The Instigator
AC
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
mageist24
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Harsher Punishment for Animal Abusers

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,338 times Debate No: 13690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

AC

Pro

Animal abuse is a problem in our society today. Animals are continually put through horrible, inhumane, acts of violence everyday, and it seems as if people aren't even paying attention anymore. It seems as if some people have given up on them. But many animals are like children: they are defenseless, helpless, and for the most part, unless purposely aggravated, harmless. So why, do animal abusers only get a 2 year probation of animals, when child abusers lose their ownership of the child completely? Do we as humans really think of animals so poorly? In consideration of this, I urge you to vote affirmative for this bill.

Point 1: The punishment for child abusers should be the same as the one for animal abusers. Animals are just as vulnerable and innocent as children. They are playful, innocent, and they should be treated that way. To some people an animal is their child. It's been shown that the way one treats an animal is the way they will treat a child (ASPCA). It's said that the way an abusive man treats an animal is the way he threatens his victims. Therefore, an animal abuser's punishment should be the same as a child abuser's punishment. The way they treat an animal reflects the way that they would treat a child. If someone beats and bruises an animal, I would feel worried about a child in their possession.

Point 2: Animals have no voice: they are helpless and defenseless. An animal cannot pick up a phone and dial 911. An animal cannot cry or scream or plead for help. Animals suffer in silence. They get bruised, beaten, and tortured in silence. Animals have no trusted adults to run to for help. They are alone, helpless, and defenseless. And yet, when their attacker is captured, the only punishment they receive is two years without animal ownership. How is that fair? People beat and batter around helpless creatures, and barely get more than a tap on the hand. Imagine that that animal is your younger brother or sister, your best friend, or your child? Would you still sit back and do nothing? I beg to differ that you won't.

Point 3: Animal abuse is inhumane. There is not a shred of remorse, kindness, or compassion in the act of abusing an animal. It's just wrong. It's evil, horrible, mean negative, and it should be taken more seriously than it is. A lot of people don't take animal abuse as seriously as they do child abuse. They get furious and bloody thirsty when a child is abused, yet they just shrug their shoulders when an animal is abused. Why can't animals be treated and given the same respect as children do? If they did, then maybe they wouldn't be being hurt every day.

Conclusion: So in conclusion, the punishment for child abusers should be the same as the one for animal abusers, animals are voiceless, helpless, and defenseless, and animal abuse is inhumane. Animal abuse needs to be taken seriously because it is a serious matter, and it has unfortunately become more and more common. Animals should not be thought of so poorly and disdainfully. For these reasons I urge you to cast an affirmative vote.
mageist24

Con

Thank you for the interesting debate and good luck.

My opponent makes the claim for the debate that "there should be more harsh punishments for animal abuse" and goes on to add that "the punishment for abusing an animal should be the same as that of abusing a child." and offers the following for reasoning.

1) The punishment for child abusers should be the same as the one for animal abusers.

Soo... you think that people should be incarcerated for the so called crime of "animal cruelty?" I would have to disagree and point out the differences between abusing an animal and abusing a child.
1) Uh... Children are human beings. We do not need to treat animals the same way we treat each other. Even though I would never beat a dog for no reason, I certainly would not send someone to jail for doing so either. The reason being that humans are more important than animals.
2) The life a human is and always will be more significant than the life of an animal and thus should be treated with differently. Killing an innocent child will get you life in jail. Killing a puppy won't, and I would like to keep it that way, not to defend those who kill animals, but because I can see the difference between killing human and an animal.

2) Animals have no voice: they are helpless and defenseless. An animal cannot pick up a phone and dial 911.

Simply put, an animal is not and should never be, equal to a human. We are the dominant species, we rule the Earth, we are in control of their population, we eat animals for the simple reason that they taste good, not that we need it to survive. Again, I do not condone the abuse of an animal, but animals are below us. We are the natural predators of the world. I know that you would not say "kill the bears, they are too mean to the deer." The bear gets to do whatever he wants to the deer, it is nature's cycle. The difference in humans is that we have MORALS and I morally choose not to abuse animals. However, I understand the difference between a bear and a deer, and if one did not share the same moral standard that I have, it is their right as the dominant species to do whatever they want. You also make the comparison of my younger brother or sister being beaten, would I sit back? Absolutely not I would not sit back. But that comparison is laughable. You just changed the whole debate using that comparison. The debate is not about humans, its about animals. Humans treat humans equally because we ARE equal. Again, me and a filthy animal that eats its own excrement are not equal. We need to protect each other as the same specie, not animals that have no awareness of its own existence. So whether or not it has a voice to ask for help is rather irrelevant to that actuality of animals deserving that same rights as a human.

3) Animal abuse is inhumane.

No, child abuse is inhuman. There is nothing humanly empathetic about an animal being abused. Using this "animal abuse = to child abuse" argument is pretty convoluted. Do not compare an animal of literally no worth to humans, to a human of worth to humans. It isn't even worth that is the problem with this argument. CHILDREN ARE NOT A DIFFERENT SPECIES THAN ADULTS. I was once a child, I can relate to a child, a child with morals and thoughts being abused is repulsive, an animal being abused is sympathetic, but again a worthless comparison. Also, your logic is very circular here. Its inhumane because its evil and its evil because its mean and its mean because its bad and its bad because its inhumane. Give me a real reason WHY I should care about an animal. Why should I care as the dominant species whether an animal is being abused? Animals will never deserve the same respect as a human. Let me say it again, that animal and I are not equals. I get to say whether an animal dies at the benefit to my convenience every time I buy fast food.

Why are we so caught up in whether or not animals are being treated fairly? Screw animals, there are human beings starving to death in America and children being abused in their homes, and we are worried about animals? How about moving in a direction to help your fellow man instead of only concentrating on the "injustices done to poor innocent animals." Let's get a hold on how human beings are being abused by human beings, and once that is remotely fixed, then we can come back to whether animal cruelty should be stopped by increasing the penalties. For now, however, animals < humans.
Debate Round No. 1
AC

Pro

AC forfeited this round.
mageist24

Con

Extend all of my arguments.

I thought this was going to be a fun debate.

I hope you at least post a final argument.
Debate Round No. 2
AC

Pro

AC forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anony10 4 years ago
anony10
Anyone who says screw animals is a worthless human being . Not better than a lower form of life.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
I was joking, Blackhawk.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Visit this link to see the debate i have started on this topic.
http://www.debate.org...
The opening arguments are AC's, but after that they will be mine.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
No, one or both have to win.
Posted by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
So, Con had poor conduct, but Pro forfeited... Very poor debate. Is there any way both can lose?
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Never mind, I'm not going to comment, there's to much to say. Instead, I'll just challenge Con to a new debate on the same subject since pro didn't finish their debate.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
I've got many things to say, so I'll address each of Con's arguments individually with a new comment for each.
Posted by lovelife 6 years ago
lovelife
Sorry but con and his faux morals make me pretty sick.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
I don't see how anyone could disagree
Posted by AC 6 years ago
AC
Thanks for your support.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ACmageist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
ACmageist24Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
ACmageist24Tied
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