Sex with animals is ethically permissible

What's wrong with "what's wrong".While my opponent has claimed that large portions of my case are irrelevant, he has yet to establish why. He has made the claim that freedom is to be able to do that which is "ethically permissible", and claimed that this definition is non-circular, except that the definition of freedom used thus far is exactly "that which is ethically permissible"; such a definition would be tautological and thus worthless.It is further not circular to say that freedom is the extent of all things which are not contradictory to the will of another person; as outlined in my round 3 post, it is non-contradictory because it is essentially saying "freedom is the ability act in accordance with determining one's own teleology for themselves in any case so long s it does not attempt to dictate the teleology of another person." In this way it is neither circular nor problematic.Society requires responsibility.First let me note here that my opponent has made several straw-man attacks against my position. First, he has clamed that my own position demands that others be forced to accept the ethical values of another person as their own; it means no such thing. While indeed I may hold these ethical values, they are not from me, but rather from a logical investigation of first principles, themselves implicitly accepted by all people in their interactions with the world around them. As he clearly fails to understand this point, his extrapolations cannot be based on any thing that a rational person might call logic. Moreover, he makes the unfounded assumption that I accept all humans as persons, which I do not; it is clear that not all persons are necessarily humans, and not all humans are necessarily persons.It is obvious that responsibility and obligation are necessary for society. We have various emotional implementations of responsibility whose existence speaks directly to the fact that it was good for our survival as a social species. If not for the responsibility to not murder and to defend each other from those who break from that responsibility, society would quickly fall apart. It is even further apparent that societies the world over and througout history have recognized this vital responsibility.He has attempted further to bring up red herrings. Those agents which have the potential to be future pople namely the child and the incapacitated have every right to the freedom to be, once they are people, and that includes the freedom to decide if and when to accept the many consequences of sex. Further, he makes a blatant assertion that humans cannot be considered property. Unless he can point to some magical quality of homo sapiens that makes them somehow different from dogs, cats, fish and rocks his argument will be nothing but bald assertion. Finally, there remain strong pragmatic reasons not to permit sex with dead humans, as that necessitates human bodies, the lust for which may drive someone to produce such bodies from potential people, especially as they do not normally stay fresh.My ethical objectivismMy opponent has in round 3 made a blatant lie; there is nothing subjective from the derivation of ethical responsibilities and freedoms from metaphysical first principles. It is quite obviously the definition of objective ethics. Further, my opponent has made a strawman here, claiming that my position is that a failure of a human to be a person is sufficient reason to allow absolute imposition upon them. That is the case if and only if we could guarantee that the target is truly are not a person or capable of ever becoming one, and such a task is beyond our abilities. While such acts may not be ethically impermissible, it is pragmatic to treat them as if they are impermissible because we cannot currently differentiate.Second, he claims thait is my contention that societies retain the ability to revoke some natural right, when I have made no such claim. It is only the individual who may revoke or claim their rights as a person, through their acceptance of their responsibility. In fact, it is clear that my opponent is clearly advocating ethical subjectivism, given his appeal to populism in round 2: "[A]llowing people to have sex with animals... [does not make]... more happiness [because]...the majority of people disagree with the resolution"I will reiterate that it is not subjective to derive ethics from first principles necessary for rationality, however it IS subjective for my opponent to claim that the majority's views on an issue define the correct course. I'll point back to the previous points I have made about slavery, interracial marriage, and gay rights.CON's strawman argument from authorityFirst, let us identify his argument for what it is: a strawman argument. I have so far not claimed that ethics derives from the community, but rather that ethics and thus community derive from rationality. Indeed, it is not society that defines what it means to be rational, but rather to be rational is to have some specific and objective traits, and the acceptance of the value of community when it is available is merely the extension of the use of those traits. Such a person is rational, even if they were the only person in existence. Even if a culture has lesser ethical values, it is composed of humans which may be people, or may become people, and every one of those potentil people deserve to be treated in such a way that will ensure their freedom to act as people.CON's lack of common sense.Con has made various incorrect factual claims and strawman arguments. First, he has claimed that I have contended that we "cut off animal penises". Any such claim would be a symantic contention. "castration" as used represents the behavior of removing the testicles and/or ovaries from an animal, which is done commonly. Further, http://www.youtube.com... is actual proof that masturbation of animals is not only done, but that it is common.Additionally, CON has made the failed and utterly false claim that freedom doesn't entail not being killed against your will. It is obvious that freedom (even the freedom to die) requires existence first. Further, this is not a discussion of the ethics of war. This is a discussion about sex with animals. Those same pragmatic reasons to prevent imposed sex with other potential people still applies here. In a war, either one or both sides are irrational, particularly since one side or the other isn't willing to treat equals equally, hence either one or both sides have every right to defend themselves, either in the manner of a person defending himself against an animal or two animals fighting over a scrap. The only difference is that when it can e identified as the former, there is a responsibility for all rational people to lend assistence in some way. Further, there is a big difference, and one my opponent seems to miss, between can and should[ethical] and should[pragmatic]. These three different concepts can be seen as follows: I CANNOT lick my elbow. I SHOULD NOT[ethical] prevent a person from making attempt to lick their elbow. I SHOULD NOT[pragmatic] attempt oral sex with a shark. This becomes significant because we don't have such sex because of the third such reason.As common sense goes, if we are to intentionally deprive a farm animal of existence, once its existence is gone what does it matter that someone had sex with it? Unless my opponent wants to make some claim of magic, that some angry god will smite us for doing so, or that it lives forever and is immortal, such a claim that there is such a necessity for such treatment is spurious.ConclusionMy opponent has claimed that animals have natural rights, AND that these natural rights preclude having sex with them. He has not provided evidence for these claims, while I have provided evidence for my own. He has attacked many straw men so far, but few or no real arguments. The resolution stands defended.