Based on both Darwinism and Christianity, incest is less morally correct than bestiality.

The Introduction Greetings audience, I represent the proposition of the motion that if one were to base their morality on Darwinism and Christianity then, beyond any reasonable doubt they would conclude that incest is less morally advisable than bestiality. I would like to remind my opponent that this is not a debate about whether Darwinism or Christianity is a valid source of morality, it is assuming that one is basing their morality on both. I shall be focusing on 4 main points in this debate, 2 relate to Darwinism and 2 relate to Christianity. Prior to this, I shall be countering common attack methods to this resolution that are not valid in the slightest. I thank you for paying attention thus far and, without further ado, shall proceed to the main body of debate. Common Lines of Attack used by Con There are a few lines of attack that are commonly used by Con here that I wish to nip in the butt before they are raised to begin with. For example, if Con states that Darwinism and Christianity are incompatible, this is countered by stating that God applies different morals to nature than he does to a solely human society. The Bible is written for a solely human society to follow and ignores all interpretation of the ins and outs of how nature works. Thus, they are compatible if God relies on Darwinism to run nature in general and on Christianity to govern the societies run solely by human beings. Another common line of attack is that if there is a higher chance of transmitting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) from animals than human beings then clearly this goes against the very premise of self-preservation on which both Darwinism and Christianity have strong views against (Darwinism opposes wilful self-damage and Christianity opposes any form of attempted suicide whatsoever; direct or indirect). This is simply ridiculous because Darwinism values that urge to reproduce above any other innate basic need of forms of life[1] so it follows that if the urge to reproduce overrides the urge to self-preserve (as often happens with bacteria who literally kill themselves to replicate[2]) then this is not at all against Darwinism. Contention 1: Darwinism Revolves Around The Increasing of Variety Leading to Success Before I begin my point let me concede that I am fully aware that Darwinism was only referring to variation within a species[3]. Nonetheless, morality involves both intent and outcome and it is in fact a sign of mental maturity to begin taking intent into account when judging morality[4]. So, it is clearly counter-Darwinist for one to wish to reproduce into a situation of the most minimal variation imaginable; family members (remember that incest only applies to blood relatives). There is nothing more adventurous than to try to go the extremes of variation to see just how much one can change so potentially to have sex with an animal is merely to embrace the urge to have an extremely varied child, outside of any standard conformity to the species. This attitude to sex is far more Darwinist-like than one that would rather have sex with their own blood relative. Contention 2: A true Darwinist wants the best quality children. Although it's true that the children of cross-species parents are infertile, many animals, such as mules or ligers can actually exist fairly well. However, only 6 days ago a 40-strong cult of incest breeders were found[5] and all the children were deformed and disabled in some way. Now, it's no freak-case scenario; it's a fact that children of incest have increased likelihood of weakened immune systems and increased chance of genetic abnormalities and unwanted mutations thanks to the DNA of the two zygotes being far too similar[6]. In essence, the Darwinist parent should be seeking a partner that would offer the best possible outcome for the offspring. close relatives are, by far, the least likely to do so, and in fact to have no child at all is better than to have a disabled child ad this child is now a burden on the parents and they are nurturing an offspring that will be destroyed by natural selection whilst knowing that all this time and effort wouldn't have been wasted if they just had raped a goat and got on with life instead of doing their sibling. Contention 3: God often refers to animals being created for man's pleasure but never once indicates that family, especially parents, are here to please us. Need I prove this? I challenge my opponent to prove any differently. Contention 4: An animal has no soul that will be judged once it dies, so one is not tainting the sexual partner's soul when committing bestiality. The contention speaks for itself. One is merely falling victim to an animal's allure much like Eve did to Satan in snake-form. This is not nearly as punishable as if Eve had tempted her own relative to have sex with her (it's kind of funny that all of Adam and Eve's children must have had to do incest but this doesn't prove anything as it would be forgiven for the extremities of circumstance sand isn't applicable to today's society since there are better options for a more varied partner in today's world). Sources: [1] Emily Brown. (2009). Charles Darwin & Evolution: Sexual Selection. Available: http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk.... Last accessed 16th Dec 2013. [2] Microbiological Concepts (2000). REPRODUCTION: BACTERIA (Asexual Reproduction). Available: http://bugs.bio.usyd.edu.au.... Last accessed 16th Dec 2013. [3] Stephen Montgomery. (2009). Charles Darwin & Evolution: Variation. Available: http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk.... Last accessed 16th Dec 2013. [4] Fiery Cushmana, Rachel Sheketoff, Sophie Wharton and Susan Carey. (2000). The development of intent-based moral judgment. Available: http://brown.edu.... Last accessed 16th Dec 2013.[5] Richard Shears. (2013). Children of horrifying incest 'cult'. Available: http://www.dailymail.co.uk.... Last accessed 17th Dec 2013.[6] Zoe Assaf. (2012). Understanding Genetics of Incest. Available: http://genetics.thetech.org.... Last accessed 17th Dec 2013.