Sex with animals is ethically permissible

In summation:Over the course of this debate it has been my contention that ethics is about securing freedoms and about fulfilling responsibilities, that ethics are for people, and that there is having sex with an animal does not violate the freedom of another person.CON's initial response was a naturalistic fallacy (CON's argument from teleology), an argument from incredulity (CON's deontological argument), and an argument from populism (CON's consequentialist argument), and I dismantled them handily. Additionally CON's case has been heaped with a plentiful smattering of lies, mischaracterizations, and straw-man arguments.On the existence of the soul, Without a soul, the pain of a non-person does not matter, and such pain does not infer rights, and thus con's claim of animal rights was refuted entirely.CON's failed argument from teleology is essentially a thinly veiled attempt at an argument from divine intent, and evolution demands that the teleological argument fails. While one thing may do a task reasonably well, that thing is not necessarily intended for that task and it's functioning well in that task is incidental unless there is an agent acting with intent. It has been my contention that teleology requires an agent, and that there is no purpose without an agent. My opponent uses argument from authority (most recently Tim Hsiao), and commits the naturalisic fallacy, and makes an unconvincing case at it. A telos requires intent, and intent requires an agent, as I demonstrated clearly in round 3.CON's failed argument from deontology is nothing more than an argument from incredulity, strawman, and argument from authority. I see no irrationality in having sex with animals; it is in fact quite rational as I put down in my rebuttal in round 3, and he has not actually addressed that point. His speeches are clearly scriptural acceptance of deontology, without support of that ethical framework, a support which I have asked for and a support CON has not given. It is merely the world according to Kant, an argument from Kant's moral authority.CON's failed argument from consequentialism is nothing more than a discussion of pragmatism and appeal to populism. That my opponent fails to see how his arguments is particuarly damning of his position. However as he has demanded expanded claims, as per my assurances in round 2 that I would support my accusations of fallacious thinking more fully if he asked, I will do so:"Let’s think of the personal implications of having sex animals, first you have the knowledge you are doing something that is not typically normal and if anyone finds out you know that you may be shunned(wrong or not), inciting feelings of guilt." This runs into the is/ought problem, the naturalistic fallacy. Just because the feelings of guilt ARE, does not imply that the feelings of guilt OUGHT BE, and many who have such sex do not feel such guilt in any regard."Also you have potentially opened yourself to many diseases along with potential diseases; typically if the sexual actions is unwelcome many animals are rather vicious." Such is a discussion of PRAGMATISM, as previously outlined. In any acceptance of such pragmatism, if consequences can be entirely avoided, there remains no objection! Thus it is not the "sex with animals" but rather "the exposure to disease and injury" which is considered unethical by the consequentialism. This is a clear red herring."[D]o we really want to encourage our youth to perform sexual actions on basically anything we want despite the pain or anger it shows?" And here con makes a straw-man argument, particularly in obliquely claiming I am for the encouragement of such activities; I am not nor have I ever said I was. In fact at the beginning of round 3, I specifically focused on making such a clarification. I am merely for neutrality towards those who independently decide to engage in them."Do we really want to tell our children that behaving sexually irresponsible is permissible?" Here CON begs the question that such sexual behavior is necessarily "irresponsible"."Do we need to give them more cause to act on sexual pleasure rather than rationality?" Here CON begs the question again, assuming that fulfilling sexual drives is irrational; I have in fact argued in my round 3 rebuttal of CON that it is in fact rational to fulfill one's sexual drives."Does allowing people to have sex with animals really make more happiness for the majority of people?" Here con assumes that happiness is the measure of "goodness" and commits the naturalistic fallacy. There is no magical trait of happiness that means it is necessarily good. In a world where people are made blissfully happy by killing their first born son after he reaches adulthood, is it ethical for them to kill their firstborn son? No. It is more likely the case that such happiness itself is EVIL."Considering the majority of people disagree with the resolution...." Is a clear appeal to the authority of the majority. This is known as the fallacious 'appeal to populism'."...including an incredibly powerful company that you may of heard of named PETA." Is a clear appeal to the authority of the organization PETA and their ability to make procamations via their might."All that discomfort and anger is much more unhappiness for the majority of people versus the little amount of happiness you may get from sexual actions with animals." This is the same objection brought against gays serving in the military, women voting, brown-skinned people's freedom and right to vote, and marriages between those with brown skin and pink skin. It failed then, it fails now. The question we are investigating is not whether the happiness of those who have sex with animals is sufficient, but whether there is sufficient reason for the aforementioned unhappiness. I have made a case that there is not. Again con has committed the naturalistic fallacy.CON's attempt at argument from deterministic nihilism is a new argument. As was agreed to, CON was not to present new arguments in round 4, as that round was reserved for rebuttal and counter-rebuttal. In making such an argument, CON denies the existence of knowledge, and contradicts all of his own arguments about rationality and teleology. Even if the universe is deterministic, that still does not speak to the metaphysics of what ought be, which is the ethical question. If there is no ethical truth, all things are potentially ethicaly acceptable, and thus the resolution is supported by CON.In conclusion, I have met my burden of proof that ethics are for people, that ethics is not pragmatism, and that common sense supports imposition on animals. CON has not provided any acceptable burden of proof that ethics are for animals; his claims were nonsensical. CON has engaged in outright lies, strawman arguments, red herrings, appeals to authority, and naturalistic fallacies. NONE of his arguments hold water, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, wheareas my own arguments clearly do; Finally, CON has made an attack on freedom ethics in his final round of argumentation, despite having dropped the point of validity of those ethics, and while claiming incoherence he has yet to demontrate that incoherence, and his time to do so is over.A suggested RFD: Conduct to PRO for staying within the rules of the debate, and because CON has outright lied in his poorly researched claims. S&G Tied. Both PRO and CON have various minor spelling and grammar mistakes of similar character. Convincingness to PRO; CON has committed numerous eggregious fallacies over the course of the debate which undermine his position. He has failed to meet his BOP of the validity of any particular ethical frameork, and even attacked said validity, whereas PRO has met his burden of proof for his ethical framework. Reliability of sources to PRO; CON's use of sources as arguments from authority rather than arguments as evidence is clear. CON has failed to request sourcing, despite the offer do so.