Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

ADreamOfLiberty is awesome. Framework======= B1) a. According to my opponent: "if something is moral it should be legal and if it is legal it should be moral. " c. My opponent has also suggested that something is either moral or immoral, with no neutral ground in between. I concede this analysis. Therefore, if I can show that Bestiality is not moral, then I have also shown that it is immoral and should not be legal. B2) Pro admits to sociological and psychological harms being counted as "pain. " Because Pro accepts this, I concede to this moral standard. B3) I asked my opponent what kind of laws we are discussing in a private message. My opponent answered me in a private message, and gave me permission to repost it in this debate: 1. Any law that prohibited a sexual act simply because it was a sexual act involving a human and an animal. 2. Any law that does this by trying to define all sexual acts involving humans and animals as abuse. 3. Any law that does this de facto by requiring a signature from an animal or something like that. 4. Any law that does this de facto by placing the BoP on the defendant to prove they had the animal's consent as opposed to the burden of proof being on the state to prove they didn't. D) Pro has NOT objected to my plea to use the definitions as guidelines. Therefore, what is on or off topic will be debated in-round. These definitions cannot be therefore be used as evidence in this debate, but only helpful guidelines. Pro has made claims here that I will discuss later that might be enough to make Pro lose this debate. E) 1) a. Pro conceded that Pro has the BoP of demonstrating that non-human animals can consent to sex. Consenting of course means that non-human animals must communicate that they agree to the sex to the human, and that the human is capable of understanding it. E1b. My opponent says that "If the other party is incapable of receiving the information it is not considered a requirement. " This statement could be extraordinarily problematic. "Silence does not mean consent. " --. http://www.pandys.org... E1c. For example, if someone is in a coma she/he has no way of communicating whether he/she wants to have sex. Simply because someone can't communicate does not mean that there is consent. Speaking for others might be ok in a medical emergency, but in the case of sex, speaking for others (i. e. "she really wants it") causes rape. According to Pro this is consent by implication, which it is not. Consent by implication does not work in terms of sex. E1d. "If the person lacks the capacity to consent, sexual activity with that person is rape. " --. http://www.pandys.org... E1f. Therefore, my opponent needs to prove that animals can communicate consent to humans and humans can understand it. I don't require 100%, but I do require proof that animals can consent to sex and humans can generally understand it. If not, my opponent advocates sex without consent, which is rape, even according to my opponent's definition. E 2) a. My opponent concedes the BoP to show the world will be worse with the law. My opponent says that if B1 is right than this BoP can be accomplished by proving bestiality is moral. E 2. b My opponent hasn't criticized my right to attack premises, but gives me a friendly warning that the debate will be long. Thanks for the heads up. F) PRO WAS UNABLE TO GIVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF HOW LAW CAN RECOGNIZE CONSENT. I had previously warned Pro that unless my is able to give an example of how the law is supposed to judge between consent and non-consent, then my opponent would have failed to demonstrate that the law can tell the difference between sex and rape. To give my opponent a second to offer ways to demonstrate that the law can tell if there's consent in a private message. My opponent again refused to state any specific example, but listed off four general criteria for consent (my opponent gave me permission to repost this): 1. "Vocalizations known to communicate submission, happiness, ease, relaxation, excitement or any other mental state incompatible with a mental state which is opposed to what is happening i. e. feeling violated. " 2. "Body language known to communicate submission, happiness, ease, relaxation, excitement or any other mental state incompatible with a mental state which is opposed to what is happening i. e. a state of feeling violated. " 3. "Direct action which implicitly communicates complicitness in the interaction, i. e. cooperative steps which are taken without the coercion of negative training. " 4. "Inaction when action implicitly communicating non-consent is known to be within the animal's capabilities. " None of these standards give specific examples of any behaviors or communications of animals that can prove that the animal is willing to have sex. Additionally, these standards are awful. Supposing that a dog barked during intercourse, a human might argue that this was a happy bark. Unfortunately the dog cannot testify in court to the contrary. Thus, a human may be able to argue that the animal is communicating that it wants sex, while the animal would not be able to testify against the human. Furthermore, the animal cannot say "stop. " According to my opponent, if the animal signals that it is interested in sex, (s)he cannot change her/his mind. If (s)he ever indicates consent at any point, than according to my opponent the animal will always want intercourse. There is no way to determine if the animal has been trained to have sex. Additionally, humans are masters over their "domestic" animal-slaves. They train animals to do what they command. This means that there is always a huge risk that the inaction of animals resisting is a sign of their being "obedient. " According to my opponent, in order for penetration to be considered rape, the state must prove that the penetration was not consensual using these very same shady premises This means that any animal that cannot be proved to have not wanted sex is allowed to be penetrated. According to my opponent, these ape prostitutes wanted to have sex with humans: . http://www.examiner.com... Despite my repeated effort to encourage Pro to give a single specific example of how an animal may provide consent, my opponent FAILED to de so; therefore, under PRO'S MODEL THE LAW CAN _NEVER KNOW_ IF THE ANIMAL HAS GIVEN CONSENT. Even worse, my opponent forces the law to prove that there wasn't consent instead of having the defendant prove that there was consent (4. Any law that does this de facto by placing the BoP on the defendant to prove they had the animal's consent as opposed to the burden of proof being on the state to prove they didn't. "). Because animals cannot testify in court, under Pro's model the law can definitely not know the difference between rape and sex. Therefore, Pro has unfortunately LOST THE entire DEBATE, because all laws need to be moral (According to Pro's B1), morality requires consent (See Pro's Burden of Proof E, and E1, E2, Consent, and my case). Even if you don't buy that Pro lost, Pro admits that the law would not be able to distinguish between rape and sex. If sex is legal in this case, so is rape. Making rape legal is problematic. According to my opponent something immoral should be illegal (see B). Rape is immoral, and therefore should be illegal. Thus MY OPPONENT HAS LOST IN A SECOND WAY. There is a way out of this second part. My opponent would have to show that rape is moral. I caution Pro against taking this route. Just because you didn"t resist physically doesn"t mean it wasn"t rape " in fact, many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent. Lack of consent can be express (saying "no") or it can be implied from the circumstances (for example, if you were under the statutory age of consent, or if you had a mental defect, or if you were afraid to object because the perpetrator threatened you with serious physical injury). . http://www.rainn.org... The fact is, the law is indeed anthropocentric. In the status quo, farm animals have virtually no rights and live their "live" in the worst slavery. So the real question becomes: should masters be allowed to have sex with their mute, mentally handicapped slaves who cannot testify in court when the law is entirely incapable of determining whether the master raped or had consensual sex? The videos you posted according to you would be sufficient evidence evidence to prove the human's innocence. This is far from the case, as I pointed out by the animals being unable to say stop. And even if the animals said stop through body language, the human master probably wouldn't listen. After all, the human master doesn't listen when the animal explains that it wants to leave by running away. And even if the animal is absolutely obvious in her/his changing her/his mind, all the master needs to do is not film that part. In that way, if its not filmed there is no way for the law to prosecute, since animals can't testify and there would be no evidence left. Therefore, such laws would not distinguish between rape and sex. Since sex without consent is immoral, this law is also immoral and should not occur. Thanks again to my opponent for her/his time, and thanks also for allowing me some extra time. I look forward to her/his response. Vote Con! --kbub