Instigator / Pro
7
1574
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Topic
#1079

Bestiality should not be illegal in all cases

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
0
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

PsychometricBrain
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
2
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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?).