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.
YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE: "Let's get some more kindness into this conversation."
How is that ungodly
I do not know. Remember, I am only a vote moderator - my authority doesn’t extend outside of this area.
It’s a shame wisdom of ages is banned, I think BDT would get on like a house on fire
Senetencing people to hell isnt nice, As Jesus golden rule-Treat others the way you want to be treated. Do you want ME to sentence you to hell
YOUR QUOTE: "Meaning that you choose to ignore the word of Jesus, in favour of your interpretation of how his modus operandi would operate on an internet forum?"
It doesn't have to be an "interpretation" because in how Jesus was LITERALLY shown to act. Get it? Reread the passages again.
Meaning that you choose to ignore the word of Jesus, in favour of your interpretation of how his modus operandi would operate on an internet forum?
YOUR QUOTE: "Your presence on this site is a very nice comic relief."
Barring the fact that you will be having extreme pain for eternity in the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your ungodly demise (Matthew 25:46), Jesus and I thank you for your comment that I provide comedy relief within this forum in the name of Jesus. If it takes comic relief to get the TRUE words of Jesus to Inept fake Christians, and Atheists like you, then whatever works will be held in high esteem.
From now on, I’m just going to reply with your hilarious quotes.
“Let's do some simple math that even an Atheist can possibly understand, okay?”
“I cannot usurp Jesus' loving and forgiving doctrine where non-believers like you will be swimming in the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your demise.”
“YOUR REVEALING QUOTE”
Your presence on this site is a very nice comic relief.
YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE: "Let's get some more kindness into this conversation."
I am truly sorry, but I will take Jesus' modus operandi of being very emotive when dealing with fake Christians and Hell Bound Atheists within this forum! Christians have been namby-pamby candy asses for far too long in their discussions with these ungodly fools, therefore when Jesus had enough of His creation that went against Him, he took action as shown in a few passages of many described below, praise Jesus' revenge!
JESUS SAID: "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, BRING THEM HERE AND SLAUGHTER THEM BEFORE ME. (Luke 19:27)
JESUS BEAT THE UNGODLY: “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. SO HE MADE A WHIP OF CORDS, AND DROVE THEM FROM THE TEMPLE COURTS, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “GET THESE OUT OF HERE! STOP TURNING MY FATHER'S HOUSE NITO A MARKET! His disciples remembered that it is written: “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.” (John 2: 13-17)
JESUS' INSPIRED WORD STATED: "But that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH, whether young or old, man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:13)
As explicitly shown, Jesus is a man's man, praise!
Let's do some simple math that even an Atheist can possibly understand, okay? You stated that I allegedly "roasted the hell out of you," where this playful statement is LITERALLY not an option in reality because I cannot usurp Jesus' loving and forgiving doctrine where non-believers like you will be swimming in the sulfur lakes of Hell upon your demise. 2+2=4.
Both Red Eye Satan, of which is an apropos picture for you, AND Hell-Bound Atheist are applicable to you as a Hell Bound Atheist.
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE" " I’ll let you know when I’ll start smelling sulfur, it should be soon since I have just insulted your lord."
Yes, you will surely know when my ever loving and forgiving Jesus plans on ending your earthly existence, and that is by you starting to smell sulfur, praise Jesus' revenge! As shown below, there is no need for you to have any dental work from this time forth, because where you are going after death, you will be gnashing your teeth!
“The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42)
Ephesians 4:31, NKJV. "Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you."
Let's get some more kindness into this conversation.
Wow. I haven’t laughed so hard in months. Thanks for roasting the hell out of me.
Which name do you think suits me better, Red Eye Satan or Hell-bound Atheist?
Also, God isn’t real and Jesus was a fraud who never rose from the dead. I’ll let you know when I’ll start smelling sulfur, it should be soon since I have just insulted your lord.
YOUR QUOTE: "Your insults are so pathetic that they are actually hilarious."
Listen up Red Eye Satan, Jesus has inspired me to bring forth the meaningful and truthful quotes that I do, therefore, they are in no way "Pathetic." In easily dealing with the myriad of fake Christians upon this forum, these assumed "Hilarious" quotes just come naturally, thank you Jesus!
Jesus and I have a great task within this forum, where 99.9999999% of the assumed Christians try in vain to rewrite His TRUE words, as explicitly shown with the ever so inept GuitarSlinger, therefore these people will be corrected in His name, praise!
DebateArt Christians, other than myself, of course, are guilty of the following inspired by Jesus verse, to wit: "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.." (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
With you being a Hell Bound Atheist upon DebateArt, and in the name of Jesus, let me know when you start smelling sulfur, okay? This will be the time for you to start wearing asbestos suits, do you understand?
I seriously want for someone to make a book with all your quotes. I would pay to read it.
"YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS QUOTE"
"I will have to Bible Slap you"
"Lame excuses that you Satanically used"
"Jesus will spring the trap doors to the sulfur lakes of Hell in your behalf"
"At this time, you are bringing a Boy Scout pocket knife to my Abrams M-1 fully loaded tank."
