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

Those who face animal charges regarding animal abuse/killings should face harsher sentencing.

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 85375
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Hello there, welcome to this debate. First off, I want to make this a two round debate.
24 hours to argue each round with a max of 10,000 characters.
First round is acceptance and arguments, and second round is rebuttals and clarification.

I am on the pro side for the contention that people should face more severe sentencing when it comes to animal abuse, especially if one was to kill a animal. I realize this needs to be narrowed down because of hunting and all the other things. So to limit the animals we will be debating over, they will consist of dogs, cats, and wild endangered animals.

Argument 1. Animals are of more value than we place on them.

To start this off, I think the majority would agree that we do not value animal life as much as we should, especially our own pets. It's so bad that we give people who kill their pets, or neighbors pets a light sentence that is under a year. Yes, if you go and kill your neighbors dog, you'll only receive at least 6 months in jail and I find that highly wrong on different accounts regarding A: The killing of the animal B: The crime does not fit the sentencing and C: The morality of preferring our own over animals

To give you an idea, animals can be used for many things, dogs can be used to search for drugs, bombs, protection, hunting, blindness, and other health reasons, and overall just many different things. Dogs can also be better companions than humans, and even more likeable at times cause the dog for the most part is loyal and always by your side. The dog can sometime sense how you feel on good or bad days and is happy to see you generally when you come home from work. I'd say just this alone is all taken for granted by most owners and people for what dogs are capable of.

I'd argue and say dogs, even cats can be smarter than some humans. They can go outside when it's cold and come right back in due to it being so cold. While they may not have a basic understanding of what's wrong from right (even some humans clearly don't) they do know sometimes the consequences of their actions. For example horse racing and training. Trainers normally use whips on horses to teach them to go faster, or to teach them other things. So all it takes is waving your whip in front of the horse to make it go faster, and scare it. Animals can be trained like that, so we really undervalue their feelings that they cannot express like we do, and by no fault of their own, they therefore are discarded like trash when they die.

So to me, we undervalue animals greatly and do not appreciate them as much as we should. Again by animals, I mean dogs, cats, endangered species and such although all animals in the animal kingdom are nearly worth arguing for but the others are sadly excluded for this debate because I do not want to get into the hunting arguments about hunters and their morality of killing animals for the sport, trophy, food and such. I highly doubt a good number of hunters even eat what they kill, especially coon hunters, but that's irrelevant for this debate, now to get back on track I want to go over some other arguments.

Argument 2: People who abuse animals, and kill them are far more likely to be a danger to society.

This argument here is something I believe most would agree on, but the thing is, it should be looked at when you argue these debates because it's something very important that easily gets overlooked. People who abuse animals seem to get more violent in the end, and that abuse begins to find its way onto other people seeing that they are just given slaps on the wrist when it comes to animals charges. This teaches them basically nothing wrong from right and gives them little time to even think about what they done as they soon go back home within a year more aggressive than ever before due to being in jail which probably most likely placed them in the general jail population and offered them no mental evaluations and care that they truly need but I'll talk more about that soon.

Would you want your kids near someone who beats the hell out of animals day after day and tortures them? There was a guy who tortured his girlfriends dog for months on end before finally killing it and only got a sentence under a year and got out with threats that he will soon find and kill her. There are tons of these stories if you search the net.

Both the first two arguments can be linked together.

Argument 3: I believe these people who do such horrible things to these animals need longer sentencing. I do not want to say give them life although personally, I wouldn't feel sorry for them, but give them at least up to 15 years and place them in the mental solitary to be evaluated. Reason being, it's a fact that prisons and such do not really rehabilitate inmates or a good majority of them, especially violent inmates. Tests from the Pelican Bay prison show the inmates who were extremely violent and stuck into the Shu/hole program and got moved to a mental solitary isolation with a little more freedom but care and treatments progressed well enough to make it back into the general inmate popular with the exception of 2007 I believe where a inmate came out from the mental institution and murdered another inmate but the majority of the psychological treatments and talks daily helped improved most inmates.

A short sentencing for something of domestic violence means nothing to the inmate and only fuels them to be more aggressive. A longer sentencing would keep society safer for longer, and give the inmate more time. As I said a lot of inmates don't get rehabilitated from being in prison, but those who are in longer have a different outlook than someone who walks right back after in a few months after getting in.

I also offered the thought of putting them into the mental solitary program which has been beneficial to most inmates in which I'd say is a entire other discussion and something the US should strive for as it creates more job opportunities, and helps better the inmate as a person with some exceptions but again, that's another debate for another day.

