT include nonhuman animals, simply because humans do not talk about rape in that way. This is because humans tend to talk about humans. I am defending animal rights, so I will talk about animals in that way. c. Additionally, your biological pain does not consider humiliation or psychological trauma, both of which are problematic. Again, just to be clear, I am not going to bother getting into a semantic war about concepts we both understand. I will use your definitions as guidelines, not as rules of what we can debate about, since that would take away the truly topical discussion of whether or not acts of bestiality/zoophilia should be legal. Now, this is important E) You have forgotten a few burdens: 1) To demonstrate that non-human animals can consent to sex 2) that having a law prohibiting bestiality/zoophilia would be worse than no law 3) That zoophilia/bestiality is not inherently immoral. I may attack these in any way I choose. I admit that I can't just defend, but don't worry; I'm not planning to. My only burden is to demonstrate the opposite of any combination of 1, 2, and 3. F: "If a potential opponent does not think I have laid out valid reasons why informed consent is morally and legally inapplicable to animals, we can have another debate about it before they accept this one. " My opponent thinks (s)he can give 5,000 characters of requirement for this debate, and that I have to accept them all. Ha. No. I'm here to debate the topic. My opponent accidentally set up the round so (s)he can win by forcing me to make particular arguments. I think this is not my opponent's intentions, otherwise my opponent would be debating with herself/himself. In the spirit of debate, I will construct my own position, thank you very much. I recognize that my opponent is trying to not get bogged down in semantics over what counts as "consent. " I appreciate that. Please apply what (s)he says here to my position on her/his definitions. I too don't want to get bogged down. However, I must insist that definitions of consent according to the law are VITAL. You are not obligated to follow the past law's way of informed consent, but you must be able to set up standards for informed consent in the eyes of the law, or else I've already won that animals would never be protected. I look forward to seeing my opponent's analysis on this. G)-H) a. I hereby concede that bestiality/zoophilia is NOT inherently immoral. b. However, please realize that I still hold that bestiality/zoophilia is immoral in the context of the real world. c. Even if that's not the case, that does not necessarily mean that it is moral. Wearing a red shirt is not moral or immoral. d. EVEN IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT IN ONE CASE CONSENT IS IMPOSSIBLE, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT LEGAL CONSENT IS PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE, NOR THAT A LAW COULD BE MADE THAT COULD PROTECT ANIMALS. ----That is to say, if one lucky human manages to have sex with a consenting animal, that does not really mean anything. ----Non human animals, I will argue, will still need protection in the form of laws against bestiality/zoophilia. ----You coming up with a hypothetical example of consent does not entail practical, legal consent. e. I will argue against the videos in my next round, since this round I've had to address all of your sometimes a confusing but certainly very long framework. I) My opponent says that my burden of proof is harm. It's about time. This is the burden of proof that I am willing for both of us to accept. 1. My opponent must prove that having a general law is more harmful 2. I have to show that having a general law is less harmful. 3. This stuff about what counts as moral I guess may only apply to the "inherently immoral" part. If that's the case, then only this burden applies to me. 4. But either way, my opponent offered the criterion/burden of "harm," which I gladly accept, since this includes all harms, including pain, biological damage, humiliation, slavery, etc. J. I will later show how this horseback riding argument will prove my point. ======= Conclusion: 1. Neither of us will be burdened by useless definitions 2. I concede that inherent, ideal-world immorality is untrue. I will demonstrate that morality in this world is problematic 3. My opponent needs to specify a particular type of law that should rejected (even if its not exactly a real law, it should at least resemble the topic). Or else there's nothing debate. 4. Voters should note that I had to use up a round in simply accepting his debate by having to address 7,000 characters of things that I "have to" accept. I had to do so to demonstrate that I have the right to debate my own round 5. Because we are talking about laws now, the criterion should be whether they are harmful, which my opponent admits. If not, it should be whether or not they are moral. Moral includes harms, pain, and mutual consent (my opponent's definition would allow certain instances of rape to be moral, so I rejected it). 6. Also these are the burdens: E) You have forgotten a few burdens: 1) To demonstrate that non-human animals can consent to sex 2) that having a law prohibiting bestiality/zoophilia would be worse than no law 3) That zoophilia/bestiality is not inherently immoral. 7. I may attack these in any way I choose. 8. I'm really looking forward to the debate! :)