The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Animal Abuse Should Be a Severe Felony

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/12/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,204 times Debate No: 32409
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




My argument is that animal abuse should be a severe felony, not punishable by death of course, but it should have severe consequences.

I will use the example of a sick individual who they call "The Dog Serial Killer" who is on the loose in Idaho as a prime example to back up my thesis.



I do not belive animal abuse should be a severe fellony even though it is very wrong and that I do not approve of it.

Well for starters, you never stated the deffinition of an animal. I'm assuming your refering to dogs, fish, cats, and ect...
But if your not and you're referring to humans than I forfit. Also you did not define your deffinition of animal abuse; because there is a difference between animal testing for the benefit of science and knowledge. But there also is the kind of abuse where people are jerks and kicks dogs or worse kills them. So I will not start my argument until you clarify your deffinition of animal abuse and what is an animal.
Debate Round No. 1


When I refer to animals, I mean "Dogs, cats, etc", the normal reciepients of animal abuse and mistreatment.

Now when I mean abuse I mean people who neglect, abuse and mistreat their animals. Individiuals who abuse their animals to the point of death or near death.

I will use the example of the "dog serial killer" in Idaho who reportedly has been wrecking havoc on dog owners in that area. Shooting them execution style, going so far as to blindfold them and torment them before shooting them.

If you take a look at accomplished serial killers and physcopaths, I can guarentee that somewhere during their early years, there was mistreatment and murdering of animals.

Sociopaths, physcopaths, and murderers, don't start with humans. They start off with animals and then graduate to humans.
If you aren't a huge animal lover, you could look at it from this perspective: Prosecuting animal abusers could take a possible sociopath off the streets.


Now that you stated a very well written argument; here is my response.

You stated that seial killers and physcopaths probably mistreeted animals when they were children. The reason for that is because psychopaths' brains have less grey matter in the anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles than the brains of the non-psychopathic offenders and non-offenders. These areas of the brain are important for understanding other people's emotions and intentions, and are activated when people think about moral behaviour. So if these parts of the brain are not activitaded then the pshyco is more apt to do things like hurt animals. So with that in mind than here is an statement. People with mental problems should not be out on the streets and should be locked up or euthanized; whatever the preference. Sorry to get off topic but I felt it was necessary to point that out. Also I felt that in your previous answer that you still haven't answered the burden of proof that animal abuse should be a severe penalty. How severe? What would the criteria be for a basic punishment? Are there any variations on punishment based upon the severity of the crime. Following that I rest my case until your next response.

Debate Round No. 2


To answer your question: Jail time and a mental evaluation for starters.
And of course the longevity of that jail time will be based upon the severity of the abuse.

To close off my argument,

Animal abusers should not only be incarcerated but be required to take a mental evaluation. Why? Because severe abuse of an animal can point to sociopath tendencies in an individual that could be acted out upon humans if not stopped early on.

Deeper into the question, I feel that certain people of suspicious background and reasoning should be granted a license before owning a pet (like adopting a child). Of course that would have to be a government-issued requirement but still; the incarceration of animal abusers is a good place to start. For the good of the poor animal that is recipient to this abuse and also to other humans whom the individual could possibly harm.

Thank you for participating in this debate with me. I look forward to possible future debates with you. :)


To start off I would like to thank Pro for being prompt with responding.

Let's start to sumarize; I would rather have people take mental stabillity tests rather than be on the news and than be recognized as an mentally unstable person. But I also belive that there shouldn't be as many pets out there as there is now like I don't approve that people breed dogs so much that theres a rediculous surplus of dogs that they have to put some of them down. Because that is truely animal cruelty.

In response to a statement you made that "adopting a pet should be like adopting a child". I do not agree with that because there is so much that goes into it for example you have to attend training to have a child, you have to have your home inspected, ect.... So to have to go through all that extent to adopt a pet would be ridiculous.

Thanks for debating me.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by hilton16 4 years ago
you'll win this. plus i don't support animal abuse. And the act of Michael Vick and the guy you're talking about
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by induced 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: animal abusers are bad and dangerous people. of course they belong in prison, or killed. that fulfilled pros burden of proof
Vote Placed by Reni-1_3 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Definitely hard one to vote. Good argument on Pro's side about how sociopaths start with small animals, and escalate from there, and the prosecution process Pro stated is simple and believable. I also believe owning pets should be a privilege, but not to the point where licensing to own a pet is required. Like Con said, adopting a dog is nothing compared to the process for adopting a child. I only vote Con based on Pro's round 2 argument, the mistreatment of animals/ pets is quite hard to define. Mistreatment could mean missing a day or two in feeding, or testing products on animals, both of which is the complete mistreatment of animals. Neglect is also a hard one, maybe you work all day and take care of your pets in the morning and night, which is not deadly for your pets, especially if you already have a bond, but could lead to more consequences like missing meals and such. Abuse, is a definite "this is NOT how you treat and animal ever", ie. hitting your pet. Good debate!!