Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

IntroductionI accepted this debate because I cannot believe my opponent has won every single debate he has engaged in on this topic. I aim to break his streak.I need only demonstrate either that PRO fails to uphold his burden, or prove that bestiality/zoophilia EITHER should not be legal OR is inherently immoral to win this debate. I will focus on legality and PRO's burden, and will reserve the right to focus on morality later if deemed necessary.PRO has not defined any concrete conditions or definitions for this debate. Most if not all of of his opening is indeed argumentation, as opposed to establishing what is and is not permissible in this debate, thus I find all of his statements to be open game for counter-arguments. The only statement of what is not permissible in this debate from PRO:"I will not entertain sentiments which associate the term morality with emotional appeals, religious dogma, or mindless whim. If it is not wrong and you wish to merely point out how it can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone"s life then I"ll leave you to it; that is not the resolution I wish to argue."The problem with PRO's statement here is that it does not address the issue of legality. Someone could indeed argue along these lines and make a reasonable case that what "can sometimes be dangerous or play a negative role in someone's life" would easily constitute a legal basis for its prohibition. Thus, I find this condition to be invalid because it is directly pertinent to the resolution. Had PRO not wanted to debate over a rational basis for legality, he should have left legality out of the resolution.Regardless, my case is extremely simple. PRO has made glaring omissions to how he chose to advocate his position.ConsentIndeed, as PRO's opening easily corroborates, this debate will revolve around this one word. PRO inserts a lot of irrelevant baggage and argumentation that does not address the issue of consent in an accurate or meaningful fashion.C1) PRO concedes that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality. However, PRO's rendition of this phrase is extremely inaccurate and misleading, as PRO states that "It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent because it presupposes that both parties are perfectly aware of the consequences of an action."Informed consent: Assent to permit an occurrence, such as surgery, that is based on a complete disclosure of facts needed to make the decision intelligently, such as knowledge of the risks entailed or alternatives.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...As one can see, informed consent does not involve perfect knowledge; it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision.Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent. In order for animals to consent to interspecies sex, we must be able to inform the animal of the consequences of such an act, and to understand when a non-human animal consents to sex. We cannot. PRO must prove that animals can both 1) be informed and 2) communicate consent to humans when humans initiate sexual advances to an animal. If the animal cannot, then the animal does not consent, and this turns bestiality into rape of animals.Why should this be illegal? After all, animals are not endowed with the same rights typically granted to human beings; we slaughter animals all the time and it is not deemed to be murder of animals. One issue arising from slaugtering animals is that it is deemed necessary for our own survival, and so such killing is justifiable. Such justification does not apply to bestiality, as interspecies sexual acts are not necessary for either species's survival.The issue thus becomes that of habit, and how this habit can cross-apply to interpersonal relations - this line of argumentation simply does not apply to slaughterhouse operations, as most human beings will never have contact with animals deemed fit for slaughter. Whenever a human engages in sexual intercourse with another living being, s/he is engaging in human sexual intercourse, regardless of the species of the other animal. Also, having sex with animals that in many ways have strong similarities to human biology, i.e. similar sexual organs, similar body structure (4 appendages and a head), is thus similar to having sex with a human being. One engaging in such a practice could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape. By prohibiting bestiality, we reduce if not outright eliminate the possibility of this specific kind of behavior, which brings a positive benefit to society in that it reduces occurrence of this specific cause of rape.C2) PRO states: "For instance, you bring an unconscious stranger into a hospital, the doctor will still treat them on the presumption that they want to be healed. There is no consent informed or otherwise."This is simply incorrect. A stranger in a hospital is known to have given "implied consent", which is a form of consent:"...if that person is unconscious or otherwise unresponsive, paramedics, first responders, and passersby are allowed by law to assume implied consent to provide first aid and treatment."http://www.legalinfo.com... Consent is central even to those who cannot consciously give consent, because such consent in the instance of administering first aid is implied by law. First aid generally involves direct tangible benefits for the victim that in reasonable circumstances would warrant the victim giving consent if s/he could. In order for PRO to affirm the resolution, he must demonstrate why we should assume such implied consent for animals in regards to sex. I for one cannot think of any reason, and most certainly cannot think of one that would grant blanket legality for bestiality.C3) PRO states: "Even if a creature is incapable of choosing between acting and not acting a certain way it cannot be said that it does not consent. Instead it is more accurate to say that consent is not conceptually applicable to that species."This is again just simply incorrect. If a creature is incapable of making a choice, then it is incapable of giving consent. Consent is still fully conceptually applicable in this situation, especially since sexual behavior can become cross-applicable to human beings, thus encouraging the habit of rape, which is simply non-consensual sex. C4) PRO has defined his own burden:"...if there exists any example of an animal showing through action absent negative conditioning the acceptance of sexual relations with another species the answer to [the question "Can an animal give permission or agreement to a member of another species for sexual interaction?"] is Yes, at least in some cases. If in some cases an animal can consent to interspecies sex, then surely in some cases an animal can consent to sex with a human, thus on the consent principle it is moral to have sex with an animal.. in some cases."PRO must demonstrate that these hypotheticals are fully applicable to reality in order for PRO to affirm the resolution. PRO simply has not done so. If PRO cannot, then PRO fails to establish burden of proof and the resolution is thus negated.Also, PRO must demonstrate that these hypotheticals are applicable to ALL cases of bestiality. The resolution is clear that there are no exceptions to be made, that ALL "Bestiality/zoophilia should be legal..."C5) PRO asks: "I want to wrap up with an example question: Horseback riding. Do you believe a horse can consent to being ridden? How would you know?"Again, this goes back to habit. Humans generally do not ride on the backs of other humans, and in the cases in which they do, it is typically playful and not considered harmful. Encouraging non-consensual sex on the other hand is quite harmful, as when applied to human beings, it constitutes rape.ConclusionPRO has failed to uphold his burden. He must prove that animals can consent to sex. If he cannot, he cannot affirm the resolution. Non-consensual sex with animals can all too easily be cross-applied to non-consensual sex with human beings, as we are in many ways simply another type of animal. This constitutes rape.If PRO wants to turn this debate into a discussion of the morality of rape, he is more than welcome to, provided he meets the burden for such an advocacy. As it stands, he has yet to uphold his burden for this resolution, let alone a sub-topic like rape.