The Instigator
monielixene
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points

Should animal abuse be legal?

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 5 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 91398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

monielixene

Con

I believe that animal abuse should not be legal. Imagine if you were to be the animal would you like it if you were to be beaten to death, and just die suffering? No i don't think you would. Animal cruelty is when someone hurts an animal or does not care for an animal responsibly, like not giving a dog or cat food and water. It is against the law to be cruel to or harm animals, even your own pets. It's also called animal abuse, or neglect. That is one of the worst types of harm anyone could do. I mean why would anyone honestly want to harm a poor cute little animal? What because they pee'd in the floor or pooped in the floor, or got sick! You really think any of that is their faults, well its not its called human nature and you need to get used to it honestly! Cruelty means inflicting pain and causing suffering. Animal cruelty is a nationwide problem rapidly growing in today"s society. Animals are being beaten and starved everyday and millions of helpless animals die each year because of heartless owners. There are many forms of animal cruelty; some of the most common forms are scientific research, abandonment, and mistreatment. Scientific research is a necessity of life, so it is said. Society needs to research to improve economy and the products of everyday life. This is all well and good, until something has to suffer. Many times companies test products on animals for the safety of humans. Monkeys, rats, mice, dogs, and cats are some of the candidates used for laboratory research. The major problem with animal testing is the animals usually suffer in a traumatizing experience. Many animals endure burns, hair loss, rashes and gashes. Some companies go as far as to place metal wires and rods in the animal"s head. However, researchers justify this inexcusable treatment with "it"s for science". Yet you have to wonder if scientists think how they would feel in that situation. There are many companies out there that do not use animals for testing their products. Yet these companies still have popular products that are bought daily by all. For instance the company Lip Smackers, sell all kinds of lip-glosses, chap sticks and makeup and they do not use animal to test their products. Many parents buy these items for their children as presents for birthdays or Christmas. Also many girls purchase them all the time and some prefer that product to others. This shows that you can make a good product without testing on animals. Truthfully, no one deserves that kind of treatment. What if it was your pet that they were putting chemicals in with unknown reactions, how would you react? But also maybe you wouldn't care because you have no heart and it means nothing to you.
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate.

Con defines Animal Cruelty as when someone hurts an animal or does not care for an animal responsibly.

I accept this definition and will expand: Animal Abuse is the intentional infliction by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific gain [1].

His arguments are as follows:

1. You would not like to be abused
2. Animal abuse is illegal
3. Animal abuse is cruel and undeserved
4. Animal abuse should not be necessary for research; it traumatizes and/or kills them

While I might not like to be abused, that does not mean animal abuse should be illegal. I would also not like to work in certain professions or be prevented from open-carry in my state, but that doesn't mean that my personal preferences (or Con's, or anyones) ought to determine what the law should allow. Most importantly, I am a human being and I contend that animals do not have the same rights as human beings.

Though animal abuse is illegal (in some cases), that is irrelevant since I am arguing that it shouldn't be. Animal abuse may be undeserved, but not necessarily unwarranted. And finally while animal abuse might not be necessary for research, I contend that it's a preferential option. Therefore I will be responding to all of Con's arguments within the framework of my proactive case.

1. Per the definition of animal abuse, killing animals for food qualifies as abuse. A 2014 survey by Harris Interactive and the Humane Research Council found that less than 2% of Americans identified as vegetarian [2]. That means 98% of the population has no problem with abusing (killing) animals for their personal satisfaction. Since eating meat is a perfectly healthy option for most people [3] animal abuse should continue to be legal in this regard.

2. Animals have a lower level of sentience than humans [4] and therefore should arguably not have the same rights. Humans are separate and distinctly unique from animals in that we are rational and can understand and uphold the notion of rights in a way that animals cannot [5].

3. We not only allow animals to be bred, held captive and killed for food, but we also allow animals to be kept as pets. We allow people to own animals, therefore animals do not have the basic right to self-ownership. As such their right to life is questionable. If people can own animals (we can buy and sell animals) then the owners have the moral right, per the description of property rights, to do whatever they want to their animals.

4. According to the US-based Foundation for Biomedical Research, "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century - for both human and veterinary health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present-day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through research with lab animals" [6].

That means that using animals for science has not only helped humans, but also other animals.

Testing on animals has helped us make tremendous gains. New cancer drugs account for 50-60 percent of the success we have made in cancer survival rates since 1975. Thanks in large part to animal-based research, there is a new molecular and genetic understanding of tumor biology, which has led to treatments that set out to more directly kill cancer cells [7].

