Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Nevertheless, for the purposes of his position, I find it lacking. First, I will address some tangential points. E1) PRO: "I gave three premises that you should accept before debating. .. "False. PRO, in round #1: "From these premises [PRO] would like to preempt possible strategies," meaning that PRO found these three premises to be valid debating points. E2) PRO: "I say there is only one rational basis for legality, morality. "According to PRO, what is moral is rational. This will be important, as my argumentation will frame my position in a rational light. This simplifies morality to simply be what can be justifiable through rationality. E3) PRO: "I said [informed consent is] used in legal circles. "Again, PRO concedes that "informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality. ” This debate is about the legality of bestiality, so informed consent is thus a critical matter for PRO/CON to consider, and this according to PRO. E4) PRO believes that the statement "[slaughtering animals] is deemed necessary for our own survival," is false, and provides absolutely no proof of his claim. My assertion is the status quo, as meat is a food, and eating food is necessary for survival, and so no further proof from CON is necessary on this point. In order for PRO to prove his point, PRO must demonstrate that animal meat is not a valid form of food. E5) PRO asks "If I said “sex should be legal and is not inherently immoral” would I have to prove that rape is moral? "Without specificity, CON's answer is yes. PRO did not add any specifiers to bestiality. .. indeed he didn't even bother to define it. Bestiality: sex between a person and an animal. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Therefore, PRO must categorically affirm that "Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral. "RebuttalR1) PRO challenges CON to "define an intelligent decision and give a categorical definition of which facts are relevant to that decision. " Simple enough. It seems PRO is unaccustomed to using a dictionary:Intelligent: able to learn and understand things. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Decision: a choice that you make about something after thinking about it. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Thus, an "intelligent decision" is a choice that one who is able to learn and understand things makes about something after thinking about it. I reassert that "informed consent does not involve perfect knowledge; it only involves enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision," and that "Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent. " R2) PRO states: "an animal’s inability to demonstrate informed consent does not mean they cannot consent. " This is simply ridiculous. Informed consent is a form of consent. I have already established that "informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality,” so of course an animal's inability to demonstrate informed consent DOES mean they cannot consent. PRO may want to avoid discussing informed consent, but he cannot. It is simply too important to this specific resolution, which deals strictly with legality. R3) PRO believes that "When [a female dog] is consenting she will stand still or back up into the human instead of pursuing other activities. " I will make this simpler for audiences - a female dog standing still could mean just about anything - maybe the dog is looking at something it's never seen before, maybe the dog is about to take a piss, maybe the dog is eyeing a suspicious neighbor, etc. .. It does not necessarily demonstrate consent to sex - to think so is somewhat ridiculous. PRO's point is invalid. R4) PRO contradicts himself rather egregiously by citing an example of "the lack of consent from animals [being] frankly so unmistakable," when prior he demanded "a categorical definition" for an intelligent decision, which is critical to the act of consent. PRO's specific example from the video of a dog not wanting to take a bath is only a specific example. .. it is not a categorical definition. PRO fails to uphold burden of proof (BoP), and this according to PRO's own standards. I have categorically defined both "intelligent decisions" and "informed consent", both of which are absolutely necessary to determine legality, which is central to the resolution. In order for PRO to meet BoP, PRO must demonstrate that animals are capable of communicating informed consent in a courtroom. R5) PRO believes CON's argument is that "zoophiles are deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent; for the zoophiles most certainly believe the animals are consenting. In which case they do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beings and cannot therefore become accustomed to it. "Let's assume that this is CON's argument. PRO's logic here is convoluted and contradictory. If zoophiles are "deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent", then zoophiles are indeed "having sex with non-consenting beings" regardless of what they think, and thus will most certainly "become accustomed to it. "Therefore, my prior assertion stands affirmed, that "One engaging in [bestiality] 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. "R6) "[PRO does] not accept [CON's] justification for excepting slaughter houses and hunting, if humans are willing to kill animals they don’t know why not shoot humans they don’t know? "This is an excellent philosophical point. Two observations:1) I have already defended my slaughterhouse point - as per the status quo, meat is necessary for human survival. It is "us or them" and in such a situation, it is rational and thus moral for us to choose our own survival by slaughtering animals for food.2) On hunting, I will compare the act of hunting to military action. Although the hunting of animals for food is now anachronistic and thus no longer necessary for survival, military action, which involves killing, is still necessary for survival. Killing animals is thus an activity with strong connections to rational activity - we must learn to be able to kill living beings in order to do so when necessary for survival. Hunting is also very heavily regulated, as is the killing of human beings. We do know the humans we shoot. .. we know they are enemy combatants. We do not kill human beings that are protected by law; similarly, we do not kill animals that are protected by law. R7) PRO is correct that "laws apply to everyone not just the people who commit rape. " Those who commit rape are breaking the law, and so the full force of the law falls upon them, whereas it does not for people who do not commit rape. R8) PRO states that "watching soft porn may lead to watching hard porn, which may lead to watching violent porn, which may lead to rape. " In order for this statement to be valid, PRO must provide burden of proof of several points:1) That watching soft porn may lead to watching hard porn2) That watching hard porn may lead to watching violent porn3) That watching violent porn may lead to rape4) That violent porn, or any other porn mentioned, involves non-consensual sexPRO has not provided proof of any of these statements. Without providing proof, especially regarding consent, PRO's statement is simply invalid and irrelevant to the resolution. It does not substantiate immorality (i. e. non-consensual sex) for watching any form of pornography, and does not constitute any relevant assertions to the acts of bestiality or rape. It does not satisfy burden of proof for affirming the resolution. Finally, violent force by itself is irrelevant to the issue of consent. Rape can occur when a victim (animal or human) is drugged and asleep, where minimal physical force is necessary for the illicit act. R9) PRO believes that "individual animals imply consent by their actions, vocalizations, and body language. " PRO must demonstrate how these "actions, vocalizations, and body language" could somehow be admissible in a court of law. Can an animal swear an oath? Can an animal commit perjury? I wish PRO luck in providing BoP. R10) PRO's point about a tree being incapable of giving consent is irrelevant to the resolution. A tree is not an animal. R11) PRO all but concedes the debate when he states that "[PRO] cannot prove [demonstrable consent by animals] to you nor could anything be proved to you since this is a debate forum and not a controlled lab setting. At a certain point you and the readers must do some fact checking yourselves. "PRO not only fails to provide BoP, but concedes that he will not be able to, and that anyone who wants proof should not expect it from PRO. This essentially closes the matter. Bestiality involves non-consensual sex with animals, which can easily become disturbing behavior in that it can be cross applied to non-consensual sex with human beings, which is rape. R12) PRO believes that "sex across the species barrier. .. ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. "PRO's point and article are irrelevant to the issue of rape or bestiality, because no one was raped in the article. There was no non-consensual sex occurring, because sex did not occur in the article. R13) PRO accuses CON of not answering the question about horseback riding, to which CON will simply state that it's fully legal and does not require consent for humans to ride on the backs of other humans. ConclusionVery, very simple. PRO cannot prove demonstrable consent by animals. PRO also does not contest CON's primary assertion:"One engaging in [bestiality] 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. "Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality.