The Instigator
Pro (for)
5 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

There should be harsher punishments for animal abusers.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,714 times Debate No: 13828
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I am challenging mageist24 to this debate because I was reading a debate he was involved with on the same topic, but his opponent never finished. Therefore, I intend to have the entire debate.
The only rule in this debate is that new arguments can't be introduced after round 1.
Animal abuse will be referring to beating, torturing, killing for entertainment, etc.
* Beating animals isn't a swat or two because a pet was disobedient. It's more than 10 hits in a row. *
Things such as keeping pets and killing animals for food are not classified as abuse.

I want to thank AC because I am going to copy and paste his opening arguments because I agree with them exactly.
Everything between this statement, and the next * is a direct quotation from AC.

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.

*Once again, these arguments are a direct quotation from AC.
* From this point on, all arguments will be my own.
Vote Pro to stop the abuse.

I would like to thank mageist24 in advance for accepting this debate.
(assuming he does)

I await a response.


Thank you for challenging me again to this debate. I look forward to a great time.

First of all my opponent failed to define animal abuse yet set standards for which animal abuse should be looked at as. I offer the following definition

Animal Cruelty is defined as --- inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death.

This definition is important to the round because my opponent makes an observation that "keeping pets and killing animals for food are not classified as abuse." My definition completely contradicts this because abuse is something that is not defined to a few circumstances because the abuse of animals can also be classified under killing them, for taking the life of an animal is truly the most serious and vile forms of abuse. So let us proceed to my case.

Contention FUN (one): Abuse? Or Excuse?

The abuse of animals is considered a very serious subject and is taken into high regard. Do you know why that is? Because most people do not get a kick from hurting innocent animals. However, the majority of abuse that happens to animals is completely LEGAL, I will assume that you will make all these forms of abuse that are current legal illegal. This includes, but is not limited to hunting, meat grinders, and animal slaughterhouses. Each of these abuse animals in their own way. Hunting abuses animals by taking their life away, meat grinders do the same but in a very inhumane fashion, and animal slaughterhouses do not even properly feed and take care of animals before the genocide of species begins. And if you are not advocating the legality of these things, then how on earth do you draw the line between abuse of animals in homes, or out in the wild? What makes an animal being killed in ones home any different than you killing an animal in broad daylight? The honest answer is that there is no difference, except for the intentions of hurting that animal. And if you are arguing for these things to become illegal, then this economic impact that would be had in our country is immeasurable. Our food, hunting, and fishing industries would be seriously reduced if not completely eliminated in America. That is surely not something our country needs right now.

Contention 2 The punishments for abusing animals

My opponent says that we need to increase the punishment of animal abuse to the same level as child abuse. However, what he does not mention is that one of the punishments he is advocating is serious jail time, because that is what happens in most child abuse cases. My opponent also fails to do two things to prove this point. To win the debate, he must prove these two things

1) The life of an animal is identically important to the life of a child in every way.
2) The abuse of animals is just as wrong as abusing a child.

Either way, even just arguing that abusing a child is just as bad as abusing an animal is morally crooked, and I cannot wait for the response of my opponent.

Contention 3: Humans are the predators.

This point is simple. Humans are predators just like lions and tigers are predators, yet my opponent does not want to make the abuse between mountain lions and innocent cute fluffy woodland critters illegal because that would be just silly. So my opponent needs to prove the difference between humans killing an animal and a lion killing an animal as the predator. The circle of life includes humans, believe it or not.

Onto my opponents case.

Point 1: My first contention addresses this. You are not just advocating people not being able to own animals or not. Even if you are not aware of it, you are advocating the serious incarceration of these people, and you need to prove why this is morally acceptable.

Point 2: This argument is calling for the emotion of it's readers, and I actually got pretty offended when I first read this. An animal is an animal. There are no two ways about it. Comparing my little brother or sister to a filthy dog, rat, or pig is insane and you need more than fallacious arguments with absolutely no warrant to back up such a morally crooked statement.

Point 3: There is no kindness in abusing animals?!?!?! I AM SHOCKED!! Seriously who didn't know that? My second contention addresses this argument. To win this debate you need to show me why animals are important enough to be regarded with such reverent that the life of an animal would equal the life of a human AND WHY THIS DOES NOT DEMEAN HUMAN LIFE.

