Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

“Sorry, I didn't realize that you could "cache"...Pro can no longer reject my argument for its legitimacy.” Your link to the google cache is merely an online version of the word document I read six times. It does not contain the claim “Bestiality usually includes abusing the animal in a violent, sexual way. Consequently, some animals can die from the injuries inflicted upon it” which you used in round two. That claim remains the only argument you’ve made for the harmfulness of bestiality which you have repeatedly relied on in practically every point you’ve made. You haven’t managed to correctly cite the source of that critical claim in three rounds. I still cannot evaluate the source of the original data; you’re out of time for that seeing as this is my last official posting. I accuse you of intentional dishonesty if you cite this or any other similar claim only in the last round. For the rest of this post I will consider your BoP for harm unmet and ignore any points relying on it. “This still doesn't prove that animals can consent to having sexual intercourse.” Yes it does, as my R1 argument demonstrated the creatures in question cannot pursue a course of action they do not consent to. Regardless of whether I shown you full acts of bestiality I have shown you animals pursuing sexual interaction with humans. Humping is what a dog does during sex. The willingness to hump, have their organs stimulated, where the target is a human is identical to the willingness to fulfill their part in sexual intercourse with a human. Anyone who seriously beleives penetration is somehow drastically different they can read the studies I cited or just use google to see a dog penetrate a human (not youtube). “Besides, this isn't what the debate is about.” Yes it is, you are claiming that the animals in those videos are not demonstrating through action, implicit consent to sexual relations with a human. The fact that they are is key to a premise of my core argument. “This is about human's sexual orientation and their attraction to animals, not the other way around. If you wanted to debate the opposite, you should've specified that.” This is not about human’s sexual orientation. I provided the definition of zoophilia for convenience, it’s already legal to be attracted to anything. It should be legal because anything else would be thought crime. I am not debating whether animals are sexually attracted to humans, it is irrelevant. They consent, their reasons are their own. Maybe they are attracted to humans. Maybe they see any pack/herd member as valid targets for sexual interaction. Maybe they don’t find us attractive at all but we are excellent sex toys given they lack the ability to easily masturbate. Maybe they do it because they think we will like it. It doesn’t matter, perceiving consent does not require understanding of the reasons consent was given. "Again, the dog was not stimulating it's sexual organs inside another human's body.” Yet videos exist of dogs (and horses) doing just that. Do you accept these as implicit consent? Don’t just say “no” tell me why and contrast your reasoning with my arguments in round 1. "You are assuming that since an animal is humping you, they have consented to hump you.” My argument in round one establishes that no assumption is necessary. Since an animal capable of volition is humping you absent negative conditioning, they must consent to humping you. “we don't know what animals actions mean beyond reasonable doubt.” We know they mean the animal is willing to do those actions the animal is doing. “So far, Pro hasn't proven that animals can consent” I have. “and in order for it to be a law, consent must be shown in court.” That is incorrect. The law can ignore animal consent completely and state abuse occurred only if objective psychological or physical evaluation can establish harm. No animal consent needs to be demonstrated at any point in any legal proceeding. The law can mention consent, and say that it is illegal to have sex with a non-consenting animal. In which case only non-consent needs to be demonstrated in court because the burden of proof is on the state to prove the animal was not consenting. Your point is defeated, I have just given two variants of law that never require consent to be proven in court yet permit bestiality. “This debate is about the legality of bestiality” [and all such similar comments] We are debating the ideal legality of bestiality. “Why would a government legalize something that isn't proved?” Governments don’t legalize facts they legalize behavior. When did they prove animals can’t consent and that bestiality is abuse? I know you are all used to the status quo but the BoP for justifying a ban does not belong with those who think it’s unjustified but the people who made and continue to support it. “Laws are made legal if they benefit humans in some way.” What is done is not necessarily what should be done. Finally bestiality benefits humans: It lets us release stress and express and feel love. If done instead of promiscuous human-human sex it results in less STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and friendship destroying breakups. So if benefiting humans in some way is your only criteria for ideal law, abolishing the ban is still ideal. “Pro then goes on to say that…” You have almost as many reading problems as wrichcirw. I said unambiguous, and there was a comma not a period between the section containing “animal products” and “necessary for survival”. Your last sentence in that paragraph was also unambiguous and showed that you were used ‘necessary for survival’ as the justification for ignoring consent. “Pets are not beneficial to human survival” First “necessary for human survival” then “beneficial to human survival” now we’re down to just “beneficial to humans”, that means pretty much any excuse to violate animal consent will do. Well I already gave you a few reasons bestiality is beneficial to humans. “We presume the animal does want to be healed” Which is somehow acceptable where a presumption of wanting sex is not (not that I am relying on such a presumption). “The legalization of bestiality, and the legalization of bestiality porn are two seperate things.” The latter requires the former. You justified shearing because it gave people jobs. Making porn gives people jobs too. “You've just contradicted yorself....” There is no contradiction. If law should be dependent on morality that is an inherent link. “The burden of proof rests on the affirmative” Incorrect, that is a high school conception of the BoP. I could just have easily of made my resolution “Bestiality should be illegal and is immoral” and taken the Con. Under the laws of logic the burden of proof lies with the original claim of existence. The defaults are that X does not exist or does not affect Y. I claimed that animals can consent to sex, the burden of proof is on me since that is a positive claim. (and I have met it). I claimed that there is no inherent harm. That is a negative claim; the burden of proof is on anyone who would make the positive claim and contradict my statement. You agreed with this principle when you said “Since you still haven't provided any evidence on how an animal becoming a pet is harming it, we'll take it that you see no harm.” despite the fact that you were the one who originally said owning pets does not harm them. “Yes, I did, and a cited a well-known author Frank Ascione PhD” No you didn’t you posted a claim that I couldn’t even find in your links. Ascione was mentioned in one link and did an interview in another but there was no claim of ‘usually harms’ nor more importantly a citation of the study with that conclusion so the data and methodology could be examined. “have sexual intercourse with it, what does this mean?” First off you didn’t answer the question you asked another question. You said animals communicate with each other better than they do with us. How do you know, or are you just assuming? Wagging of the tail is well known to mean excitement or happiness. He consents when the sex starts (yep the humping) and he keeps wagging his tail and/or participating in the way typical of his species. “*Pro says that I directly said” Actually that was a summary, you implied it by demanding that I prove pets harmed by being pets. From the beginning of the debate first instance of “You provide no ev” “Bestiality negatively effects animals” The section following that heading was an equivocation fallacy. RSPCA defines animal abuse as the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals. It is then claimed that bestiality involves abusing animals and thus it must be the infliction of pain or suffering. Under the definition given bestiality is not abuse and need not involve abuse since it is not the infliction of pain or suffering. Con cannot escape the requirement for concrete evidence of inherent harm so cheaply. The third link referenced by [3] is for penile cancer and has nothing to do with this. “Bestiality doesn’t benefit humans” I gave examples of how it does, and after reading that link I could barely contain my disdain. That is exactly the kind of sensationalist false conclusions I hate from third party reporting on studies. Just one excerpt should be enough “The researchers found no association between penile cancer and the number of animals the men used over time” It’s an interesting phenomenon that doesn’t scale with exposure… eh? My opponent seems to think the mere mention Dr. Ascione is enough citation, no need for specific studies or claims. If that’s the case I’ll remind readers that I dropped the name of Dr. Andrea Beetz who says “As has been mentioned before, sexual acts often include practices that do not necessarily employ coercion, restriction, force, or violence; not only oral-genital contact or masturbation, but also penetration of the animal can be practiced without causing pain or injuries.” on page 65 of Bestiality and Zoophilia http://www.goodreads.com...