Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"following rebuttal, was/will be clear in which parts of PRO's case I was rebutting, and I quoted from all corners of PRO's round #2/3." You quoted just fine, but round two response was pretty much a rephrasing of round two with little to no effort to understand and refute my rebuttal. I have to say even though I was surprised to win the others, I would be the least surprised to win this one. (E1) As if I could stop you from complaining about them… (E2) I defined bestiality as the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. I defined consent and linked to a well-respected dictionary. If you deny this (and it seems impossible for your statement to be taken otherwise) you are parading your incompetence and/or dishonesty before all potential voters. (E3) I am adhering to my constraints. I said the law should be what morality is, and I say the morality of sex with animals should be determined by consent + avoidance of harm. Under that constraint it does not matter what the law is right now, only what is moral and whether it is possible to have sex with an animal while respecting their consent and avoiding harm. Enforcing the law is a practical matter, I do not believe the content of the law should be determined by practicality. Practicality in a vacuum means nothing. It must always be used in the context of a specific goal in order to have relevance. If your goal is the continued welfare of human society as is often cited as the goal of law (something I do not subscribe to) then you still have to find a reason why legalizing bestiality would harm the pursuit of that goal since your previous attempt has been thoroughly destroyed IMO. (E4) My premise was that meat was not necessary for survival, you cannot refute this by citing examples of eating meat even if everyone did it. You may as well say chocolate mints are necessary for survival, after all I’ve eaten one haven’t I? All I need to prove it is not necessary is one person who did not eat meat and survived. If any readers doubt that such a person exists then by all means vote CON. This is not a debate about eating meat and I am not saying eating meat should be illegal, refer yourselves to the original context in which he brought up eating meat while attempting to assert that people can’t keep themselves from treating other humans just as they treat animals. (See round 1. C1, starting at ‘Why should this be illegal?’) (E5) Con can continue to assert as he wishes, I have demonstrated logically that consent is possible and given specific examples of how it can be communicated in real life. Con has never addressed the logic in the OP which was the negation of the two universal statements labeled 1. and 2. If he does so in this last round I most certainly wish to call foul since it is quite obvious that he stalled dealing with the core of my argument until I had no chance to officially respond. As for that incredibly embarrassing rant about how I didn’t do what everyone including Con can simply scroll up and see me doing in the first round under “Some notes on terms:”… I am slightly stunned I did not expect someone who seems as serious to sabotage himself so readily. (R1) I’ve researched plenty, so I know what is and isn’t out there. If you are looking for a study which observed human animal mating in controlled conditions you won’t find it. I never claimed anyone would nor do I consider it necessary for the resolution. I think common understanding of animal behavior and things as easy to find as those youtube videos demonstrate that animals are willing to consent. That is the kind of thing academic articles base their conclusions on. You could follow a trail of citing back to 1963 because nobody has yet been willing to let it happen in a controlled circumstance while promising privacy and security to participants. There are books like these: http://www.amazon.com... Which assert that animals can enjoy and initiate the interaction. There are books by people who refer to their own work http://books.google.com... And say “dogs seem to enjoy the attention provided by sexual interaction with a human (Greenwood 1963..)” <- that would be Greenwood, M. D. 1963 Unusual Sex Practices http://www.abebooks.com... You may have found those videos funny but they were also on topic. It gave clear examples of animals wanting to do something sexual with a human, and not wanting to do something with a human (in this case a bath). Unless you are proposing that should those humans have been naked and willing the dog would completely change its mind this demonstrates consent as defined by the oxford dictionary –see my opening post. They make it clear to any objective observer that the basic intentions and attitudes of animals are communicable to humans and therefore their consent to any given interaction is also implicitly available. “..the relevant matter is whether or not an animal can communicate it to other beings” I have not accepted the strawman which claims I must prove informed consent is possible, however communication of the information comprising informed consent is also not utilized by the law. Instead it is sufficient for a simple yes or no given that the other is capable of informed consent. When you have sex with your spouse, you do not need to sign a contract each time; in fact you don’t even have to explicitly say “yes” each time. (R2) Strawman totally ignored (as promised), now as for this syllogism of yours, it’s not categorical. If the law sees no interaction with animals as consensual the law is incorrect… which just happened to be an integral premise of my whole argument – see first round. (R3) Well I’ll let the voters decide if a dog would notice someone humping them. Since I’m piling up home work for the readers why don’t you look up how bitches behave with dogs. Spoiler: Yep they stand still when they could easily move away and other than involuntary scent production that’s about it. (R4) If a tree falls in the forest, and a court of law cannot verify that; it has still fallen. The species of communication vary with species and individual. In general it is vocalizations, body language, and actions. If I thought all dogs hated playing fetch I would think it should be banned, but I do not believe that; I think most of them like it and communicate implied consent by retrieving the object. That does not mean they can recount for a court their decision and reasoning nor is that necessary. (R5) In the scope of the hypothetical that animals were not consenting that would be correct, but since you are talking about the behavioral patterns of the humans only their perception is relevant. (R6.2) Strawman, you should read more carefully (again). I quote myself: “preparing people to go out and gun down other humans for the crime of being on the other side of a political conflict” I found your response disturbing, and I suspect many readers, hunters included, do as well. (R7) Having sex with animals is not statutory rape, therefore rape laws are totally irrelevant for justifying a ban of such. (R8) I have, and even if I haven’t you have not proved that raping animals leads to raping humans any more than killing animals leads to killing humans. (R9) I did answer your question which referred to the possibility of bringing vocal, body language, and active communication before a court. I did not say animals can swear an oath or commit perjury or what not, those were strawmen. (R10) You cut a hole about the right size, or make a dildo from a branch. (R11) I deserve to win if only because you failed to even attempt to address the concept of consent without projecting your strawmen about informed consent. I have posted as much as the rules of appropriate material allow, any reasonable reader never expected more. (R12) PRO has maintained from the beginning that he is not claiming informed consent, no matter how many times CON reasserts that I must demonstrate it I do not. If you’ve seen a dog humping a fire hydrant then that dog consents to humping that fire hydrant. Such behavior is at the heart of this debate. (R13) Oh I noticed about no statistical association being cited, it was just a vague impression of yours. Conclusion: CON has tried a blinding flurry of reassertion in place of reason. You need only read over the debate carefully to see that he has done little more than repeat to the point of absurdity the same unsupported assertions. The one he has posted at the end of each round is absurd and I consider it quite destroyed. The only other relevant one is: Assertion - My burden of proof requires that I demonstrate informed consent in all cases even if the animal in question is an ant or doesn't in fact consent. Rebuttal - It does not, I clearly stated that I was not referring to or using informed consent. I am aware that informed consent is a legal concept with some use, but not for this issue since animals cannot reach a standard of information calibtrated to a general human populace. I reference the fact that informed consent has never been a prerequisite for human animal interaction and indeed what laws against bestiality that exist appear to be based on religous or abusive grounds. It should not be a prerequisite because that would be demanding a standard higher than the best natural possibility. If they can't aquire the so called 'required information' about sex that applies to sex with other animals well. Which would mean 'in the eyes of the law' all animal sex is rape, everyone who allows animals to breed is condoning rape, and indeed the existance of the species requires mass rape each generation. I give you Reductio Ad Absurdum