According to Con, we should give up on these medical and scientific advancements that help save both animal and human lives, for the sake of sparing some other animal lives. This is nonsensical. Humans have superior rationality and more rights than animals. Human's lives are overall more important. And even if saving animal's lives is the goal, research on animals (that may result in their death) is necessary to save more lives.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.mayoclinic.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.libertarian.co.uk...
[6] http://www.pro-test.org.uk...
[7] https://www.amprogress.org...
Debate Round No. 1
monielixene

Con

Animal Abuse, is and may be okay for other people, but i believe honestly it is not necessary its, dumb ignorance as a matter of fact, i hope people realize the truth, and believe in trying to at least stop it a little bit.
Danielle

Pro

Unfortunately, Con did not address any of the arguments put forth in my proactive case. Please extend my arguments. I hope my opponent takes the time to address my contentions for the final round of this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
monielixene

Con

The shocking number of cruelty cases reported daily on television, on the Internet and in newspapers is only the tip of the iceberg. Most cases are never reported, and most animal suffering goes unrecognized and unabated.
Unlike violent crimes against people, information on reported cases of animal abuse have not been compiled by state and federal agencies, making it difficult to calculate the prevalence or trends in these crimes.
Changes in federal tracking of cruelty cases
In 2014, the FBI announced that it will add cruelty to animals as a category in the agency"s Uniform Crime Report, a nationwide crime-reporting system. While only about a third of U.S. communities currently participate in the system, the data generated will help create a clearer picture of animal abuse and guide strategies for intervention and enforcement. Data collection will begin in January 2016 and will cover four categories: simple/gross neglect, intentional abuse and torture, organized abuse (such as dogfighting and cockfighting) and animal sexual abuse.
Who abuses animals
Cruelty and neglect cross socio-economic boundaries, and media reports suggest that animal abuse is common in both rural and urban areas.
Intentional cruelty to animals is strongly correlated with other crimes, including violence against people.
Serious animal neglect (such as seen in cases of animal hoarding) is often an indicator of people in need of social or mental health services (Lockwood, 2002).
Surveys suggest that those who intentionally abuse animals are predominantly male and under 30, while those involved in animal hoarding are more likely to be female and over 60 (Lockwood, 2008).
Most common victims
The animals whose abuse is most often reported are dogs, cats, horses and livestock. Based on numbers from pet-abuse.com, of 1,880 cruelty cases reported in the media in 2007:
64.5 percent (1,212) involved dogs (25 percent of these were identified as pit-bull-type breeds)
18 percent (337) involved cats
25 percent (470) involved other animals
Undercover investigations have revealed that animal abuse abounds in the factory farm industry. But because of the weak protections afforded to livestock under state cruelty laws, only the most shocking cases are reported, and few are ever prosecuted.
Dogfighting, cockfighting and other forms of organized animal cruelty go hand in hand with other crimes.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has prosecuted multiple cases where drug cartels were running narcotics through cockfighting and dogfighting operations. In 2014, federal agents found that international drug dealers had congregated at a Kentucky cockfighting pit and even sent a hit man to target a local cockfighter.
Dozens of homicides have occurred at cockfights and dogfights. In one instance, a man in California was killed at a cockfight over a disagreement about a $10 bet.
Public corruption allows cockfighting to continue in certain counties. The HSUS has worked with the FBI on public corruption cases in Tennessee and Virginia. In both instances, law enforcement officers were indicted and convicted. HSUS investigators even documented uniformed police officers at a cockfighting pit in Kentucky.
Domestic violence, child abuse and animal cruelty
Data on domestic violence and child abuse cases reveal that a staggering number of animals are victimized by abusive parents or partners each year. About 10.2 million women and men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner in the U.S. every year (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011), and 62 percent of U.S. households have at least one pet. In one survey, 71 percent of domestic violence victims reported that their abuser also targeted their animal (Ascione, 1997). In one study of families under investigation for suspected child abuse, researchers found that pet abuse had occurred in 88 percent of the families under supervision for physical abuse of their children (DeViney, 1983).
Legislative trends The HSUS has long led the push for stronger animal cruelty laws and provides training for law officials to detect and prosecute these crimes. 50 states currently include felony provisions in their animal cruelty laws.
Before 1986, only four states had felony animal cruelty laws: Massachusetts (1804), Oklahoma (1887), Rhode Island (1896) and Michigan (1931). Three states enacted felony laws in the 1980s, 19 in the 1990s and 25 more since 2000 (including the District of Columbia). First vs. second offense, Some state laws only allow felony charges if the perpetrator has a previous animal cruelty conviction. Given that only a fraction of animal cruelty acts are ever reported or successfully prosecuted, The HSUS believes all states should allow felony charges for egregious cruelty regardless of whether the perpetrator has a prior conviction. 43 of the 50 state felony provisions are first-offense provisions. Six have second-offense felonies (Iowa, Mississippi, Ohio and Pennsylvania have felony laws that apply only on the second offense; Texas and Virginia have second-offense felonies, depending on the situation). Idaho has a third-offense felony animal cruelty law.
Among the 43 states that have first-offense felony cruelty laws, a majority are limited to cases involving aggravated cruelty, torture, or cruelty to companion animals.
States that have strengthened their felony cruelty laws
-Since 2002, at least six states have enacted second- or third-offense felony animal cruelty laws, only to readdress and upgrade them to first-offense laws within a few years:
*Alaska (third in 2008, first in 2010)
*Indiana (second in 1998, first in 2002)
*Kentucky (second in 2003, first in 2007)
*Nebraska (second 2002, first in 2003)
*Tennessee (second in 2001 and 2002, first in 2004)
*Virginia (second in 1999, in 2002)
Danielle

Pro

Many thanks to my opponent again for this discussion.