In conclusion, if my opponent cannot prove that hunting is not abusive, that children = animals, or that putting a huge amount of people in jail is good (from slaughter farms), then I win this debate

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, I have provided guidelines for abuse in this debate. Animal abuse will be referring to beating, torturing, killing for entertainment, etc. Therefore, keeping a pet or killing for food is NOT abuse in this debate. I set those terms specifically to keep this in a focus area, and avoid blowing the debate out of proportion. If we start arguing killing as abuse, then not only would people have to be punished for the guidelines I set down, people would also be punished for hunting, eating a ton of different foods, and for a lot of people, we would be taking away their lively hood. In conclusion, for this debate, animal abuse will be classified as beating, torturing, killing for entertainment, etc. Killing for food or self-defense, and having pets will NOT be animal abuse in this debate.

As I've already stated, killing for food is not abuse. I am a hunter, so it would be ludicrous for me to say killing for food (a.k.a. survival) should be illegal. That is why I said beating, torturing, and killing for entertainment would be abuse. As for my opponent's question as to the difference of killing in broad daylight (which I am interpreting as hunting and slaughter houses, correct me if I'm wrong), and killing in the home, killing in the home (assuming it's not a chicken you're going to eat) is probably for sadistic purposes, not survival. Hunting and slaughterhouses provide food for survival. THAT is the difference between killing in broad daylight, and killing in the home.

I am fine with serious jail time for animal abusers. Now for my opponent's questions.
1) Every life is identical. An animal has emotions, opinions, some level of intelligence, and the drive to survive. These are the same things a human has. While humans have superior intelligence, we are physically inferior to a lot of animals. Cheetahs are much faster than us. Eagles have significantly better eyesight. Wolves are much better hunters. A bear could tear any human limb from limb. I see no need to continue. Without our intelligence we are nothing. Therefore, an animal's life is identical to any human's life. We all are the same when you boil us down to our drives and abilities.
P.S. Because I don't want to argue this, it is known fact that animals have emotions. It is clearly obvious they have morals, that is why cats kill just to kill, and dogs don't. They clearly have some level of intelligence otherwise they couldn't survive. Finally, if they didn't have the drive to survive, they wouldn't be here any more.

2) I have already shown how animals and humans (and obviously children) have identically important lives. Therefore, the abuse of an animal IS identical to the abuse of a child.

Please explain how the abuse of an animal is less significant than the abuse of a child. I would also like to point out that in my opinion, considering the abuse of a child to be more significant than the abuse of an animal is morally crooked.

Trust me, I know humans are in the circle of life. As I've already stated, I am a hunter. My opponent's argument here is completely void seeing as how it only works with his definition of abuse. When I issued this challenge, I provided guidelines for what abuse would be in this debate. Even so, when a mountain lion kills a "fluffy woodland critter", it is making the kill for survival. It is not acting as Michael Vick and only killing for sadistic pleasure. Vick killed his dogs if they lost a fight. Leading up to their inevitable premature death, he would starve, torture, and beat them. He also needed to torture and ultimately kill non-fighter dogs in order to train his fighters that would satisfy his sadistic desires. An animal killing an animal for survival is significantly different than an animal killing an animal for sadistic pleasures.

Please re-address my first contention as your original rebuttal is completely void.

While this argument may be calling for emotion, it is a valid argument. Yes, an animal IS an animal. Thank you for saying that. We, humans, are animals. Therefore you have helped my point. Your younger brother or sister is an animal, and therefore should have the same treatment as one. The opposite is true as well, when it comes to abuse, the abuse of any animal should be punished in the same way as the abuse of any other animal. Therefore, the abuse of a child should be the same as the abuse of a dog. Finally, it is very offensive to hear my opponent calling a dog dirty. My dog is VERY clean, as are most dogs I've met. In fact, from what I've seen, the cleanliness of a dog has a direct correlation to the cleanliness of the owner. This applies with all pets I've seen. FYI, some people are MUCH dirtier than even the dirtiest animal I've seen. So, if dirty makes one insignificant when abuse is dealt with, then there are some humans much lower on the pecking list than many animals. As I've already stated, I don't care about the moral you've outlined because mine are different.

