Is literary bestiality if both parties are intelligent, can, and do consent verbally, etc.

To begin I will start of by stating that I stand in firm negation to the Resolved: Literary bestiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. is not wrong. to preserve the integrity of this debate as being the affirmation, and having the duty to be against literary bestiality, I put forth the following resolution change, "Literary bestiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. IS WRONG. " whereas my opponent is on the negation, as indicated by his taken position in the argument presented, and I am on the affirmation. To start off i will go directly into my contentions C1) Real world action A Video games and movies are accused in today's society of causing violence, school shootings, and bloody massacres. Granted not everyone who plays Call of Duty is going to go kill 20 people in the mall, or shoot up their school, but as well as mental illness being attributed, in many cases so are violent video games and movies. The actions of bestiality are far less seemingly harmful and far more likely to happen and be re enacted from a story. When this happens in real life, the animal isn't intelligent, can't provide consent, and can't say no. Anything that contributes to the harm of these innocent animals should be seen as immoral, Literary bestiality is included. B The relation of things to things of a sexual nature increase the sexual appeal of the first thing. Furthermore even the association of something with sex will increase its appeal. This is how fetishes are formed, the brain associates something with the sexual nature, that way when you see, taste, touch, smell, or hear these things you become aroused. To associate animals with sex is morally wrong; for someone to further their fetish with bestiality is to further the likelihood of them committing this atrocity against animals in real life. Animals that cannot consent, leading to the harm of these animals. C2) devaluation of humans To say that animals can be intelligent enough to consent is to say the the notion of autonomy means nothing. that it is nothing special to be human and that humans can be replaced at anytime. Which is a misrepresentation and so therefore should be seen as the devaluation of human life and autonomy to a primal level. C3) inter-breeding The primary function of sex is to reproduce, if other species are thrown into the mix, then suddenly see that new interbreeds would arise, further leading to devaluation of humans. As well is just plain gross. to address the point my opponent makes, first of all, I read the story, and the very story that my opponent cites recognizes that they could not be together until eragon was transformed into a dragon, as saphira is also a dragon. therefore the story is not one of bestiality, and does not uphold his own point. and the second point that in literary fiction it is possible to build a stronger relationship between human and animals, doesn't constitute morality. It is also possible to build stronger relationships between siblings, but that doesn't make it moral. For all of this I stand firmly for the notion that Literary bestiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. IS WRONG, and urge everyone to vote affirmation.