As Long as we Continue to Eat Meat, Beastiality should be Legalized!

My opponent suggests: "At no point in the opening round was it ever stated that the resolution of the debate was: Slaughtering animals for food is more unethical than bestiality. I had only the title to go by in figuring out what the resolution was. I was also under the impression that we were arguing about eating animals, not slaughtering them." Let's reexamine my opening argument: "Should beastiality be legalized? My first initial response to this question was NO, definitely NO!!! But as I started pondering this question, I posed a new point, "Well we eat them." IF BEASTIALITY IS ILLEGAL DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TOO? Millions of animals are tortured everyday at slaughter houses. Animals are kept in poor conditions; confined to small spaces; chickens have their beaks clipped when they are chicks because they poke each other to death; calves are pulled away from their mothers at a young age; animals are pumped with numerous antibiotics, hormones ,and drugs. All so that we can have that nice piece of meat for dinner. HOW CAN SOCIETY CONDONE THIS TYPE OF CRUELTY TOWARDS ANIMALS BUT CONDEMN BEASTIALITY, it doesn't make any sense. Either both should be illegal, or neither." My opponent chooses not to acknowledge the underlying moral premise in regards to the statement, "As Long as We Continue to Eat Meat, Beastiality should be Legalized." My opponent states: "The resolution of this debates seems to be changing based on what is most convenient for my opponent." As one can see, my arguments have stayed consistent throughout the entire debate. It seems that my opponent has taken my claim and is "conveniently" twisting it to best suit his approach. Again, he chooses not to acknowledge the underlying moral premise for the argument. My opponent states: "Thanks to my opponent for providing this information about the behavior of animals in the wild. I do not consider it relevant to this debate." I have examined the SEXUAL behavior of animals, not as my opponent vaguely put it. While my opponent does not consider the sexual behavior of animals relevant to beastiality, I, on the other hand, find it imperative to examine this behavior because it provides us with information of how animals interact sexually with one another. As I previously stated, animals can enjoy sexual experiences. It is this very notion that an animal may experience enjoyment that one begins to ponder the question of whether an animal may experience this enjoyment within an inter-species sexual relationship i.e.., "dog mounting a human's leg." I challenged my opponent's application of the word "sentient," by providing the definition of "sentient" found in the Merriam Webster Dictionary. Sentient: 1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2: aware 3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling www.merriam-webster.com Most animals are aware, conscious, responsive to sense, and also have the ability to perceive and feel. Therefore, the application of the word "sentient" applies not solely to the human species, but, in fact, encompasses the majority of mammal species. In response, my opponent states: "By a sentience creature, I mean: a conscious, self-aware, autonomously acting individual with the capacity for moral judgment, abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate these concepts through a syntactical language. That is what I mean by sentient for the purpose of this debate and until a word is created with that exact definition, I will continue to use the word "sentient" to express that meaning. I apologize for not defining the term better earlier. In this case, it is extremely clear that my definition would refer only to humans and not to other animals." I would like to enquire as to where my opponent retrieved this definition? He has not provided a citation for this statement. Nor has he provided citations for the majority of his claims throughout this entire debate. I believe his definition of "sentient" to be concocted based on his own personal opinion. Therefore, without supplying a citation for this definition it must be dismissed. My opponent states: "Humans, by virtue of the fact that they are sentient, can be expected to uphold a different moral standard than non-sentient beings or objects." To set it straight, all life that is "aware and capable of conscious thought" is considered a sentient being (this includes most animals.) An infant is not capable of moral reasoning, but one would still classify an infant as a "sentient being." Again, my opponent's statement is a contradiction. Yes, it is true, that humans are held to a "different moral standard" than all other species. It is also true that, overall, beastiality could be considered unethical. But, don't forget, we are evaluating the pain and/or suffering experienced by animals. If animals can be coerced into sexual encounters in the natural world, they are not experiencing any more pain and/or suffering brought on by a human. One would have to prove that beastiality creates more harm than an animal would normally experience in order to conclude that beastiality is inhumane. While it is unethical for humans to "coerce" other humans into sexual acts, these are moral standards that we set for humans, not animals. If humans set moral standards for all species, don't you think we would be preventing the sexual coercion of all animals? Another example is the fact that humans take part in the breeding of animals for profit, certain physical attributes, success, and several other purposes. In many instances animals are forced into copulation with one another to produce offspring. There are certain seasons when some animals prefer to mate. Forcing animals into an artificial environment where they are coerced into a sexual encounter with another animal is no crueler than beastiality. This example also supports the fact that society can condone one form of cruelty but condemn another without sufficient justification. My opponent states: "How is having sex with a non-consenting individual immoral? Well, I never thought I would have to explain the ethics of why rape is wrong up here goes anyway." No one ever argued that "having sex with a non-consenting individual" is moral. Therefore, what my opponent is implying is irrelevant. My opponent makes claim to the "non-aggression principle": "Simply, animals are protected from acts which cause pain unto them but not acts which kill them…" Again, my opponent did not supply a citation for this claim. Which could be possibly concocted from thin air. Regardless, one can argue that slaughtering animals is an "aggressive" act. Since the slaughtering of animals is the unnecessary use of force, which inflicts, to some extent, pain and/or suffering on the animal involved. "Bleeding an animal out," is not my idea of "non-aggressive" behavior. There are many flaws in my opponent's proposal, from beginning to end. For example: 1. The killing of humans during war can be justified. Therefore, the killing of humans is not always unethical. I will refrain from listing all the flaws that are present. But one can see that my opponent's proposal crumbles under critical examination. To conclude, I will propose that human morality needs to run in conjunction with our practices. If humans are concerned about the inhumane treatment of animals, we should really stop and ask ourselves is the slaughter of animals humane. And if our moral standards accept this form of cruelty towards animals why are other subjects, like beastiality condemned? One does not have to necessarily agree with the ethics of beastiality to see that slaughtering animals is crueler than having sex with them.