Resolved: Animal Abuse is Acceptable
Debate Rounds (3)
I believe that people should have the right to freely abuse animals, up to and including killing them.
First round for acceptance.
Second round for arguments.
Third round for rebuttals.
Comment section for calling me out on how sick you perceive me to be.
For the purposes of my argument, animal abuse is "abuse to an animal that one owns that does not interfere with productivity," so no maiming an animal then having it do work for you but at a reduced capacity, due to aforementioned maiming. Buying a kitten and taking it home, on the other hand...
To begin with, animal abuse is acceptable because the animals are not human. Were a human abusing another human, it would be terrible, because a human is being harmed. The viewpoint presented here is very long-run zero-sum, in this case stretching into the thousands of years, and in that we will need a non-vacuum environment, food on our tables, water to drink, air to breathe, and sunlight, as does almost everything else above a single-cellular stage now. Because I'm human, I want humanity to succeed, so everything becomes a resource. This ties into my argument because animals are infinitely more expendable than humans. If there are dedicated animals to abuse, people can vent into them and not face stigma, because it counts as a human using his resources to his own end. It would be horrible to be the animal, but who cares?
Animal abuse is acceptable, because as long as productivity doesn't suffer, people are getting their jollies in on abusing something that isn't their fellow man. An example would not be amiss here. Take Bob. Everyone say "Hi, Bob." He is trapped in the lowest rungs of power, and has nobody to take his frustrations out on. He goes and gets an animal to abuse. Now that he has something below him to take things out on, he's a lot happier. I'm not saying it's good or bad, merely that it is in human nature.
For example, in George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant" (Where my Brit Lit kids at?), the narrator states that "With one part of my mind I thought of the British Raj as an unbreakable tyranny, as something clamped down, in saecula saeculorum, upon the will of prostrate peoples; with another part I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." In all fairness, the natives were actively hostile to him in the story, but it's the exercise of power over those who are weaker that counts here. The animals, unless they are being used for testing, consumption, or assistance for the disabled, and therefore exempt from abuse (hopefully, I mean they're being productive here), are draining resources that could have gone to a human. The gratification from the abuse makes up for that drain. They could also make up for the drain with love and companionship, as well, and probably more than any amount of gratification from abuse, but that takes time, unlike the immediate "Oh yeah, power feels good" one gets as they exercise the more immediate power over the unfortunate beast.
Factor in the fact that most animals have a faster lifecycle than humans, and you have an endless source of amusement/gratification with a large enough population. You take them one at a time, and... Look at it squirm!
Now the proviso: If you are abusing animals, perhaps you need help. It is gratifying in the short term, but you are ultimately hurting yourself. It is far better to form a friendship, because the release granted by the abuse in the short run is far outweighed by the fact that, as you get used to it, it starts to get boring, and you start look to your fellow man, putting you back to square one...
It is far better to search for challenges and achieve, but hey, each to their own. I don't judge.
And before you ask, no, I have not been diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder. On the animal abuse front, my family has a cat that was returned to the shelter twice before we got her. It took a month for her to be comfortable with us being within ten feet of her or her food dish. We love her all the same. The moral of the story is if you're going to abuse an animal, don't palm it off on other people when you're done. Have the guts to kill it, or at least keep it locked up until it dies. It's not fair to anyone to get their animal pre-abused, especially if they're going to take it in and shower it with affection, and it reacts with hostility, possibly hurting one or more of them.
Animal abuse should not be acceptable because even if a human is frustrated or upset they have no right to abuse the animal, and that reason does not justify why they should abuse an animal no one should let their anger or emotion make them take it out on a living breathing thing. Yes sure animals do have large populations but just because they do does not mean you should abuse an animal. When animals are over populated they have hunting season to control the population. Also when animals are over populated they usually "put them to sleep" which is painless unlike animals abuse.
If you are to abuse an animal I still disagree with keeping it locked up I mean they are still suffering no one should even abuse animals but unfortunately people don't do it and if you do really don't make the animal suffer "put the animal to sleep" in the most unhurt full way ever.
That is entirely true. However, look at things like Silly Putty, which was originally designed as an adhesive, or WD-40, which was originally meant to displace water.
Con goes on to say "Animal abuse should not be acceptable because even if a human is frustrated or upset they have no right to abuse the animal, and that reason does not justify why they should abuse an animal no one should let their anger or emotion make them take it out on a living breathing thing. Yes sure animals do have large populations but just because they do does not mean you should abuse an animal. When animals are over populated they have hunting season to control the population. Also when animals are over populated they usually "put them to sleep" which is painless unlike animals abuse."
He is perfectly right. However, putting animals to sleep outright deprives someone of their fun, if they're into that kind of thing. Hunting could be construed as a more impersonal and long-ranged form of animal abuse, because what if you hit, but don't kill it outright? I fail to see why we should waste resources on killing an animal when we could simply turn it over to an animal abuser and let him or her do the dirty work for us. Sure, it sucks to be the animal, but that's what you get for not being human.
Con, and this is my favorite part, says, "If you are to abuse an animal I still disagree with keeping it locked up I mean they are still suffering no one should even abuse animals but unfortunately people don't do it and if you do really don't make the animal suffer "put the animal to sleep" in the most unhurt full [sic] way ever."
To begin with, yes, that is entirely the option of the person making the decision. However, as I said before, the animals are using up resources (food, water, space, air), and if we are to recoup those expenditures, we should get some measure of gratification out of them. Putting them to sleep contaminates their meat, so we can't eat them. Abusing them, however, grants a bit of fun. Remember, animals are a drain on resources, and are nothing more than tools for gratification. You may not agree with me, but my point still stands.
Also animals do not take "up resources (food, water, space, air)" it is actually vise-versa we as humans take up water and recourses from animals . As for air that can't be taken away from us it is already on Earth and there is plenty to go around. Also even if it does contaminant we have farms and hunting seasons so there is no need to eat them anyway. Lastly even when people do abuse animals it is not like they are going to give up the animal for people to eat.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.