Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Before I begin, I find it almost comical that PRO accuses CON of ignoring points. My entire round #2, as well as my following rebuttal, was/will be clear in which parts of PRO's case I was rebutting, and I quoted from all corners of PRO's round #2/3.RebuttalE1) PRO dropped this point. All of PRO's statements are fair game for this debate.E2) PRO did not bother to define anything. Perhaps PRO would be so kind as to define "rational ethics" before engaging in a debate or discussion about the topic.E3) PRO thinks this debate is "deeper than law". This is absolutely and utterly ridiculous, as this resolution is specifically asserting that "Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal," meaning it is ALL ABOUT LAW. PRO must adhere to his own constraints in this debate.PRO then asserts that "consent matters to morality and morality should dictate law," completely ignoring that law is also a practical matter.E4) Every person who eats meat refutes PRO's assertion - PRO must prove how eating meat is not necessary for the survival of meat-eaters, such as pastoral societies that live only off meat and dairy products. Meat is a valid form of food, and we need food to survive, thus slaughterhouse operations are justifiable. Slaughtering animals for food is materially and categorically different from bestiality, as we do not need to have interspecies sex for survival.E5) PRO states that "In rape it is not the sex that is immoral but the use of force and absence of consent that is immoral." While CON agrees, CON continues to assert that bestiality constitutes non-consensual sex with animals, because consent cannot be determined in a legal setting. I reassert that PRO must categorically affirm the resolution for any and all forms of bestiality.PRO then states that he actually defined bestiality. This is completely false. All PRO did was to lay out how he was going to advocate a case for bestiality: "the relevant theory in the case of bestiality/zoophilia is mutual consent of interacting parties + reasonable avoidance of foreseeable pain or biological damage" His "relevant theory" is his advocacy. Nowhere does he define bestiality, nor any of the other terms critical to this debate that I have defined for him. R1) PRO thinks that CON and the audience should research his case for him: "Before you say something like “PRO must prove that animals can…” get accustomed to using google?"PRO deserves to lose his debate, he is not even attempting to establish BoP. All PRO is doing is thinking that audiences should simply agree with him, because he's such a swell guy that posted funny videos.PRO then states that under CON's definition of "intelligent decision," "any decision made by an organism capable of learning and understanding may be an intelligent decision." PRO is thus learning the value of clarity, as this is indeed what CON stated. This refutes PRO's assertion that "It is an impossibility even for humans to give perfect informed consent," as humans and many animal can give informed consent...the relevant matter is whether or not an animal can communicate it to other beings, and for the purposes of this debate, whether they can communicate it in a court of law. This is PRO's burden, and he has yet to fulfill it.Again, I reassert that Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent.R2) PRO states that he hs not ceded the statement: "informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality", even though he clearly states that "informed consent in legal circles is different and much stricter. I do not mean legal/informed consent when I say consent."At this point in the debate, I could care less what PRO thinks "consent" means. This debate is about legality, not PRO's definition of consent, and PRO has clearly stated that informed consent is extremely important for the purposes of legality.PRO challenges CON to construct a syllogism. Fair enough: This debate is about legality. Informed consent is relevant to certain rights granted by law. No animal can demonstrate informed consent. Therefore, no animal has certain relevant rights granted by law. In the context of this debate, these "certain relevant rights" deal with absolving the initiating party of the consequences of the initiator's actions. This is what makes consensual sex perfectly legal, and non-consensual sex the crime of rape. Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent, thus they cannot absolve the initiating party (i.e. the one wanting sex) of the consequences of the initiator's actions. This makes any and every act of bestiality non-consensual sex in the eyes of the law.Oh, and BTW: "look the word legal is in his resolution."R3) PRO believes that (offending language replaced) "in the context of a man trying to penetrate said [female dog, the dog standing still] can only have one meaning."This is totally ridiculous, as PRO concedes that "[standing still] could mean just about anything in just about any context." For example, perhaps the dog was simply not aware of would-be-dog-rapist.I'm quite certain "Any sane person who has a pet dog" will assure anyone that a dog does not have omniscience, and that it is easily possible to sneak up on a dog especially if it is preoccupied with something, like perhaps a television. Again, the dog standing still "could mean just about anything in just about any context", and this according to PRO. PRO has failed to fulfill BoP that animals can communicate informed consent, especially in a court of law.R4) PRO has failed to provide a categorical definition of how an animal could communicate non-consent. Without such, it would be impossible for a court of law to determine consent or non-consent for an animal, thus making any act of bestiality non-consensual sex.R5) Whatever PRO is attempting to state here, he drops my assertion: "If zoophiles are "deluding themselves into thinking their animals consent", then zoophiles are indeed "having sex with non-consenting beings"regardless of what they think, and thus will most certainly "become accustomed to it."R6.1) Refer to E4 of this round.R6.2) PRO believes it is a crime to kill others "on the other side of a political conflict." Simply wrong. According to Harvard Law School:"In war, there is no prohibition on the killing of a known enemy combatant"http://harvardnsj.org...Such legality is fully applicable to the act of hunting, where there is no prohibition on the killing of "fair game". PRO thus drops the point that legally, hunted animals that are killed do not constitute a criminal offense. Such is also true for enemy combatants that are killed. Both activities are legally and morally justifiable.PRO then makes a ridiculous and irrelevant segway into communism, which I will not even bother to address.I also note PRO's ad hominem attack by labeling hunting "disturbing" behavior, thereby calling all hunters "disturbed". I may not like Dick Cheney, but it's not because he considers hunting a sport.R7) The law still applies to non-rapists. Non-rapists simply do not get punished for illegal acts they did not commit.R8) PRO asks "Why don’t you prove that having consensual sex with animals makes people rape humans?" failing to realize that PRO must establish that consensual sex with animals is possible to begin with. PRO has not.PRO completely drops his argumentation surrounding pornography.R9) PRO thinks he has somehow answered my questions by "Open[ing] the court room door, wheel[ing] in a TV, and watch[ing] a video." PRO thus fails to meet BoP in determining whether or not an animal could swear an oath or commit perjury. Thus, whatever an animal attempts to submit as "testimony" would be inadmissible in a court of law, and thus Animals cannot demonstrate informed consent.R10) PRO must somehow demonstrate that it is possible to have sex with a tree for this point to have any validity.R11) It is up to PRO to figue out how he will fulfill burden. If he cannot, he deserves to lose this debate.R12) PRO does not realize that CON's central point throughout this debate revolves around an animal giving consent to a human initiator, that "PRO must prove that animals can both 1) be informed and 2) communicate consent to humans when humans initiate sexual advances to an animal. If the animal cannot, then the animal does not consent." I've seen dogs humping fire hydrants - such behavior is not the issue of this debate.PRO has yet to demonstrate the bolded. Furthermore, PRO must prove that such evidence can be admissible in a court of law.R13) My response to PRO's bullet list: Zoophiles ARE having sex with non-consenting beings. Zoophiles indeed do not think they are having sex with non-consenting beings, and this is a problem. People can behave differently towards animals and other people (indeed, they can not rape either of them) Statistical association is not a basis for banning a behavior (there were no statistics cited in this debate) R14) PRO: "Prove bestiality is equivalent to rape?" I have demonstrated throughout this debate that bestiality involves non-consensual sex with animals.ConclusionPRO has not seriously debated this topic - PRO would rather that the audience do their own research and reach their own conclusions. If/when he does, I will offer a more substantive rebuttal. As it stands, there is indeed not much for me to do other than to repeat the same assertions over and over again.I remind audiences that legality is central to this debate. PRO's attempt to reframe the resolution to some other criteria should not be seen as valid.As it stands:"One engaging in [bestiality] could then become accustomed to having sex with a non-consenting living being, and could indeed become desensitized enough to engage in such behavior with non-consenting human beings, which would indeed be the legal definition of rape."Rape is illegal, as should be bestiality.