Bestiality should not be illegal in all cases
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Bestiality - Sexual intercourse between a human and a non-human animal
--Structure--
R1. Pro's case; Con's Case
R2. Pro Rebuttal; Con Rebuttal
R3. Pro Rebuttal & Summary ; Con Rebuttal & Summary
A law without a purpose would be futile, if beyond an appeal to consistency, the only other appeal is to possible harm to the animal, then a law against bestiality would be futile and should hence not exist. Denmark’s Animal Ethics Council opposed the introduction of an anti-bestiality law in Denmark in 2015 as “existing laws which allow bestiality except in cases where the animal can be proved to have suffered were enough” [4]. Similarly, in the United States, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already establishes that “A person commits an offence if an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer” [5], hence explicitly criminalising bestiality would be futile as harm to the animal is already illegal. Therefore, bestiality should not be illegal as there are already laws in place that prevent harm to the animals.
“The "jury is still out" on many of your assumed facts, such as the existence of homosexual relationships in other animals”
“The animal could still be operating out of "instinct", which is not voluntary.”
“Bestiality is not natural to humans. It's not., Sorry. I challenge you to argue that it is.
That's the primary reason for making it and keeping it illegal.” - Con, Round 2
b) Inter-species sex has been found to be natural in many species such as monkeys and deer [1], in fact, over 90 species have been identified by a 2008 literature review that did engage or attempted to engage in inter-species sex [2]. My opponent claims that it is “not natural to humans”, without backing this assertion up with any evidence. As many other mammal species that are closely related to humans engage in inter-species sex, there seems to be no reason to assume that humans are the exception. In fact, there are depictions of bestiality from the palaeolithic period [3] suggesting that bestiality is not a new phenomenon, followed by many further depictions during the Neolithic era [4]. Con has provided no evidence that bestiality is unnatural and in light of the common inter-species sex in other species and the long history of bestiality in humans, there seems to be no basis for assuming that it is.
c) Even if a) were overcome, and there was some legitimate reason why an act being unnatural implies that it should be illegal and b) were overcome to show that bestiality is indeed unnatural, this would not be a feasible or desirable criterion of illegality. Between 3.5% (females) and 8% (males) have reported having engaged in bestiality at least once, “Among men living in rural areas, the figure shot up to 50 percent.” [5] it would not be feasible to lock up between 3.5% and 8% of the population. Additionally, my opponent seems to believe that homosexual intercourse in humans is unnatural (inferred from his claims that “the jury is still out” in R2), which would doom a further 4.5% of Americans to criminal penalties [6]. Hence, due to the sheer number of ‘unnatural’ activities of humans in contemporary societies, it is neither a feasible nor an adequate standard of determining illegality.
First of all: Gross.
Gist:
Gross. The better part of pro's case was that laws exist to protect animals from harm, which makes trying to punish humans for things not shown to harm animals pointless (a good case could have been made for con by just citing some of these laws). Con did better on the entertainment side.
1. consent
Great apes are smart enough to communicate, and dogs initiate sex. Some back and forth, a livescience article proving animals enjoy orgasms (con tried to end the debate by denying the existence of that evidence…)…
“animals operate out of instinct and urges and do not have the capability to keep those urges in check.” Was a particularly weak point for con, as it removes mental anguish to animals from consideration.
2. purpose
This was the more palatable of pro’s arguments, as it showed no point to duplicate animal protection laws. John Stuart Mill’s harm principle was a very smart inclusion (particularly its role in legalizing deviant sex that could not lead to children), as it ends up pre-refuting con’s objections.
3. Jokes
Some credit to con for making me laugh (Poe’s Law says he might have been trying to insult San Francisco, or genuinely joking… I try not to assume offense where none might be intended). The context to which talk of someone’s slutty leg also made me chuckle. “Bagehimian Rhapsody” nice!
4. Non-selfless acts
This fell flat to me, probably because I don’t believe every sperm is sacred. All men who jack off should go to prison, same with women… This needed a massive amount of support which was not there.
5. Unnatural
“Bestiality is not natural to humans” wholly agreed, but this debate is about if we should have specific laws about it (as predicted, pro caught this). Bad food is a poor comparison given that the harm is known, but con insists within the comparison that it should be legal…
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro won by every legal standard raised. Con did well in the entertainment area, but probably lost his potential audience with the puritan thou must not masturbate talk.
Sources:
If numbering sources, I suggest including either a list at the end of the round or the end of the debate.
I was going to leave this tied (due to not wanting to look at them), before con attempted to challenge (via an argument by assertion) the validity of them.
So pro had a bunch, con had none. The book about sexuality in animals was well leveraged, showing 450 animal species actively partaking in sex for non-preproduce purposes (God’s will?).
Where is BrotgarDTard
The trick is to have a pure mind and not think about the actual act 👼
On it... And in case my RFD does not contain this enough: GROSS!
Would appreciate a vote on this one. I'm afraid the timer is quickly approaching zero and it'd be a shame if this ended up being a draw
Animals are kept in small cages until they are slaughtered, calves are deprived of their mothers as early as possible, we kill male chicks by throwing them in a blender. If their right to move, or even their right to live are not recognised, then surely the lesser right of not having sexual intercourse being legally protected while the others aren't makes little sense.
Further than that, if animals suffered during or because of the intercourse, then it would be illegal anyway. A law against bestiality would be penalising a victimless crime against beings that are not recognised as parts of the moral landscape in contemporary society.
It should be illegal in every case. It is inhumane to fuck an animal that is not the same species. Genetic fallacies occur, and you can kill animals. People who do this have no respect for animals. We are an invasive species and us forcing our sexual desire onto animals is cruel and contributing to the death of ecosystems
There should be laws because animals do not have the same mental capacity of humans and cannot say yes or no to consent. It is a human rights violation and is a violation of nature. An animal should be treated like an animal, not a human. Genetic mutation occur due to the changes of DNA, and we could cause species to die.
Whether we should be having intercourse with animals is distinct from the question of whether there should be laws in place that prohibit *all* bestiality. I would not have intercourse with animals, but as animal harm is already prohibited and there is no way of enforcing such a law, a bestiality law is unnecessary and futile.
Animals are incapable of expressing emotion or consent. They are not as advanced in the brain as humans are. We should not use innocent animals as a part of our sexual desires
My dad once said that liberals would say that we can fuck animals
Leave it up to the states.