Bestiality should be illegal

My argument in this debate remains that bestiality, like pedophilia, is intrinsically rape because an animal is incapable of consenting to the act of sex with a human. I will address some of my opponent's counter-arguments and continue to defend my position :)I don't think humans are not animals, but I will occasionally use the term "animal" more informally to refer to non-human species just for the sake of brevity.I have the burden of proof to establish that bestiality is comparable to rape, except between species.I was using the term "except" to clarify that I meant rape between species, as the conventional definition of rape is restricted to within a species, along the lines of: Antarctica is like the North Pole, except with penguins. Apologies for the confusing wording. Are you saying the law should ignore these rights in other cases? Which rights, specifically?If not would you advocate that the more serious abuses are addressed before the less serious? Not necessarily, but more serious abuses ought to be illegal; the less serious the abuse, the stronger the argument that the freedom to commit them overrules the extent to which they violate others' rights. For instance, raping someone once is illegal, but slapping someone once is not illegal, due to differences in severity. I do think ethics and law should take the severity of an offense into account when debating whether it should be legal.Do you really think all animals deserve the same rights and if so why?That's a whole other debate :) I think that every individual is unique, and different species may have totally different ways of functioning. However, I hold that harming a living thing is abuse. The question is a) whether bestiality qualifies as abuse, and b) whether it qualifies as an abuse of a magnitude which renders it illegal. I answer yes to both questions because I defend the premise that all non-human species have one thing in common: they are unable to consent to sex with a human.We know latex and other building materials are incapable of consenting to anything no brain, not even basic control systems. So is sex with an inflatable sex toy rape? Why not?You mistake me. Sex with a toy is not rape in my opinion (so long as the human is consenting) because the sex toy is inanimate, it is not a living thing. A dog, on the other hand, is alive. I only extended the inability to consent to sex with humans to "all non-human species". Latex and other building materials are not animal species. Recall that the consequences of rape do not only involve physical damage, but also emotional and mental trauma and distress. We don't know whether animals can feel as humans do, but we are certain that inanimate objects cannot.Some or none are irrelevant, if non-consent is an unnecessary quality of the act the law must (ethically) draw the line at non-consent not the act.Not exactly. If no bestiality is nonconsensual, you win. If all, I win. If some, we debate whether or not it is possible for a human to accurately judge an animal communicating consent or non-consent. If an animal is capable in some cases of consenting, but a human is sometimes unable to understand whether or not the animal has consented, bestiality should be illegal because there is no way to control that all bestiality be consensual. You could make the argument that some 17-year-olds are mature and informed enough to vote, but because the consequences of and amount of exceptions are considered significant enough, US law places voting age at 18.The justice system is confused. It is blatant contradiction to say a mind is capable of consenting and then give a list of things it cannot consent toLike I said, I assume I may extrapolate on the given definitions in an ethical, moral or (as in this case) legal context, with the understanding that these extrapolations are refutable and arguably subjective. The legal parameters for consent are stricter than an informal definition because the law must always grapple with relativity – all actions fall across a spectrum, and the law must be concise if it is to designate certain areas criminal and others legal. What is consent in a legal context? What definition of consent should be legally recognized?I think it is quite rational to argue that only "consent in law" should be legally recognized. Let me clarify my usage of consent in regards to an animal consenting to sex with a human. Once more, I agree that consent is defined as permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. However, by this definition, consent can be induced coercively, or in an irrational or ignorant state of mind. You agree to sign the warrant – because a gun is held to your head. You agree to sign over possession of your house to a stranger – because you're so drunk you can barely stand. You agree to lend money to a charity – because you don't know they're actually a fraudulent sham. (Excuse the density of the following sentence.) Because the law is looking at consent as a transaction between defendant and plaintiff, where one (let's say A) accuses the other (let's say B) of behavior they (A) did not consent to, while the other (B) claims the accusing party (A) consented to B's behavior, consent is only valid if the one who purportedly consented (A) was at least equally conscious of what they (A) are consenting to as B, i.e. the one claiming they (A) were consenting to the accused party (B)'s behavior. Thus it is perfectly possible to partially but not fully consent to the accused party's behavior. Hence the phrase "consented in fact but not in law". Since we are debating the legality of bestiality, not moral or ethical standards alone, I argue that there must be consent in law in order to make the act legal. Thus, I am arguing that an animal cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. A warrant signed under threat of death should not be valid. A transfer of property in a drugged state should not be valid. The transfer of money to a fraudulent organization should not be valid. Bestiality should not be valid. In essence we are discussing the legitimacy of an agreement – a contract – reached between two parties, that ought only to be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way. This premise is not confused, it is enlightened.Are animals incapable of "consenting in law"?Forgive me some repetition so I might construct a clear, concise line of thinking:1. Legally speaking, an agreement is a contract with certain terms (not necessarily equal terms) which both parties mutually agree to by entering into the agreement.2. Both parties must enter into the agreement consciously and have both the freedom and capacity to consent. This is "consent in law".3. The contract ought only be legal (i.e. binding) if neither party is deceiving or exploiting the other in any way. Now my (understandably arguable) conclusions based on these prerequisites for what constitutes legality:4. By extension of #3, the one who consents must be at least equally conscious/aware of what they are consenting to as the other party. 5. Non-human species cannot consent in law to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties.6. In the case of bestiality, the human party takes advantage of the non-human party by exploiting it since it is unable to give consent in law.7. Bestiality violates #2 and #3.8. If bestiality violates #2 and/or #3, bestiality should be illegal.Does bestiality violate #2: Both parties must "consent in law"?I discussed at length in Round 1 why animals are incapable of "consenting in law" to sex with a human, due to insufficient neurological faculties. It startles me why my opponent would consider humans' superior capacity to analyze consequences, make accurate predictions, have doubts and anxieties about the past, present and future, and make informed decisions, irrelevant to the question of consent. Regardless of whether we use consent informally or legally, our language was crafted by and is used by our own species exclusively. The dictionary definition of consent has a meaning made by and understood by humans. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that animal consent is at all comparable to human consent, and for my part I have produced several studies to show that humans have a vastly more sophisticated neurological arsenal for achieving much more comprehensive, insightful and accurate levels of decision-making and consent than non-human species. I think it follows quite clearly that animals cannot consent to sex with humans wiht an awareness in any way comparable to the human's awareness of the act. I look forward to supporting this argument with even more evidence in the coming rounds.Does bestiality violate #3: Neither party should deceive or exploit the other?One method of exploitation is the use of a living thing in an unfair way. Participating in an activity (such as sex) with an entity that cannot consent in law to that activity is illegal, unfair and exploitative, and as such it is abusive. Not only should bestiality be illegal, but the intrinsically abusive action of the human involved means that any human found breaking the law against bestiality ought to be punished additionally for animal abuse.Conclusion: Why does bestiality qualify as an act that should be illegal? Animals are incapable of consenting in law to bestiality. In addition, bestiality exploits the non-human species involved. Thus, it rests on a purported "agreement" which is legally invalid. Bestiality is rape; rape is assault and abuse; assault and abuse should be illegal; rape should be illegal; bestiality should be illegal.Thank you :)