Your insults are so pathetic that they are actually hilarious.
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS QUOTE RELATIVE TO MY POST #53: "Um, actually, no. no you didn't lol. I just re-read your post #53 and you provided comments, but you didn't answer the question. All you did was asked other questions."
GS, what part of me saying in the 3rd paragraph of my post #53 "Addressing your question ...." and then taking the points of your question to bear, didn't you understand? You are a terrible example for spreading the TRUE word of our Jesus the Christ, as you run away from His TRUE teachings in silence, and with the lame excuses that you Satanically used. What is more disturbing, is seemingly that you don't have the sense to feel embarrassed about this fact!
You are a Burger King Christian, where you want your bible your way, instead of Jesus' way, and if you don't change and accept the fact of Jesus' TRUE modus operandi, then I wouldn't want to be you upon Judgment Day where are Jesus will spring the trap doors to the sulfur lakes of Hell in your behalf.
I actually feel sorry for you, therefore, I am going to do you a great favor, in that the link below provides you with a great online READING COMPREHENSION class that you drastically need to take in order for you not to be made the Catholic fool again in front of DebateArt. Subsequent to you taking this needed class, look me up and we'll discuss your pagan Catholic faith once again, okay? At this time, you are bringing a Boy Scout pocket knife to my Abrams M-1 fully loaded tank. Do you understand? Sure you do.
If you have the audacity to continue this discussion, then I will have to Bible Slap you Silly once again. In other words, know when to quit to save further embarrassment, not only for yourself, but towards the members of DebateArt.
**Oh my, I have already addressed this in my post #53 **
Um, actually, no. no you didn't lol. I just re-read your post #53 and you provided comments, but you didn't answer the question. All you did was asked other questions.
Addressing your post #60:
YOUR LOSING CREDIBILITY QUOTE: "hey sorry-- your posts/comments ar etoo long winded. lol"
I am so sorry that you can't comprehend more than a few sentences at a time. Have you tried to get help in a high school reading comprehension class of late? Yes? If you are going to represent Jesus, then I can only assume that you can't read more than one paragraph at a time within the Bible, how sad and embarrassing is that? LOL!
YOUR ADDITIONAL LOSING CREDIBILITY QUOTE: "Sorry-- Jesus does not say "follow the OT". Supply that verse where he says that."
What didn't you understand in that I am not here to hold a Christian Bible Class for inept Catholics like yourself? Jesus and I are embarrassed for you in that you don't know where this very important passage exists within His scriptures. Then, you want to call yourself a Christian, surely you jest! It is up to you to seek out this passage for a learning process of searching the Bible on your own, in that you can use later, understood? Surely you don't want me to "hold your hand in schooling you again" about our Jesus' TRUE modus operandi, do you?
+++ GuitarSlinger, if you have gotten this far with your lack of reading comprehension, then take a break and come back later to continue, okay? +++
YOUR REPEATABLE QUOTE : "Do you believe that God’s plan for us was to live in paradise worry-free in complete harmony with all creation but evil invaded God’s plan and through man’s complicity with that evil we turned from God and lost paradise?"
Oh my, I have already addressed this in my post #53 within this thread. Obviously you really do need help in quick reading comprehension, therefore, can you get another Catholic to help you out in this respect? To save further embarrassment, report back when you do, okay? Thanks.
Jesus and I will be awaiting at least a "Try" on your part to my posts to you above. Thanks.
I was originally hoping someone else would accept the other debate and to hold both simultaneously, I was unpleasantly surprised when I saw that he accepted the debate again. This debate includes about 20% more argument from me so it isn't a perfect duplicate, although it is quite similar.
First of all: Again, gross!
Gross. In fact, about 20% more gross than the previous debate on this (they expended a couple of their points slightly, almost nothing is really changed). To match them, I’m going to include at least one extra instance of the word gross in this elongated RFD…
Got to say it, con tried to dismiss harm to animals from consideration, which leaves harm to willing humans as his only line of attack, which doesn’t make any sense; the logical leap would be mental illness (a skip and a hop away from proving a law is needed), but such was not done.
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, wtf?)…
“A person masturbating a horse might cause the horse to ejaculate. Just because this physical response occurs, doesn't necessarily equate to "pleasure". Who knows, maybe the horse feels regret and remorse after such an encounter? Of course, this all PRESUMES that animals have "feelings" as humans do.” Was a particularly weak point for con, as it bases the damage on mental anguish, then outright attempts to dismiss that animals can be mentally harmed from consideration.
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.
“I would argue it's unhealthy, much like having sex with a tennis racket…” what actual harm was shown? Some articles on hospitalizations could have gone a long way.
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. BrotherDThomas could have done better on this, in fact I if I scroll through the comments, I suspect I’ll find just that.
“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…
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 (and if going that route, don’t forget to at least mention the harm of millions of souls flushed down a toilet)
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-reproductive purposes (God’s will? Probably God's will, to test us.).
Con choose to break the rules for round order, even after being told previously of this error. The other debate had a confusing remark about this, but this one had it spelled out clearly what happened. Further, con dropped this when it was called out.