Legalize Bestiality

Possible Harm=Good reason to be illegal "'My BoP is to show how bestiality can be harmful. I do not need to show that in every case bestiality is harmful, just that it is in a significant number of cases.'WRONG. It is not to show how it can be harmful, it is to show that it should be illegal. You are making a huge leap in logic by saying sometimes it is harmful therefore that is a good reason to have a law against it."Not wrong. Here's why: Pro completely dropped my contention in R1 that animal abuse should be illegal. By doing so he conceded this contention. Animal abuse should be illegal. I have shown how bestiality can be harmful to animals. In other words, I have shown how bestiality is animal abuse. It has been conceded that animal abuse should be illegal. Therefore, by showing that animal abuse is harmful, I have shown that it should be illegal. My BoP was to show that bestiality is harmful, because it had been conceded that animal abuse should be illegal. My statement was not incorrect. "It is the same as saying that since human-human sexual relationships can be harmful if they involve rape or are with a minor that we have a good reason for human-human sex to be illegal." Not at all. My opponent is not arguing that non abusive bestiality should be legal and abusive bestiality should remain illegal, he is arguing that bestiality should be legal. In his example, that is like saying that some human sexual relationships are not harmful therefore all human sexual relationships, including rape should be legal. Because the generality of his position allows for a great deal of abuse, the resolution is negated.Animal abuse statutes"There is not a single jurisdiction that would allow animal abuse"The resolution of this debate is not limited to the United States. There are numerous jurisdictions around the world that do not have laws against animal abuse [1]. Also, in some countries such as Australia, that animal protection laws do not do enough [2]. This proves that it cannot be assumed that animal protection laws exist or are enforced, therefore, in some cases, affirming the resolution would lead to animal abuse."But for the sake of argument let's say there was no statute against animal abuse, that's not a reason to ban bestiality. That's like saying if a jurisdiction has no laws against rape that it would be a good idea to pass a law against having sex (regardless of whether or not it was consensual) rather than to simply rectify the situation by passing a law against rape." I have already addressed this during my argument under the "possible harm" section. That applies to this argument to, but additionally, I will provide another, different, argument. In most cases, sex between humans is consensual. As far as bestiality goes, my opponent has not presented sufficient evidence proving that most animals are capable of consenting to sex. We have deemed that children who can speak are not capable of making such a decision, so why should we say that animals are capable of doing so. In most cases, bestiality cannot is not animal initiated and in most cases, animals are not capable of consent. Therefore, in most cases bestiality is animal abuse. This is not true of human sex. In most cases human sex is consensual. Therefore we cannot compare the two as my opponent has done. FairnessOoh, a new argument in the last round. How exciting! "People committing an act not in itself wrong (which Con has conceded to by admitting bestiality can be consensual) should not face punishment just because some other people who commit the act do it in a way that is wrong, especially when it's possible to punish those others for the "wrong" that they do without punishing the person not doing anything wrong while doing it." Yep. I conceded that perhaps dolphins are capable of human language and consent. Who f**ks dolphins? And nonverbal consent may be used, my opponent has not proven that most animals are able to consent, even non verbally.Petting example"Con seems to think that in my example I meant "in the mood to have sex" let me reclarify."No, I understood the argument just fine. I was just saying that you can't compare petting to violating sexual integrity."If the animal shows any sign of resistance, then that's a rejection of consent and time to stop."I would agree. But some people won't stop. Animals can be forced into doing things very easily because of the power humans possess. And the resolution says nothing about consent. It just says bestiality should be illegal.ConclusionIf the large majority of bestiality cases are abusive, then is it worth depriving those very few of people the chance to have foo foo with fido? I argue yes. My opponent has not provided evidence to show that most bestiality cases are non abusive. It is very easy to imagine many scenarios that are abusive.In order to fulfill my BoP, all I had to do was to give one valid reason that bestiality should be illegal. I have done so by showing how bestiality is animal abuse in most cases, and therefore should be illegal.I thank my opponent for this interesting debate.Vote Con!!Sources:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- http://www.animalsaustralia.org...