Bestiality should be illegal

I was using the term "except" to clarify that I meant rape between species, as the conventional definition of rape is restricted to within a species I provided definitions in round 1 to avoid this confusion. Which rights, specifically? ‘These rights include life, health, happiness, safety and freedom’ All those rights are violated by the slaughter of animals for food. Right to health is violated by medical experiments. Right to freedom is violated by fences, leashes, and laws requiring animals to be placed in shelters when they aren’t in someone’s care. Right to freedom is violated by all animal derived products that don’t require harming the animal. Right to safety is violated by using animals in dangerous situations such as police dogs. Not necessarily, but more serious abuses ought to be illegal Good enough. That's a whole other debate :) Rofl, yes it really is but apparently that is not something that the denizens of this site really understand is it? You said all animals had those rights, I am challenging that premise so I guess another debate won’t do, it’s going to be this one or abandon the premise. b) whether it qualifies as an abuse of a magnitude which renders it illegal. What is that magnitude? What is your objective justification for that magnitude? How do you measure the magnitude of an abuse? I defend the premise that all non-human species have one thing in common: they are unable to consent to sex with a human. Why just human? Sex with a toy is not rape in my opinion (so long as the human is consenting) because the sex toy is inanimate, it is not a living thing. What does animation have to do with it? Recall that the consequences of rape do not only involve physical damage, but also emotional and mental trauma and distress. We don't know whether animals can feel as humans do, but we are certain that inanimate objects cannot. So it’s not rape unless there is a possibility for mental trauma and distress? Not exactly. If no bestiality is nonconsensual, you win. If all, I win. If some, we debate whether or not it is possible for a human to accurately judge an animal communicating consent or non-consent. Incorrect, this debate is about whether bestiality should be illegal. A law is a universal. Banning bestiality bans all bestiality. The analogous resolution would be “human on human sex should be illegal”. To win that you need to show all sex is illegal, the fact that some humans rape each other is not sufficient to justify a ban on all human on human sex. If an animal is capable in some cases of consenting, but a human is sometimes unable to understand whether or not the animal has consented Accused human rapist have claimed they didn’t thought the other human had consented. If the possibility for misunderstanding rendered the practice unacceptable then human on human sex would be unacceptable. bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to control that all bestiality be consensual. The law cannot control everything its purpose is to define what actions warrant punishment when those actions are proven to have been committed. You could make the argument that some 17-year-olds are mature and informed enough to vote, but because the consequences of and amount of exceptions are considered significant enough, US law places voting age at 18. Appealing to other subjective standards won’t make yours objective. I think it is quite rational to argue that only "consent in law" should be legally recognized. That is circular logic. ‘Consent in the law should be what consent in the law is.’ However, by this definition, consent can be induced coercively, or in an irrational or ignorant state of mind. Consent is the opposite of coercion, you don’t truly agree or give permission if you are being threatened with force or fraud. People have the right to make irrational decisions based on ignorance. Thus it is perfectly possible to partially but not fully consent to the accused party's behavior. Hence the phrase "consented in fact but not in law". Hence my phrase ‘inaccurate law’ since it doesn’t reflect the facts. Since we are debating the legality of bestiality We are not debating the legality of bestiality we are debating the ideal legality of bestiality, you must prove that it should be illegal; not that it is illegal or that based on other legal traditions it would be illegal. In essence we are discussing the legitimacy of an agreement – a contract – reached between two parties, that ought only to be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way. This premise is not confused, it is enlightened. A contract is precisely what we are not talking about. You can’t sue an animal for not living up to their side of the bargain. The law does not evaluate the legitimacy of an agreement unless it must enforce that agreement, that is not asked for not required. Now there was a pearl of wisdom in this paragraph: “if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way.” That’s what it boils down to as I illustrated in round two [The justice sys]. Not ignorance, for none of us knows how ignorant we are of what we are ignorant of, but deception. Not intelligence for none of us know how unintelligent we are compared to a greater intelligence, but deception. The refusal to give pertinent information, the direct telling of lies is the only common thread which separates what people think of as ‘informed consent’ from ‘consent.’ The word exploiting is ambiguous. Are animals incapable of "consenting in law"? Do not forget you have not established that animals must consent before the law or at all yet. 4. By extension of #3, the one who consents must be at least equally conscious/aware of what they are consenting to as the other party. Counter-example, I hire a professional expert to solve a problem I am unable to. I am not equally aware of what I am consenting to, by definition I don’t know how they’re going to do it. 5. Non-human species cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. Again, why just humans? 6. In the case of bestiality, the human party takes advantage of the non-human party by exploiting it since it is unable to give consent in law. Define exploit please. 8. If bestiality violates #2 and/or #3, bestiality should be illegal. To recap I have not ceded that consenting to sex is a contract and therefore that 1-3 are applicable. I have not ceded that 1-3 are valid criteria for accepting or rejecting the enforcement of a contract. I have not ceded that consent of any kind is required from an animal for proper legality. Pro is getting ahead of himself. I discussed at length in Round 1 why animals are incapable of "consenting in law" to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. No you entitled a section “Is an animal mentally capable of consenting to bestiality?” and then proceeded to thoroughly establish that humans are smarter than animals, something that I readily cede. You did not however make any progress towards addressing whether they are mentally capable of consent nor did you mention ‘consent in law’ at all. It startles me why my opponent would consider humans' superior capacity to analyze consequences, make accurate predictions, have doubts and anxieties about the past, present and future, and make informed decisions, irrelevant to the question of consent. Startled or not if you want to win this debate you will explain why it is relevant. our language was crafted by and is used by our own species exclusively. Actually animals have used bits here and there. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that animal consent is at all comparable to human consent Do not forget you still have a burden to prove that the law should outlaw non-consenting interactions with animals. Animal consent and human consent, let me compare them. A higher animal (capable of intelligent self-determination) perceives the world, the other life forms in it, and his interactions with them in a certain way as determined by his experience and his intellectual faculties whatever they may be. He decides which actions or interactions he desires based on whatever structure of values he may hold no matter how simplistic. If he decides to desire and indeed perform an interaction with another life form, and subsequently communicates this via any means to the other life form he has given consent. A human perceives the world, the other life forms in it, and his interactions with them in a certain way as determined by his experience and his intellectual faculties whatever they may be. He decides which actions or interactions he desires based on whatever structure of values he may hold no matter how simplistic. If he decides to desire and indeed perform an interaction with another life form, and subsequently communicates this via any means to the other life form he has given consent. There appears to be no meaningful difference. Since I have just compared them, they are comparable. In conclusion the most important hole in my opponent’s arguments is that he has not established that all animals have a right to freedom, that is their consent should be legally required for any interaction.