I've already shown how animal life is equal to a human life. My biggest point, once again, is that humans ARE animals. THAT is a HUGE reason as to why animal abuse should be the same as human abuse. Finally, if anything is demeaning to humans and human life, it is the opinion that we are the most significant animals on the planet. This arrogance is the first step to the destruction of the human species.

I have already shown my superior case in my opponent's conclusion. His hunting argument is negated mostly by the fact that I DID outline abuse in this debate, and hunting is not considered abuse for this debate. I have provided many reasons why humans=animals. The most significant being the fact that humans ARE animals. Finally, the guidelines for abuse my opponent chose to ignore, or just plain missed, show that slaughterhouse employees would not be jailed.

Vote Pro to stop the abuse.
Vote Con for faux morals.

Thank you.


I would like to thank my opponent again for replying to my arguments.

My opponent starts off by claiming hat he provided the guidelines for the debate, therefore we must use it? I explained why your definition of animal abuse is hypocritical because you value the life of an animal only if it is being taken for entertainment. Abuse is not limited by the intentions of the abuser, or else we would be living in a very different world. The simple fact is, killing IS abuse. That is not even a hard concept to fathom, but my opponent is bent on thinking that his guidelines for the debate should be used without defending it. I would like to inform my opponent that if he does not like difference of opinions and defending his statements, he should not get into debate, because that is a basic foundation of good debate. Moving on.

My opponent says that killing for food or survival, is morally correct. I would only admit maybe .01% of the entire hunting population hunts to survive. Now let us look at this from the world view of the aff. The aff has claimed that children and animals should be treated EQUALLY! So, let us look at children equally to animals.

Imagine, you are huddled in the forest with your hunting partner. You have done this hundreds of times, you are a big advocate of hunting. Your resolve is strong, and your aim is deadly. Jut then you see it. A wild child, grazing on a patch of grass. You both see it. Slowly and quietly you creep up behind to get a better look. And then you see it. The most beautiful specimen of child you have ever seen. Blonde hair, blue eyes, it must have been only ten years old. You aim down the sight right at the heart, you do not want to shoot the head because you want to mount it on your wall. Steady.... Aim.... FIRE!!

Seriously? Treat children in the same way as animals? Am I the honestly the only one who sees a real problem with this? Even thinking that children are equal to animals is an insult to the complexity of our species. My opponent seems to think that since they both have emotions, inste facto they must be identical. Do not fall for this logical fallacy. Animals feel no remorse for killing one another, the only reason why humans do is because are moral creatures, animals are not. I am aware that animals have feelings, but not morals. Morals is a concept held by humans alone.

Every animal is equal just like every cell phone is equal and every car is equal. They are not, just like most animals are not equal to one another unless the only scale you use is "we all have feelings." Very astute observation, however this does nothing to prove your point as per my "child hunting scenario." I dare you to name one animal more significant than humans. We have dominated the planet. Our domination of the planet isn't necessarily a good thing, but if nothing else, it shows our dominance over all other life.

So, in conclusion, if we look at animals the same way we look at our children, it demeans the very existence of our species. I have stated that my opponent needs to defend his guidelines, not just turn a blind eye to his own false views. If he advocates the hunting of animals, and thinks animals ought to be treated the exact same as children, and vice versa, then he has some inconsistencies to answer to. He also just has dropped my arguments about hunting and slaughterhouses becoming illegal as a result to the abuse that occurs there simply because he does not want to accept it as abuse.

