Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"therefore there is no reason why I should change my thoughts of intelligence and libido." I don't care if you do, I said it was irrelevant. Laws should not be based on preventing people from doing anything but constantly building their intelligence. "Can you objectively express what is incorrect about the said statement it" In context it is irrelevant, as I said. There have been studies that show that people with animals live longer. Legalizing bestiality might cause more people to have animals. Therefore it might make people live longer. That is the kind of argument you are trying to make with this intelligence stuff. You would base law on several consecutive layers of guessing and generalizations on the premise that the government has a right to force people to do what's best for themselves. That requires positive support from you not negative proof from me. You never phrased your argument objectively I had to make a best guess, and this is my best guess: #1 Fact: There is a statistical correlation between sexual indulgence and low intelligence #2 Guess: Sexual indulgence lowers intelligence #3 Guess: Zoophiles are more sexually indulgent than everyone else (or else you would be advocating a ban on sex in general) #4 Super Longshot Speculation: Making bestiality illegal will cause zoophiles to occupy less of their time thinking about sex, thus allowing them to be more intelligent. #5 Unwarranted political theory: if banning a behavior would cause some people to spend their time increasing their intelligence then it's justified. Even if I accepted without question that your unlinked study is correct that only gets you number one. "instead of using ad Hominem?" You don't know how to recognize an ad hominem <- this isn't one either. "Again, another study that supports my claim that zoophiles tend to be less intelligent and have irregular mental health." You said nothing about any other studies with that conclusion, and this article (from what you posted, also unlinked) doesn't conclude such either. It cites one example. It isn't a study to boot, in case you didn't realize Scientific American is a magazine. "Debatable. I'm slightly a social darwinist, and i'm good at arguing my case for it, but this isn't the matter that is at hand, so, all I want to say is that I don't agree with this because I don't believe every man born is equal." I don't care if you think men are born equal, if you wanted to challenge the moral standard I use in my argument you should have done so in another debate as requested. As for social Darwinism, poppycock I say; a more dynamic Nazi state would have won your race simply by winning an arms race which they almost did anyway. Ask not what you can do for society nor what society can do for you, but what you can trade with real entities like individuals or companies. "when the more reasonable conclusion is that they probably do and that we just haven't found it yet." It is just as reasonable that there are undiscovered human STDs just waiting to mutate into something terrible, or that there are undiscovered zoonosis that are far more contagious than STDs. Yes plenty of variables which is why I will not accept a vague allusion to risk totally unanchored by any concrete evaluation. As of right now there are no pure STDs between humans and animals known despite continuous human animal sex occurring. As of right now for all we know the risk is less having sex with animals, and none for humans or animals if you have a clean bill of health for both parties. "Of course, that is not practical in the society in which we live in today" So you would ban all 'non-essential' sex, except you could never get the majority to go along with it; but since there aren't that many zoophiles you can enact your misguided policy... is that about the sum of it? "I doubt it. Although, not considered sexually transmitted, there are infections and diseases that comes through urine and feces which I doubt domesticated animals can clean themselves to the extent humans can." Your doubt is founded in ignorance. There are zoonosis but their number pale in comparison to the diseases humans can give to each other. Almost any viral or bacterial disease can be transmitted through unprotected sex. Therefore all else being equal you are less likely to contract a disease from an animal. If the risk is not unique to sex the ban supposedly justified by that risk should be wider than sex. "haha, you cannot objectively quantify how much pain someone goes through torture, so then are you to reject the moral standard that torture should be illegal" If the standard attempted to say their pain wasn't 'worth' the information gained or what not. If it can't be quantified you can't perform a greater-than less-than comparison. There is no ‘harm outweighs the risk’ since you cannot weigh either. "You do not need an absolute and objective method to make moral decisions." If you admit it's subjective you have already placed it outside the realm of reason and rendered it unusable in debate. Your idea of what's 'worth it' is not mine. "The point is that, there may exist a disease unknown at this point that may or may not devastate society, and the best decision is to limit and protect ourselves until complete, absolute, and thorough research that " I could fill in: 'that disease is not present in X' where X is pretty much anything biological in the world. Any food. Any organism. Any chemical reaction. I call BS, the phantoms of undiscovered diseases are infinitely ‘less critical’ than the rights of real people. "not to extend our freedom and sexual gratification until such things do indeed become a problem." Freedom is a right, the individual doesn't need an excuse to be free, you need a concrete justification to limit their freedom. "Are you sexually interested in human beings? Do you think your attraction towards animals are equivalent to that of, say, my attraction to women." Yes on both counts. If you're thinking of saying "why not just do women then" this argument is not about the variable convenience of sexual partners but whether it is wrong and should be illegal to have an animal sexual partner. You may as well tell a bisexual "if you get to choose why don't you just choose to act straight". I can choose abstinence as well and would have to if there was no moral sexual release. However the resolution is not about whether zoophiles have outlets for sexual tension it is about whether sex with animals is moral.