Sex with animals is ethically permissible

Over the course of this debate, my opponent has attempted to defend his position on sex with animals, by simply saying I am committing fallacies without giving any evidence to support this claim. Furthermore my opponent has completely avoided my objections by simply giving the answer that we should be able to do what ever we want as long as we don't interfere with others freedoms. This is simply a false position that virtually no modern day ethicist agrees with but lets address my opponents points. Deterministic NihilismMy opponent says I made a argument from deterministic nihilism but I did no such thing. I was merely saying if PRO is correct than it follows that morality cannot be based on rational choice because pragmatic concerns is how we make rational choices. So it follows from my opponents position that Deterministic Nihilism is true. My opponent simply doesn't understand that if his position is true it entails this, maybe my opponent wishes this to be true but he has justify this. I am not saying its true, but my opponents case leads us to that. This isn't a argument, its observation. Furthermore, my attack on freedom ethics in the last round was just building on previous rounds not a new attack that I simply introduced, it was part of a rebuttal that from the arguments he gave me. On the Existence of the SoulMy opponent attacks a strawman when he talks about the existence of the soul he infers I believe that, but I do not nor was that my argument. I gave an argument to what rights actually are and my opponent has not addressed my argument this whole debate therefore he concedes and if that is true than at least some animals it isn't okay to have sex with. Remember the argument was that if animals understand a right they are entitled to it. Teleology and IntentOne my inherent teleology doesn't rely on God; two even if it did there is no reason to presuppose atheism over theism. Furthermore there are other reasons to think that morality should be natural rather than nonexistent. It seems that the value exists independent of the subjective perceptions. Most people if asked whether right or wrong exists will say yes. But why should morality be understood as anything different than mathematics. Some people will say this is just a bunch of bare assertions masquerading as a logical inference(thank you Dr. Tom Morris) but nonsense if we suppose that something may or may not exist we don't automatically assume it behaves differently than other things simply because people have mixed reports on it. Now this is part of my argument: we needn't suppose neither separate ontological status nor non-existence if right or wrong is grounded in natural teleology. It is not only the most simple answer (Oakum's razor) but the most commonsense (not to say what is true is always commonsense). My argument of why it isn't necessary to say desire or incidental things was not a appeal to authority, I was giving a actual argument. Now my opponent has never brought up the naturalistic fallacy but I will address it here: my opponent has introduced it but remember that the function is what determines what is permissible. As Contradiction once said "Given a teleological account of human nature, there is no fact-value distinction, for value is built into fact from the very beginning. If the purpose of eyes is that they see, then it follows straightforwardly given their telos that eyes which see well are good eyes. Nature is not merely descriptive, but also prescriptive. "Ought" claims are not derived from "is" claims, but present to begin with". Deontology defeats my opponentMore of my opponents accusations here with absolutely no substance to his claims. I do not teach acceptance of deontology for non-rational reasons. I simply said if one is to accept deontology one is forced to conclude that sex with animals is wrong. Deontology obviously one of options but its not the only one and I have offered all of three contemporary theories of ethics against sex with animals. Notice how my opponent abandons his critique of Kant's Deontology and now just says that I haven't justified it! Therefore, he agrees that his objections are not substantiated. And if that's true then my objection stands and it shows deontology does not support my opponents freedom ethics or sex with animals at all. Consequentialism and My opponents only real argumentMy opponent has actually tried to refute the connection between pragmatism and consequentialism. My argument isn't a appeal to populism but a argument from collectivism which is the theory that is opposed to liberalism/individualism, in that it says community is more important than individual. My opponent merely asserts this is wrong as is very revealing about his whole case, he seems to have a common theme say the other person is wrong without justification. Now onto his explanations of why I am wrong:Naturalistic Fallacy and GuiltThe point wasn't that guilt was supposed to be there because of the moral ontology of sex with animals but rather showing the generally doing something that is against society's values leads to negative consequences(expected not actual which is all that matters really, you cannot know actual consequences all the time). My opponent also says I make a assumption on happiness being good, but from Utilitarian view goodness is happiness and what is good necessarily indicates what is right. My opponent simply states the Utilitarian view with refuting it. The objection stands. Pragmatism and ConsequentialismMy opponent has clearly failed to understand the argument, Sex with animals cannot be told in actual consequences it must be told in expected consequences because we cannot know the actual consequences in reality until after they happen my opponent has misunderstood the argument, I am not arguing the type of consequentialism my opponent thinks I am, if I were then anything that resulted good would be permissible even things with evil intentions. We would expect one who has sex with animals would result in injury or illness. Therefore, expected consequences is what's more important. Even if my opponents argument to work, it still doesn't the negative societal consequences. Begging the question/Appeal to authority/Social IssuesI apologize if my opponent doesn't understand that irresponsibility is caused by irrationality, I should have made this clear. To the point of irrationality see explanation with Deontology and cross apply. To fulfill a certain irrational desire is always irrational regardless of rationality of categorical whole. In other words, fallacy of composition on Pro. My opponent has failed to read what I am arguing on appeal to authority charges I am not arguing their right because of their authority, I am arguing that since the majority of people are against this it causes much more trouble and pain for it to be seen moral and therefore(due to jurisprudence) legal, therefore on consequentialist grounds the objection stands. My opponent has made a categorical mistake on social issues, the reason why all those things were legalized were because their was no rational reason to prohibit them, so far from criticizing the argument he doesn't understand it. My Opponents argument entails/Argument from Daniel Kaye and the Andrew SistersMy opponent has not responded to my argument about savages being raped simply for not being able to grasp something under his definition of freedom, also my opponent thinks it unimportant that his ethics justify necrophilia of animals and people. Since my opponent hasn't responded to these we can see he simply concedes. ConclusionI will not tell you all how to vote on every detail of this debate, just note my opponent has not meet his burden of proof, he doesn't understand modern ethics nor does he understand what this ethics he advocates for entails, he has completely ignored the role of pragmatism in rationality, and has abandoned commonsense in favor of absolute sexual freedom.