Sex with animals is ethically permissible

Note: I am not allowed to respond to criticisms made in this round, so voters do not take his supposed refutation as acceptance.A Point On Animal RightsMy opponent claims that I made some sort of claim that animals have souls or don't, I was merely saying even if they don't(which I am not supposing in this case), it is irrelevant! It is even irrelevant whether they have rights! I gave arguments to why animals do have rights in my opening argument which my opponent has yet to address and that was that things are given rights according to how much they can understand. My three points:My opponent has addressed my arguments rather poorly in fact I would go further in saying that the major of his case is not at all related to ethics and is more on evolution while he could say that it furthers his case when it comes to this debate it is almost irrelevant! Now my main point is that it doesn't matter what ethical system you adopt, you cannot get around this normative certainty. Now my opponents basic rebuttal is that people should be what ever they want as long as they don't interfere with other people's freedom, I will address each rebuttal in detail but I want to address this notion. Their are plenty of things that moral that may interfere with a individuals freedom. For example, one could restrain a individual who has likely committed a crime, it called citizen arrest. This interferes with a individuals freedom, and it is not even certain he has committed a crime but under extremely likely circumstances it is still moral. Teleology and Intrinsic FinalityMy opponent claims that knifes arefor cutting because that was the intention of knife makers. He seems to claim that there exists no function outside of intention of the agent. I fundamentally disagree if there is no such thing as functions then we cannot make sense basic biology certainly my opponent agrees with the normative nature of medicine, if my opponent is correct there is nothing objectively better about a functioning heart versus a non-functioning heart. Certainly the nucleus had the function of producing DNA prior to anyone noticing. My opponent says if the agent wants to use a knife to stab then the knifes function is to stab, this is mistaken, functions are inherent. So if a purpose of a knife is to cut then it is a good knife, so trying to stab with it is irrelevant to cutting or its function. Now with regards with to intrinsic finality, it absolutely mistaken, biologically speaking the function of a person is to survive and reproduce and act rationality in accordance with its organs. Now their are many reasons to think that it is not based on a individuals choice as Tim Hsiao argues:"As a way of response, one might attempt to explain proper functioning, and thus flourishing, in terms of intention or desire. So, health is seen as merely the state of living in a way one so desires. Similarly, medicine is not about restoring an objective bodily function, but about orienting the body to a state which one happens to prefer. But this approach seems to be mistaken... Moreover, approaching health and disease from the perspective of desire would rule out the possibility of there ever being such thing as a disordered desire, which in turn rules out the very possibility of mental illness. But clearly there are such things as disordered desires, such as a desire to have one's perfectly healthy leg amputated or to kill oneself. These desires are disordered because they are directed toward the destruction of a bodily good. Indeed, desires themselves are an inclination to attain some good, and thus proper desires ought to be directed toward goods that are in fact perfective of human nature. Health and disease are thus grounded in proper biological functioning,not desires."Deontology and my opponents misunderstandingMy opponent misunderstands the term rationally willed for one, and for two when Kant supposes it become a natural law what he means by that is everyone has to do it! So it is rational that everyone always have sex with animals when their desire hits them, my opponent clearly sees the irrationality behind that, and rationality is morality according to Kant. So according to Kant this world is inconceivable and therefore the action is impermissible What my opponent doesn't understand about the term is its application not its actual definition, Deontology tells us that morality lies in the act alone so when evaluating the criteria for a action to be permissible we cannot speak in generalities, we must see whether we can rationally will that we have sex with animals, which is a deliberate process of seeing whether that particular actions is rational. Which as I provided reasons for why it is not rational. Objection stands.ConsequantialismThe problem with my opponents objections to consequantialism is that they are all assertions bare of any evidence or logical backing to his claims, when he says "appeal to law, authority,etc" he must explain how and why not simply assert it I will say "I AM REFUTED!!!" he must justify each of his claims appropriately, until he does that I see no reason to respond to his assertions yet I will. My opponent seems to think I mean whatever society wants we ought to act on, I was saying in the greater good may be considered what is rational and moral and therefore by acted upon. Therefore my objection is not touched, furthermore my opponent has not defended his view against individual consequantialism or ultitarianism. My opponent claims I have the BOP to prove having sex with animals is irrational. I actually did show that but I will show my opponent where "(diseases and personal danger to self...personal implications of having sex animals,first you have the knowledge you are doing something that is not typically normal and if anyone finds out you know that you may be shunned(wrong or not), inciting feelings of guilt. Also you have potentially opened yourself to many diseases along with potential diseases; typically if the sexual actions is unwelcome many animals are rather vicious.". As my opponent and the voters can see it is very irrational to have sex with animals. I have meet my BOP unlike my opponent.Pragmaticism and Rationality and MoralityNow my opponent keeps accusing me of adequating Pragmaticism with morality, I am doing no such thing, I am adequating aspects of pragmatics with rationality and I am justifying that rationality has a big role in ethics. Ethically speaking an action cannot be truly moral unless it has deliberate and rational choice behind it. In fact supposing no choice makes rational choice impossible and makes morality impossible. As Stephen_Hawkins argues "our actions are determined by forces outside of our control. In fact, all of our actions are caused by events before even our existence: our acts which are the consequences of the laws of nature are surely out of our control. Thus, there can be no moral responsibility, and thus no morality," therefore if pragmaticism cannot be adequated with rationality and not morality by relation then truly morality doesn't exist. Therefore the resolution cannot be affirmed because it would make not logical sense. Now I am not saying pragmaticist ethics are true but they have a role in rationality and therefore pragmaticism(while not equal to ethics) have a role in ethics.ConclusionMy opponent has not refuted my objections and nearly conceded the teleological aspects of ethics even though he misunderstood teleological ethics in the first place. My opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof even if his arguments work. Furthermore my opponent endorses a nearly incoherent version of "freedom ethics". I can only see a strong Con vote today. Thank you.