Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"To clarify, the BoP is on Pro. In order for ...which he hasn't done in any of his debates so far." I have in each debate. Con has no chance of winning unless he addresses my argument for consent. I can see this is going to be one of those shouting match type debates where my opponent repeatedly asserts that they are right. Well I'll try it the same way all in bold and see if that sways the smallfolk. Premise B.1 is not open to contest in this debate. If you wish to challenge it you should have challenged it before accepting this debate. "Morally, most people would, but you don't legally have to." Law and morality are codes of behavior. One is chosen, one is enforced by police. Just because one is a larger set does not prove that the other should not be a subset. "Laws were not created to force morals on people." Then what were they created for? How do you justify a law or do you think there is no need? "My opponent has yet to show that animals can physically show that they are willing to have sexual intercourse with humans." Watch the youtube videos and read the linked blog article, and I can give you more links if you need more. I will not link to pornographic material so if you want to see a successfully completed sexual advance by an animal you will have to find it yourself. I promise you such videos exist. In other words, examine my opening argument more carefully. I have shown that animals can physically show that they are willing to have sexual intercourse with humans. "Many countries such as the U.S. view bestiality as animal cruelty." Not this citizen. "Does Pro mean to legalize bestiality all over the world, or just in the U.S. where he lives?" Couldn't very well call it objectively moral and then exclude thousands of people could I? "However, an animal is not being harmed by becoming a pet." So you say, how do you know? "They are given food and shelter, and can benefit humans i.e. exercise, companionship (non-sexual)." You seem to have no problem calling these benefits yet animals have no better ability to communicate about these than sex. If you can have sex with an animal where the animal communicates no complaint and often actively participates and yet that is harmful and non-consenting I would like to know how you can do anything with an animal and be sure they consent or that they aren't being harmed? "As for use of animal products, food is necessary for survival." You going to try the same lies as wrichcirw? Here is a list of people who would have died if meat was necessary to survive: http://en.wikipedia.org... Face it people, you eat meat because it tastes good, you don't "have to" it's pleasure at the expense of life. "Animal coats provide necessary warmth for humans to prevent hypothermia from occuring." Cotton is a plant, wool doesn't require you to kill an animal (oh but it does require you to cut off their hair, I say they consent to that but according to people against bestiality that's all but impossible). I have walked around in -10 with nothing but cotton, wool, and synthetic clothing; and even if that didn't work we could have just stayed away from the colder climes. All you have done is prove that the status qua law and morality is subjective. You can kill without consent because you want easy protein, because you want to live in temperate zones, or because you want X. But since you don't want sex that's not a good enough reason for me to violate consent. Who are you to judge whether something is a good enough reason? When they disemboweled sheep to make condoms out of their intestines so humans could have sex without consequences where were these objections? I let it go with wrichcirw expecting readers to read. I will not this time because that obviously doesn't work. I expect you to cede that neither eating meat nor wearing fur coats is necessary for human survival next round and drop all related points. "Since Pro has not shown that bestiality is necessary for human's survival, there's no reason for this to be legal." Since Con has not proven that keeping pets is necessary for human survival there's no reason for that to be legal... because as we all know bans are always justified unless they are banning something 'necessary for human survival' [sarcasm]. "Exactly, we cannot apply these morals to non-humans since it does indeed lead to contradictions and absurdities. Animals cannot consent to having sex with humans." Strawman Fallacy, I did not say applying morals to non-humans leads to contradictions and absurdities, I said replacing the concept of consent with informed consent leads to contradictions and absurdities for non-humans because the 'informed' part of 'informed consent' is grounded in the general level of knowledge and cognition of a particular human culture and is only objective in such a context. Consent (see D.6) on the other hand can be applied to humans and non-humans and pretty much anything that can learn and make decisions without leading to contradictions and absurdities. "Two animals from the same species understand each other's behaviours and can communicate with each other." Oh yes, but how? Vocalizations? Nope humans could hear that and eventually learn their meanings. Body language? Nope humans can see that and eventually learn its meaning. Direct action? No humans can observe that just as easily as other animals. So tell me how do they do this in a way that we can never understand nor interface with? "A human cannot communicate with an animal that doesn't speak the same language them." Most animals speak no language. "Something that may be considered immoral isn't neccesarily illegal i.e. infidelity." Again if you were going to ignore the conditions of the debate and deny B.1 you could just do so, misunderstanding it to boot is quite sad. The fact that something is considered immoral but is not illegal does not even contradict my premise. "Most laws are created so other humans don't violate other humans rights." Rights are moral concept, you adopt my premise even as you deny it. "Pro has still yet to prove this." Con has yet to address Pro's proof. "Has an animal ever been proven to attempt to directly have sex with another human? The answer is no." The answer is yes, as my two videos and the blog proved. As the personal experiences of thousands of zoophiles prove. As the personal experience of millions of others prove. The attempt to mount and penetrate a human is the definition of an attempt to have sex. That is how an animal’s begins sex with animals of its own species. "When a male dog starts humping (rubbing it's genitilia on something) another humans leg, does it want to have sex with the human or does it want to stimulate it's sexual organs on another humans leg for pleasure. We might never know." They have a word for stimulating one's sexual organs inside another organism's sexual organs: Sexual intercourse. The question is not whether they find the human to be the ideal sexual partner but whether they are willing to perform the collective actions known as sex with a human. And they are. A virgin dog could consent having never seen or experienced sex. They could follow their instincts, feel good and continue to follow them throughout the whole process. They consented because they could have exercised their will and stopped but they didn't. (Yes we know their will can stop because trained dogs have been observed to disengage from an attempt to mount on command). A universe where a dog is willing to use your leg as a sex toy but not your vagina would be an interesting place but it is not this one. (Vaginas work better and even a dog can figure that out) "We don't fully understand what an animal really wants." No we don't, but we don't need to; they can worry about what they want and then grant or deny consent based on what they decide. "We can only assume, which is what Pro is doing." It is you who are asking for an unwarranted assumption. It is you who is saying that the exact same actions should be interpreted differently when the target is a human rather than an animal of the same species. It is you who are projecting a difference that is not in evidence. "I will prove that in most cases..." I said all cases, but since you're wrong about most cases I'll take that. I'm glad you agreed on the term 'prove' because it will have to be proof. Not an appeal to authority. Not incomplete statistics based on biased samples. 1. Your link (reposting to confirm https://www.rspca.org.uk...) does not contain the claim you posted in bold. It does not say "usually includes... violent" I don't know where you got that. (I checked the hearheart as well) 2. I want to warn you that as soon as you do find one I am going to go straight after the data and almost certainly find something wrong with the sample or the methodology. This is not bias but experience I've seen pretty much every variant and none of them can do a proper quantitative study without volunteers. 3. For those of you who just need a citation before you believe anything: "In cases of bestiality, it is usually assumed that violence or force has been exerted towards the animal and therefore the act constitutes animal abuse. However, it is increasingly acknowledged that sexual acts with animals can also be carried out without obvious force, and even with the animal as a seemingly willing participant" - Beetz reporting on the following: Beetz, A. 2002. Love, Violence, and Sexuality in Relationships between Humans and Animals. Doctoral dissertation. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag. Beirne, P. 2000. Rethinking bestiality: Towards a concept of interspecies sexual assault. In Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships between People and Pets, 313–331, ed. A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul and J. A. Serpell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.