lit. Bestiality rematch

since my opponent puts forth his previous responses to my arguments, here are the arguments 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. 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..... Now I will respond to my opponents rebuttals to the aforementioned arguments First of all my opponent concedes to the fact that this literary fiction would lead to real world action. He states that this does not affect the debate because of a series of 'ifs' and 'resoltuional technicalities' that my opponent puts forth. my opponent states that in literature it is possible for animals to give consent, but this doesn't matter; because of the fact that this literary fiction leads to real world action, and in the real world animals cannot give consent. Since literary bestiality increases harm to animals in real life, ones that cannot give consent, it is wrong. Next my opponent states that 'if' the literary fiction reinforces the idea of no means no and that you have to have consent, then the literary bestiality is not wrong. We have to look at literary fiction, not these 'ifs', the facts are that literary fiction involving these specific aspects are very limited. on the issue of cross breeding my opponent asks the question about a mule.. My answer to this is that a horse and a donkey are closely related, so are tigers and lions, horses and zebras, llamas and camels, Wolfs and dogs. They are genetically similar, but a humans and animals are not genetically similar whatsoever. To the human devaluation, my opponent states that in literary fiction, animals can act more human than humans..... First off, what do you consider "acting like a human", because the only thing I can think of is the intelligence level that separates us..... Love is not specifically a human trait, so saying that because they can love like humans do, they should be able to screw around with humans, is inherently flawed. If you are however stating that the intelligence level can be "human-like" in literary fiction, I would refer you to my previous argument that because of real world action, and animals not having that intelligence in real life, it is wrong to depict. To recap; examples of specific situations in stories will not do because not only is it limited to the specific story, but it transfers into real world action a point that my opponent concedes to. An animal cannot give consent in real life no matter how much that animal would be able to in fiction, and when compounded with real world action from literary bestiality, it hurts these animals and so is therefore wrong. An animal is no replacement for a human counterpart, depicting that devalues humans.