Instigator / Pro
0
1315
rating
297
debates
40.4%
won
Topic
#5090

Gentle bestiality is not wrong (debate challenge for Mall)

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Rated
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Minimal rating
None
Contender / Con
0
1432
rating
361
debates
42.11%
won
Description

Only Mall may accept.

I will present my case and answer questions.

Bestiality is:
sexual intercourse between a person and an animal

Round 1
Pro
#1
Okay, so

Animals can feel love towards humans. Humans have done many horrible things to animals and still do. They slaughter animals.

Obviously, if a human does something sexual and gentle to an animal, it is not worse than slaughtering that animal which is already accepted by society.

So if society can accept slaughtering animals, how can it reject sexual activities with animals as wrong?

Plus, humans also do legal activities that are basically rape, such as making cow pregnant by placing seed inside her. That is legal, yet it involves someone sticking his hand in cow's vagina.

As we can see, society does terrible things to animals, yet condemns those who do gentle sexual activities with an animal. Such society is corrupt and inconsistent society.
Con
#2
"Animals can feel love towards humans. "

I don't think this point was expanded substantially to reconcile it to bestiality being correct to engage in meaning not wrong.

If animals (non persons) can feel love towards people (non animals), are you saying this incorporates consent or a sexual aspect just like between human beings?

Just breaking this a part line by line, piece by piece because each statement from you I'm going to circumvent to see if there is an argument there that lacks being expounded on or not.


"Humans have done many horrible things to animals and still do. They slaughter animals."

By this point are you trying to say how can bestiality be wrong and not the slaughter of non person animals?

If one is right for perhaps exploitation,why not the other?

Am I following you correctly?

"So if society can accept slaughtering animals, how can it reject sexual activities with animals as wrong?"

When you're talking about society, there are vast different members that make up society and views.

So there are those you can say are in contradiction and those that are pure vegans. What do you think they believe in, the vegans?

So hey I say weed out the contradiction or ....look at another facet to this.

Which is that it is wrong to waste sexual energy on anything including non persons (animals).

In other words it's a "moral" system just for humans or between humans. It's not shared or is between humans and animals(non persons). 

We as people are in act to survive. Anything opposite of that is categorized as wrong. Consuming (non person) animal products can facilitate the survival of mankind. Man exhausting sexual energy in sexual activity with mankind facilitates man's survival which can't be done with non person beasts and animals.


"Plus, humans also do legal activities that are basically rape, such as making cow pregnant by placing seed inside her. That is legal, yet it involves someone sticking his hand in cow's vagina."

If you notice everything just revolves around man's benefit. Consuming or seeking pleasure, all of the above. Only thing that would be wrong according to those who say so would be denying themselves of hedonistic whim.

Besides consumption, you got to look at commercialism. Man seeks the almighty dollar. So it's anything to satisfy himself really.

"As we can see, society does terrible things to animals, yet condemns those who do gentle sexual activities with an animal. Such society is corrupt and inconsistent society."

I agree those who are , are paradoxical as well as those who aren't. You won't get any argument from me about those whom have a conflicted position. But those who don't, don't. 


Round 2
Pro
#3
So you say its all about survival. I say survival is meaningless if you dont enjoy life. You have to enjoy life for it to be worthy of living. Enjoying is good.

Con
#4
You have to survive life in order to enjoy it.
Round 3
Pro
#5
If you dont enjoy life, you dont need to survive. Thats why you need to prefer pleasure, even over long term survival.

20 years of life in pleasure beats 100 years of life with no pleasure with just survival.
Con
#6
"If you dont enjoy life, you dont need to survive."
 
I think you're missing it. You can't have one without the other. You can't enjoy life if you're not surviving to enjoy it. You have to survive it to receive the enjoyment. 

"Thats why you need to prefer pleasure, even over long term survival."

I'm not arguing terms. Just get the correct order of things down.

"20 years of life in pleasure beats 100 years of life with no pleasure with just survival."

You still survived the twenty years to receive the pleasure. You survive the pleasure with survival in general. Do you follow what I'm saying now ?