In the last round, Con argues:

- Animal abuse is widespread and often goes unreported
- Animal abuse mostly targets dogs but affects many animals
- Animal abuse is rampant on factory farms (duh...)
- Some states have increased penalties for animal cruelty

None of those contentions address any of my points. While I accept them all as true, my arguments explain why none of that is relevant insofar as affirming the resolution. The resolution should be upheld for the following reasons:

- The vast majority of the population eats meat which is perfectly healthy
- Animals have a lower level of sentience than humans and do/should not have the same rights
- Animals lack basic rights; we regard them as property
- Animal "abuse" is vital for scientific and medical research
- Testing on animals helps us save both human and animal lives

My opponent has dropped every single one of my arguments, for which I've provided sourced and factual information.

Con has not presented any sources and did not fulfill her burden.

I've argued against her points in Round 1 and explained why her Round 3 assertions are not relevant.

Thank You to the audience for reading and voting. -- Danielle
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by VelCrow 9 months ago
VelCrow
This comment is to advice Con on what he could have done in his debate to rebut Pro.

Point 1. Con would have done better by stressing the definition that Pro used "or purposes other than self-defense or survival". Con could have rebutted Pro's point 1 as killing animals for food is the literal definition of survival.

Point 2. First and foremost, source is unreliable as from wikipedia and anyone can easily edit. Secondly, quoted from the link, "The topic of animal consciousness is beset with a number of difficulties. It poses the problem of other minds in an especially severe form because animals, lacking the ability to express human language, cannot tell us about their experiences.[6] Also, it is difficult to reason objectively about the question, because a denial that an animal is conscious is often taken to imply that it does not feel, its life has no value, and that harming it is not morally wrong.". Therefore, the source does not say that "Animals have a lower level of sentience than humans " and thus point is invalid.

Point 3. Rights to life does not equals the rights to torture. In war, soldiers killing each other isn't exactly illegal. However torture is. Perfect example as follows. http://www.theguardian.com...

Point 4. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... need i say more?

Do note that these are just advice for Con's debate and may or may not reflect my views on the topic in general. Thank you.
Posted by I_Wanna_Rawk 9 months ago
I_Wanna_Rawk
Why do we even need to have this? To be honest, the fact that someone is even arguing for this makes me lose faith in the human race.... :(
Posted by zookdook1 9 months ago
zookdook1
Why is thre a debate about this? Are there people who go around saying 'Let's abuse the sh*t out of a load of dogs'?
Posted by segregory 9 months ago
segregory
The dogs do nothing to deserve the abuse. They are soft and good pets. They can also be useful. So why abuse them?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by VelCrow 9 months ago
VelCrow
monielixeneDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro won hands down by cleverly playing with the definition. I will elaborate more in the comments section.
Vote Placed by Ockham 9 months ago
Ockham
monielixeneDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better conduct, since Con plagiarized an entire article from the Humane Society without attribution in the final round. Pro made more convincing arguments, since Pro addressed all of Con's arguments (even the plagiarized ones). By contrast, Con failed to address Pro's arguments from food, level of sentience, self ownership, and medical advances. Pro used the most reliable sources since they cited a number of sources, whereas Con cited no sources and plagiarized an entire round.
Vote Placed by Reigon 9 months ago
Reigon
monielixeneDanielleTied
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: Con did not respond to pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 9 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
monielixeneDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: To Con I want to make myself clear. The debate was on legality, not preferences. As such, none of Con's arguments warrant the ballot. I gave Pro conduct because Con did not address any of Pro's arguments. Con ignored them, which is offensive to Pro. I gave spelling to Pro b/c Con made mistakes in rounds 1-2, while I couldn't find a single Pro mistake. I give arguments to Pro because Con's argument is "animal abuse is terrible and already illegal in some areas, so it should be illegal". First of all, the inherency admittance that it is illegal proves the debate is not fair to Pro and is weighted more towards Con. So congrats on being unfair Con. As for the abuse itself, no citations for proof of it, and Pro is right that animal's don't really have rights in the grand scheme of things. Because all Pro's arguments in round 1 were dropped, Pro wins arguments. Finally Pro wins sources because Con maybe showed "citations" but never gave a link for proof. Pro did citations. I VOTE PRO.
Vote Placed by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
monielixeneDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con's argument can basically be summed up like this: "Animal abuse exists and I think it's horrible." There's no actual means for them to negate the resolution merely by that -- they all rely on insufficiently explained links connecting animal welfare and the role of the state. Pro makes compelling arguments from animal testing and meat consumption, and shows that banning both of them produces net harmful effects (including lack of live-saving drugs and sufficient food). This goes dropped, so I vote Pro.