Bestiality should be illegal

1.1.1 The contention that humans have undue influence is irrelevant to the resolution. What makes influence undue and what does that have to do with the proper legality of sex? Pro has failed to relate his contention to the resolution. 1.1.2 Adults can’t have sex with children Adults have dominion over children Therefore adults can’t have sex with children because adults have dominion over them. Is a fallacy of questionable cause. 1.1.3 Adults can’t have sex with anything they have dominion over. Adults have dominion over animals Therefore adults can’t have sex with animals. I challenge the major premise. 1.2.1 Pro claims: “The fact that we can (and should) presume that children cannot consent to sex with adults makes any argument the instigator has about an animal’s capacity to consent completely irrelevant.” I am directly challenging that supposed fact. If Pro is saying he does not need to support it then this debate is over, he may as well claimed “the fact that the resolution is true makes any argument the instigator has irrelevant.” 1.2.2 I also directly challenge the presumption that just because society should presume something about children it should presume the same about animals. 1.2.3 Pro claims: “Thus, again turning to the instant case, we as a society should presume that animals cannot consent for the greater good.” I claim that we as a society should presume that animals can consent for the greater good…. and I will demonstrate that good and how great it is if and when Pro does the same for his statement. 1.2.4 (Most important) “Sexual servitude is simply another form of rape.” Let’s review Pro’s logic to get here: A) Society should presume animals can’t consent for the greater good. B) The greater good is preventing sexual servitude C) The greater good is good because sexual servitude is simply another form of rape Now let’s examine some other facts: a) Rape is sex without consent. b) Since sexual servitude is a form of rape it must be a form of sex without consent. Substituting this into Pro’s logic: C) The greater good is good because sexual servitude is simply another form of sex without consent. Eliminating the extraneous term ‘sexual servitude’ his logic is thus: A) Society should presume animals can’t consent for the greater good. C) The greater good is good because sex with animals is sex without consent. How do we know that animals don’t consent? We presume animals don’t consent for the greater good. How do we know the greater good is good? Animals don’t consent. How do we know that animals don’t consent? We presume animals don’t consent for the greater good. Pro is using circular logic, formally a begging the question fallacy. 1.2.5 “Humans already sexually abuse animals at a disturbing rate.[1]” The link hardly proves that. Not only does this list span two countries and 31 years while only containing 121 cases; but it contains mislabeled acts. For instance “Dog sexually assaulted” http://www.pet-abuse.com... but the description is not sexual assault, just sex. “I had to tell Adam he didn't do anything wrong. The man did something wrong." Neither did anything wrong based on the contents of that webpage. Even if we assumed every single other case was truly a case of sexual abuse of animals that means we are looking at 3.9 cases per year which is 1.09e-8 cases per year per capita. http://en.wikipedia.org... Consider that 22500 people are arrested for rape in one year in the United States. 5769 times more than this alleged animal abuse. 1.2.7 Pro has not established that bestiality is animal cruelty therefore. 2.1 Pro confirms that his point about HIV wasn’t confined to bestiality. 2.2.1 The proposition is not between no bestiality and some bestiality, but between legal bestiality and illegal bestiality. 2.2.2 “For example, research indicates that men who engage in bestiality are 42% more likely to develop penal cancer.[3]” I thank Pro for reminding me why I hate junk science with abandon, it gets everywhere and no matter how many times you clean up the mess it’s always waiting in the next debate or conversation. I will copy paste my response to this from both other debates where it has been brought up. (-) From http://www.debate.org... : First and foremost lets find the source of this claim, it's here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...... and I can't see more than the abstract. "New studies are required in other populations to test other possible nosological links with SWA" No kidding. Why? http://www.scielo.br...... "Penile cancer is a very frequent pathology in Brazil, predominantly affecting low income, white, uncircumcised patients, living in the north and northeast regions of the country." They got a problem there, there is a nasty thing called Human Papilloma Virus. It is likely transmissible via sex... you guessed it not just sex with animals. United States: 1 in 100,000 men. http://www.cancer.org...... Denmark: 0.82 per 100,000. http://en.wikipedia.org...... Why is that important? Bestiality is legal in Denmark. If bestiality caused penile cancer it would be higher in Denmark. So if you are following me the inconclusive identification of bestiality as a risk factor NOT CAUSE of penile cancer in rural Brazil for uncircumcised people having promiscuous group sex really has nothing at all to do with bestiality as a practice got it. No one should be afraid of this (-) From http://www.debate.org... : Just one excerpt should be enough “The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time” It’s an interesting phenomenon that doesn’t scale with exposure… eh? ----- The excerpt was from http://www.livescience.com.... In conclusion Pro is quite wrong. Men who participate in bestiality are not 42% more likely to get penile cancer. 2.2.3 You should get some flea medicine for Fitzwilliam Darcy and stop projecting. If you tolerate any one of the zoonosis you linked to you are an irresponsible pet owner IMO. If Darcy does not have those diseases he cannot give them to you no matter how ‘dirty’ you think he is. Regardless of how clean a homosexual man may seem, he can carry HIV and give it to you. Last but certainly not least the term ‘dangerous’ does not just include the chances of infection but the danger of the disease in question. HIV is incurable. None of the zoonosis linked to are. FYI waste fluids are not exchanged during sex. 2.3 Allergies aren’t contagious. 2.4 Eating animal meat is just a surely a transfer of body fluids, so his licking on the face which I have observed in a great number of dog owners. 2.5. Pro implies he would uphold his burden by presuming everything should be illegal. If a law against something cannot be justified you have a legal right to it by the nature of law. 2.6. If people in Denmark find bestiality repulsive and this somehow keeps them from being overridden with zoonosis then the same would be true elsewhere. “What CON is suggesting is that you disregard common sense.” The deadly disease he picked came from eating meat. The zoonoses he linked to are treatable, detectable, rare, and not transmitted by sex alone. There are far less zoonoses than other diseases and there is a good reason for that; it is harder for a contagion to adapt to two hosts. Pro cannot change these facts, so he uses emotionally charged language in an attempt to caste animals as filthy unclean animals ridden with dangerous diseases just waiting to infect humans, he then calls this common sense. “What he disregards is the simple that the societal good food, medical products and shelter far outweighs the bad.” With what scale did you weigh these goods and bads? What benefit does Fitzwilliam Darcy give society that justifies the risk of keeping a filthy flea-bitten mongrel around?