I've seen arguments that appear good, but as soon as they are questioned in any way the person making them devolves into insults and hate. In other words, the person making the argument doesn't actually understand it enough to back it up. I, personally, have yet to have any anti-zoo approach me in good faith, it has always been malicious. Of course, I haven't really been around very long, and I don't really like debating this stuff, so it's possible the more reasonable people choose to respect me and not come to me. What I have had, is studies I've shared dismissed or ignored. If the only way an argument can stand is to hide contrary evidence, it's not a good argument.

At the end of the day, my existence is a fact. I'm sexually attracted to animals and that is no more mutable than same sex attractions. The question that needs to be asked, and antis often think they have an answer to, is whether or not it is possible to have loving sexual relationships with animals. Most studies that say it's not never ever tried to look for them and just focused on readily available data, which is generally police reports. Naturally that data is going to say it's not possible, but there are so many of us out there with happy, loving, sexual companions that are clearly not accounted for. I've long said that more research is needed, and stand by that, but they need to put in effort to find more data.