In any event I would like for you to direct this back to bestiality not being wrong. Just like I asked you questions in a previous round like I always do for you to expound all points and tie this constant point on enjoyment back into the topic.
Round 4
Pro
#7
Bestiality causes joy.

Now, you say that you cant have pleasure without survival.

True, but you can have survival without pleasure.

The point is not just to survive, but to enjoy life. Thats why sacrificing some survival is good if it gives pleasure.

Surviving longer but in suffering is bad. Surviving shorter but in joy is better.
Con
#8
"Thats why sacrificing some survival is good if it gives pleasure."

So what are you saying specifically?

The topic is about bestiality not being wrong. So what are you saying specifically involving that?

Are you saying bestiality is not wrong even if it means stunting or compromising the survival of mankind in exchange for selfish hedonistic values?

If someone gets the pleasure out of murdering people, families, children, terrorizing, making p.o.w.s., setting up drug shops, crack houses for a little euphoria, are all these things not wrong because somebody is able to live for the sake of transient pleasure?

That's another point. If we start taking on the principle of reducing lifespans or limited reproduction of life, then we stifle others that can come to absorb pleasure. It's a conflicting dilemma you got there .

"Surviving longer but in suffering is bad. Surviving shorter but in joy is better."

Since you're on this living in joy and pleasure, aside surviving in a short span in a life of pleasure, would you not be for surviving longer term in pleasure?

It would stand to reason from your point of view. That's what all these actions we take day to day incorporate. We seek pleasure over and over right. So it would be in nature to expand the possibility of life more abundantly. Of course that means sacrificing some delightful things that actually have more cons than pros and more of a double whammy. This includes lifestyle choices, dietary choices, behavioral choices and indeed sexual choices.

People want pleasure and often times want it to last but actually live life in an oxymoronic fashion to do so.
Round 5
Pro
#9
My position is that people have right to pleasure, even if it means shortening their life time. Pleasure is the most important thing for each individual. Bestiality makes people happy. Thats the point. People want to do it. Each individual has a right to make himself a life with most pleasure. So it cannot be wrong.
Con
#10
You invite me to a debate, at least you can do is answer the questions. Even a "I don't know " or "I'm not going to answer" is decent.

"My position is that people have right to pleasure, even if it means shortening their life time. Pleasure is the most important thing for each individual. Bestiality makes people happy. Thats the point. People want to do it. Each individual has a right to make himself a life with most pleasure. So it cannot be wrong."

To sum this up, something is not wrong as long as it pleases somebody which has so many fallacies.

People get locked up and get their rights taken from them due to certain activities in the objective of pleasure.

So nothing is not wrong just based on hedonistic values according to reality. According to you it is which turns out to be nihilistic. You want pleasure at the expense of your own life and survival. That's a double whammy like I said .

It's like I live for the fun of speed racing in the most life compromising dangerous fashion but the way I do it will ultimately end my life passion of pursuing this joy .

If I want joy at least let me live to enjoy it . You guys and these ideas of just doing things any old kind of way is just a bunch of nonsense and foolishness.

I notice you make a lot of points according to your opinion. It be nice to get some facts from you.

For you to decide pleasure is the most important thing for an individual is not your call. But it's your view and preference for yourself. Projecting it on to every individual is fallacious.

Just being happy is not sufficient for what is not wrong. I'm happy playing video games and not going to work to support myself. It doesn't make it right.

But I understand that what is "wrong" to you is self preservation. What is right to you is nihilism.

People do what they want to do as long as the law allows. People have a right to something in the name of happiness as long as the law allows.

It's not just a utopia world that you're arguing about. 

So far to the readers, I've pointed out that the point of living for pleasure at the cost of not living or slowly life diminishing is self refuting and pretty much erroneous. A person that makes that kind of point is really giving a lie on themselves.

If you want a pleasure seeking life , how are you going to have it by trying to diminish it to get it?

Doesn't make a lick of sense. But liberalism doesn't have these things well thought.