The Official Zoophilia Debate Sheet

The Official Zoophilia Debate Sheet

Consent is a core issue that will be brought up in any zoophilia debate. It is important to tackle it aggressively and not give any ground. We will break this down into several sections

Section 1 - The consent argument is a Red Herring fallacy.
Section 2 - Presenting evidence of consent.
Section 3 - Debating Consent.
Section 4 - Legalism and our support line for animal cruelty laws.
Section 5 - Closing Arguments.

Section 1 - The consent argument is a Red Herring fallacy.

Consent is a very important topic to discuss in human-human relationships. Zoophiles have no issues with the consent aspect of zoophilia, we will be happy to debate its consensuality and how it is consensual.

It is important that we use this argument with tact, as we as zoophiles DO care about consentual sexual relations with animals, it is to be used against the debater if they are trying to obtain a moral high ground or if they are pretending to be the protector of animals.

What must be understood is the consent argument at its core is a Red Herring argument. Most debater's using this against zoophilia do not realize it. It is a red herring because it is distracting from the truth that society doesn't care about the consent of animals.

A. Animals are NOT asked for their consent to be killed.
B. Animals are NOT asked for their consent to be forced labour.
C. Animals are NOT asked for their consent to be forcefully bred.


So for a debater to project that they have the moral high ground because they are concerned for the consent of the animals is NOT genuine or misinformed or possibly ignorant of their position when the above occurs. At the start of any debate question them on how their opinions of the above practices.

-How do you feel about artificial insemination? Was the animal consenting to such sexual intrusion?
-How do you feel about meat production? Was the animal consenting to being killed?
-How do you feel about euthanasia for over-worked animals? Did the animal consent to be put down?


These questions are to put light on their hypocritical position, that society doesn't really care about consent, until it involves something sexual between human-animal relations. That is why it is red-herring because society doesn't give a shit about animal consent and is distracting to discussing actual consent.

Possible counter-arguments


-Do you eat meat?(Use AI or Euthenise.) well then you don't care about consent either. This is straw-man of our viewpoint, we care about consent but we do NOT agree with the moral high ground the opposing debater takes in using the consent argument. Pointing out the red herring is to put the debater position in the correct light that sexual consent as a argument, is of little weight when animals consent and sexual autonomy is never considered in the above situations.

-Animals don't consent to be our pets either. Agree with them on this point, showing them that society indeed doesn't care about animal consent.

-Animals are domesticated, this makes them vulnerable to our manipulation. Agree with them on this point, because they didn't ask for consent to be forcefully bred to be domesticated.

-For zoophilia to be a valid orientation, consent is needed. Agree on this point, but be sure again to remind them that animal consent is treated by society as of little weight and value of when the animals consent and sexual autonomy is never considered in the above situations. Then proceed to debate animal consent.


Section 2 - Presenting evidence of consent (WIP, will take time to gather all the resources.)

-Zoophilic video evidence of consent. [Warning Graphic in Nature]
Consent m-m1.gif

-Articles, or academic discussion of animal consent.

Section 3 - Debating Consent

Section 4 - Legalism and our support line for animal cruelty laws.

Section 5 - Closing arguments
Back
Top