Bestiality should not be illegal in all cases
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 6 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One day
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Bestiality - Sexual intercourse between a human and a non-human animal
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” . 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” , 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
Additionally, my opponent has entirely dropped my final argument of R2 that because we are currently not ascribing animals the right to life, the right to freedom of movement or even the right to access to their own mothers, a law prohibiting harmless (as harmful acts against animals are already illegal) bestiality would be inconsistent and unnecessary. Hence, Con either conceded this argument, or did not address this on purpose so that he could attempt to rebut it in his final round without me being able to respond to his rebuttal. This is the second instance in this debate where Con has disrespected the debate structure to gain a personal advantage.