The Instigator
BrightStream
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AndreiBalint
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should people who abuse animals go to jail?

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 1 vote the winner is...
AndreiBalint
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 66652
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

BrightStream

Pro

I believe that people who abuse animals should go to jail, because animals are just like us humans and if a human is abused they will be sent to jail. So many people complain that there are to many strays, well they have probably run away from there homes, or they were kicked out because the owners where scared of being caught abusing the animal.
AndreiBalint

Con

I disagree with you on some points
Ok so you are saying that animals are like humans. I would like to explain why animals are not like humans.
Unlike animals we as humans have Consciousness this is very vague so I will try to emphasize the important aspects .
Consciousness is that which gives us self-awareness and freedom choice and to some extent we do not simply act on instincts. This self-awareness and freedom of choice make us able to see and understand the world around us better and also our place in the world. Animals on the other hand have a limited view of the world around them unable to understand both their place or their enviroment thus they are inferior.Next laws are made to enforce a conduit which would ensure a a suitable enviroment for human development, punishing people for bad behaviour to animals doesn;t have a basis because animals are not entitled to same rights as humans. Punishing people who are bad to animals is just like punishing the bad gardener.
Debate Round No. 1
BrightStream

Pro

I understand what you're saying, but people who abuse them, basically show them that the world is something to be afraid of. Sure they may not have the exact same rights, but they are "man's best friend." If the people who abuse animals get away with it, they won't know that what there doing is bad, therefore they will continue abusing animals. Abusing animals is just the first step. Animals are like people's children, they are just as defenseless. Punishing people who are bad to animals, is not like punishing the bad gardener, because the garden is not alive. The garden isn't forced to be afraid of the world, but animals are.
AndreiBalint

Con

I see your point of view but although we can condemn people who do this because it serves no practical reason it would be a violation of their freedom to judge them based on possible future actions.Judging somebody on what they might do does not have a real basis and would not lead to anything but an oppresive society. Next we as humans tend to view things as being composed of aspect and essence. We can believe that a beast has a human soul but the world of facts which we need to accept. Seeing a dog more than a dog is just our way of humanizing things around us to make them closer to us and thus closer to understand. Can you really say that a dog has the concept of friendship or does it view you as it's primary source of food ?Can you surely say that an animal thinks of you as you think of it ? Next the garden is also alive it grows it adapts and it dies . Why would it lack consciousness if an animal can have it ? Where do you stop and draw a line and say:"this is just like me " ?
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
BrightStreamAndreiBalintTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. While I fully agree with the position of Pro, it was Con who came out on top in this debate. Con was able to build a case around the fact that animals have lower consciousness thus they don't have the same rights and protections as humans. Pro really needed to point out that animals already have rights against people abusing them and then challenge Con to change the status quo which would ahve shifted the burden on Con. Instead, Pro got caught up in animals mental abilities which allowed for Con to remain dominant in this debate. Due to cons ability to rebut everything Pro presented, Pro failed to maintain the BOP and thus loses arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.