Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

My RefutationsI'd first like to address Pro's later points in his argument in Round 3: "Yes, I did search bestiality on the RSPCA site there was only one result “Animal Abuse” which provided a word document which I have searched half a dozen times for that claim. Without linking to the actual claim I cannot follow the claim back to the original data to evaluate its propriety."Sorry, I didn't realize that you could "cache" a website that automatically takes you to a work document. I have now "cached" it so that you can view on the web. Pro can no longer reject my argument for its legitimacy. "You seem to accept that animals will shove their penis at you but don’t think that’s evidence of a sexual advance on a human."This still doesn't prove that animals can consent to having sexual intercourse. I believe the BoP is on you, Pro. You have still not provided legitimate scientific evidence that animals are capable of making a sexual advance on humans. Besides, this isn't what the debate is about. At the beginning of the debate, you defined zoophilia as this: the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. The resolution is Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral. This is about human's sexual orientation and their attraction to animals, not the other way around. If you wanted to debate the opposite, you should've specified that. "indeed when you try to stimulate your sexual organs using the body of someone else they tend to call that sex."Again, the dog was not stimulating it's sexual organs inside another human's body. This isn't sexual intercourse. Also, we're talking about human's sexual attraction not the other way around but I'll refute your next points anyway."If a dog is willing to hump you they are consenting to hump you. If you cooperate that humping turns into penetration and orgasm for the dog."You are assuming that since an animal is humping you, they have consented to hump you. So in the video, did the dog say this: Hey girl, may I hump your butt? No, it just got horny and started humping. Even if a few barks meant consent (which it didn't) we don't know what animals actions mean beyond reasonable doubt. Animals aren't like humans in terms of communication. So far, Pro hasn't proven that animals can consent and in order for it to be a law, consent must be shown in court. The BoP is on him, and so far he hasn't shown this."It does not matter if the animal has a specific idea of exactly how things will go. They consent to what they are doing..."Again the BoP (Burden of Proof) is on Pro. Usually in debates, no new information may be introduced in the final round. I suggest we abide by this. The majority of my opponent's arguments have been blatant assumptions without any evidence and the BoP is on him. His argument's ultimately fail. Me:“and in order for this to change, consent needs to be shown in court” Pro:"Why? The definition of no other abuse is related to consent."I don't understand what you mean by this? This debate is about the legality of bestiality, and in order for a law to made, it needs to be shown in court. Why would a government legalize something that isn't proved? Pro:Ah! So something isn’t harmful to animals if one can’t provide evidence on how an animal is being harmed.What about a guy beating his animal senseless every other day? Is that part of being a pet?A guy beating his pet senseless is abuse and neglect. If this is discovered, the animal will be taken away, and the person can be put in jail if severe enough in countries like the U.S. Also, I specifically stated that an animal becoming a pet itself, is not harmful. "A pet (or companion animal) is an animalkept primarily for a person's company or protection. An animal becoming a pet itself is not harming the animal. Since you still haven't provided any evidence on how an animal becoming a pet is harming it, we'll take it that you see no harm.[1]"The benefit in question is towards animals not humans, and the issue was how you know something is a benefit if you can’t use advanced language with animals."We are debating the legality of bestiality. Laws are made legal if they benefit humans in some way. The legalizationof bestiality is something that would effect both humans and animals. The benefit is to both.Pro then goes on to say that since I stated food is neccessary for survival without any periods and that makes the statement ambiguous. I did indeed put a period after necessary fo survival, so my statement is not ambiguous."If something is necessary you cannot do without it..."I said that meat is food, and food is necessary for survival. One cannot simply survive without food."If everything requires consent from animals unless it is ‘beneficial’ to human survival then are pets beneficial to human survival and why?"Pets are not beneficial to human survival but they can benefit humans i.e. companionship, exercise etc. We presume the animal does want to be healed, an thus heal them to prolong their life and well-being especially if the animal is young."If that’s your idea of benefit the porn industry is a benefit"The legalization of bestiality, and the legalization of bestiality porn are two seperate things. If you want to debate that, you can always challenge me ;). This debate is also about morality, and would legalizing bestiality porn be moral?"I don’t care if a government makes law based on astrology law should be based on morality."You've just contradicted yorself. You claimed that law and morality are already inherently linked in Premise B.1 and now your claiming that law should be based on morality. Make up your mind....Pro in massive font: "You have not met the burden of proof on that"The burden of proof rests on the affirmative, not me and you are the affirmative.Pro in massive font yet again: "Con has not shown that bestiality itself is harmful."Yes, I did, and a cited a well-known author Frank Ascione PhD, from the University of Denver in the first round.Pro: "So tell me how do they do this in a way that we can never understand nor interface with?"It can be difficult to determine what an animal is really trying to communicate, especially since humans don't communicate the same way animals do. If a dog barks and wags his tail, while you unzip your pants to attempt tohave sexual intercourse with it, what does this mean?*Pro says that I directly said "it’s not harmful unless I can prove it is" I never said that. Press the control and f buttons simultaneously, and a word finder will appear in the right corner. You will see that I never said that on the previous rounds. He's pretending to take direct quotations from me and then twisting the wording. This is the second time he has pretended I missed something to disprove my arguments. I ask conduct points to be taken way.My main ArgumentsBestiality negatively effects animalsAccording to the RSPCA: "Animal abuse, animal cruelty or animal neglect is the infliction, by a human, of suffering or harm upon non-human animals, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Bestiality does not contribute to human survival and causes unecessary harm to the animal. Hence, this is considered animal abuse. Frank Ascione PhD, University of Denver states that it is not possible for an animal to give consent. Bestiality involves abusing animals, which can cause animals can die from wounds and injuries. Since this is about humans engaing in sexual intercourse with animals, it involves rape since the animal is not consenting. [3]Bestiality doesn't benefit humansBestiality doesn't benefit humans, and subsequently harms animals. In fact, Bestiality can increase penile cancer by 46% and is dentrimental to humans health. Why should we legalize a law that would abuse animals without benefiting humans in a moral way. [4]1.http://en.wikipedia.org...2.http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...; http://www.livescience.com...4. http://thebark.com...