Vote Pro for ignorance
Vote Con for enlightenment
Debate Round No. 2


I will make this short and sweet. I started the debate. I set guidelines. You accepted the debate and with it the guidelines. I recognize that punishing people for everything in your definition is ludicrous. THAT IS WHY I SET GUIDELINES! I don't need to defend them because I said that they were going o be used in the beggining. End of story.
Now, wih hunting I never used a moral argument, they are subjective and weak. You say you would admit only .01% of the population hunts to survive. Where is the proof for this? I have proof that 100% hunts to survive. According to Webster's dictionary, survival is "a : the act or fact of living or continuing longer than another person or thing b : the continuation of life or existence". Now, since hunters are living on, they are surviving.
Now, there are 2 problems with your scenario. The first is that what you described is trophy hunting, and of all the hunters I've met (that's a large number), not one of them approves of trophy hunting. The next problem is that you described, in essence, a deer hunt. In hunting deer, a trophy hunter, which you described, wants the biggest buck they can get. A large buck would be comparable to a fit, middle-aged man. A child, on the other hand, would be comparable to a fawn. Deer hunters don't hunt fawns.
A child Ian being treated the same as an animal, an animal is being treated like a child or adult (depending on age). A murderer feels no remorse for killing unless they are caught. A better example of this is terrorists. Also, according Webster's, morals are knowing the difference between right and wrong, so to say humans are the only animals with morals is extremely arrogant, and has no fact to support it.
I have already shown the fallacy in the "child hunting scenario". Now, you want an animal better than man? I'll give you six animals, man being one of them, and show you their area of overwhelming power.
Man - we have superior intellect and technology
Eagles - they have far superior eyesight
Leopard - they can out run everything else
Giant squid - they stay under water forever, and can live much deeper than we dare go
Kodiak - they have strength far superior to ours making them widely known
Coelacanth - they have managed to survive millions of years since the time of dinosaurs. We won't even survive half the time they did, we'll kill ourselves off
As you can see, we only dominate because our intellect and technology is superior. Without it we are the most under prepared animals on the planet. We have nothing without it, we wouldn't survive a year without Blackberries, iPods, air-conditioning, and 5 star eating establishments.
Maybe we need to take a step back and compare ourselves to the world. It would certainly help with our extreme arrogance.
I have defended my guidelines. I have shown no inconstancies, and I ignored hunting and slaughterhouses being abuse in this debate because I already said things such as those are NOT abuse in this debate.
In conclusion, Con needs to get his act together, accept the guidelines lain down at the start of this debate, and make a good refutal.

Now, here's what I think Con meant to say.

Vote Pro to stop unnecessary abuse.
Vote Con to turn a blind eye on our fellow animals that are suffering, and join the ranks of the average man as the Nazis of the animal kingdom.

FYI, I can defend those statements if you wan me to.


mageist24 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my opponent has forfeited, I extend m last argument as my closing statements.
As a closer to that, I have shown how most of my opponent's arguments fail either due to technical reasons (hunting scenario) or because he ignored the guidelines. He refuted nothing successfully while I refuted everything. I will offer my opinion of a point break down.

Agree before - It would be interesting to see.
Agree after - I would urge a vote for me here.
Conduct - I would urge a vote in my favor here because my opponent has forfeited a round.
Spelling and Grammar - I would urge a vote in my favor because I noticed many errors in my opponents posts.
More convincing arguments - I would have to urge a vote in my favor becaus my arguments were better, I had no hypotheticals, and my opponent forfeited a round.
Sources - I would urge a tied vote here because we I said that I used one dictionary. The rest of my information was common knowledge. The citation from another debate doesn't count in my opinion. My opponent cited one source, a dictionary, and even though it made no difference really because his definition was nonapplicable to this debate, he still cited something.
Once again, these are my opinions. You don't have to select these vote options, but I urge that you do.
One last note, if my opponent forfeits this round, I will be voting. If he makes a post thn I might not vote.
Thank you for following this debate.

Vote Pro to stop unnecessary abuse.
Vote Con to turn a blind eye on our fellow animals that are suffering, and join the ranks of the average man as the Nazis of the animal kingdom.


mageist24 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
As I said, a second forfeit antagonized my vote.
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
I can't enter my argument right now because I don't have time, but my guidelines for abuse still flow through. I don't need to defend them. I started this debate, and while I realize that abuse can encompass many more things than I am referring to, I said that for THIS DEBATE abuse would be referring to beating, torturing, or killing for entertainment. I don't care what the definition says, you should have read more carefully. I would have been fine if you wanted to back out because you didn't like the guidelines, but you accepted the debate, and with it, the guidelines.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 7 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 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50