Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"should then recognize that the argument that they have constructed, as it goes, is impossible to debate." It's not impossible to debate it's impossible for my conclusions to be wrong given my premises, they referred to this circumstance as a valid when I was learning logic. http://en.wikipedia.org... I couldn't support all the premises in 10,000 characters so I picked two. Morality based on consent and avoidance of harm. I did not pick these at random they are typically the most common objections to bestiality. I fully realize that if the other premises are false, even though I said they were not open to contest in this debate my resolution is not affirmed. That is why I am willing to debate those as well. The fallacy you may proceed on is that there is any real world resolution that could ever be affirmed in five 10,000 character rounds if every premise presented is challengeable. "how do we go back and edit this one?" Don't start this one if you disagree with the premises required. This is no different than someone defining key terms in their resolution. If you feel you've won the other one you should be content to know this one could not stand. I did not create the mechanics of this site, if I did I should have allowed fully structured support. "create rather arbitrary guidelines to the debate" They aren't arbitrary, my first debates here allowed the challenging of all the premises but that was interpreted to mean they could be ignored. If the citizens of this site can't keep a mental picture of the supporting framework in mind then I will focus on only one joint at a time. "the instigator will indeed carry that power skew. Fairness is impossible when the instigator is the only one that can interpret the resolution" This isn't a power struggle, it is perfectly fair to be precise in what you are claiming and how you are supporting it. "The only way to have a fair debate is for the instigator to remove themself from total control of interpretation." I wrote the resolution, how do you propose I remove myself from 'control'? Should I write it and then let anyone come along and say it means something it doesn't? In that case I am interpreting your stance here as "you are so incredibly right ADOL that nothing and no one would ever be so foolish as to challenge it" <- that fair? "Nobody can ever give informed consent to anything. Nothing is moral." My argument is not based on perfect informed consent nor even informed consent. "The neg sees this as a petty excuse to be try-hard in debate" So in other words you don't accept reductio ad absurdum? (Which by the way was not about perfect informed consent but the idea that informed consent must be universally applied and in fact replaces the concept of consent for all purposes). "MoM COUNTERPLAN:" This appears to be madness (not Sparta). "Going on, we observe that the burden is on the pro to prove to you that it is the most desirable for you to indicate a pro ballot." You think debate is about making judges want to vote for you? hehe, no that's called politics. "As you can see, judge, the incredible effects of humor justify a clear ballot in favor of the most humorous side." Ah I see, you're nuts. Ok fine. Crazy people are people too.