Now one of the things I didn't touch on was B, and C at the very beginning of my debate. To refresh your memory, I said that B: The crime does not fit the sentencing and C: We have more so a double standard and hold a high morality of our own kind.

When you punch someone, you go to jail whether it be a day, month or a few months but when you kill someone, you typically face life or death. Well, when it comes to animals, the sentencing is laughable and depressing all at the same time because it just shows how much we do not care as people for the animal who was abused or killed in the worst way possible. How is torturing an animal for a week straight, and setting it on fire only like a 6 month sentencing? If this was a human, the murderer would be sentenced to death in most causes for those gruesome crimes.

Are we really that much better than these animals all of a sudden? Animals that can be loyal, and friendly, and caring for their owners, and can behave better if taught to? Last I checked, humans were animals, just highly developed. We belong in the mammal kingdom too, so to say we aren't animals is quite comical to me but look at how high we hold our own standards to not even consider the thought of us being animals?

An animal shouldn't be treated like dirt because it's different. That goes for people too, but I digress. Animals like dogs and cats can express emotion and so much more. They too fear for their well being when danger is present. They too want to have a life without suffering just like us, but the difference is they aren't as developed and just look at how horrible some of these cases truly are. You have a guy breaking and entering someones home and slaughters their pet that does not belong to him. He should face more severe charges than just a year, he could have killed the owners if you think about it if they were present. Yet we give him less than a year in 90% of the cases knowing he will soon go back to his ways and do it all over again. Why is that? Just cause we are more developed?
We're still animals, we got no right to think we are better, and I think if animals could talk and have the same brain as we do, they'd build a social construct and find new morale in life, but of course we will never know that for an extremely long time although there have been studies that show how animals can form pacts and have a certain leadership and loyalty in place.

So let's just give our human kind a slap on the wrist, send him back out. That doesn't fit the crime he did, especially if it were a more gruesome crime and can you imagine the fear of these animals that get abused and killed from these sick monsters?

Just because we developed doesn't mean we aren't animals, and some people clearly show they can be such animals and need to be treated like one.
The argument and rebuttal against this is well, animals kill one another and that is fine but you are complaining about us killing them? Yes I am. Animals kill others because they do not know no better, and aren't trained well yadda yadda but I'll get more into this in round 2 cause whoever accepts this challenge will come swinging with this argument an rebuttal.

To close this round. I made more than enough arguments for why animals should be considered near even terms when it comes to humans and why it's bad just to give humans a slap on a wrist that abuse them. There are tons more arguments that can be made but I'll end this round on a high note by saying: "Do unto others as you would want them to do to you".


Pro begins by stating that they think the majority of people agree that we do not value animal life as much as we should. Aside from the fact that assuming the majority is right is a fallacy in itself, the real issue here is that if the majority of people thought this then the value system which the majority use would be valuing animals high enough in the first place which renders the point moot.

Pro goes on to explain how animals can be used for many things but forgets that not only can humans be used for many more things (which suggests they are worth more according to Pro's own logic) but furthermore that being useful, likeable or loyal do not make someone's life matter more or less than another's in the eye of the law. That would be like saying that the murderer of someone who is unemployed should have a lesser sentence than someone who killed a CEO or army general. If Pro believes this then they must justify it in a clear manner which I do not feel as if they have done and cannot see any indication of an attempt at.

Pro says that dogs and cats can be smarter than some humans, they are quite literally stating that mentally disabled and severely mentally disordered humans should be considered more deserving of murder and abuse than a dog or cat and that the sentence one receives for harming the mentally challenged individual should reflect this. They didn't justify this in any way but merely implied it was what they wished society would make happen.

There is absolutely nowhere in the entire concept of law and justice that states that if you do a crime to a more useful member of society, the moral implication of what you did should render you less punishment. The only thing that ever can lead to a reduced sentencing is if the manner of the crime and psychological status of the criminal show significant implications of them being far less malicious and willing to become law abiding than an average criminal.

The second point Pro makes is that people who abuse animals and kill them are more likely to be a danger to society. What I don't understand here is that this is a relative statement and has no anchor against which to compare the adjective. More likely to be dangerous to society than who? The entire argument merely explains how abusing animals and killing them are more prone to violence than those who do not (the use of 'and' actually exempts people who do one without the other from the argument).

I would just like to point out a counter-case to what Pro stated. If we take an abuser of an animal and an abuser of a human being there is probably similarity between them psychologically. On the other hand, if Pro honestly is suggesting that a farmer is on the same level of danger to society as a serial killer simply due to the fact that they imprison and slaughter animals regularly, then there is a lot of justification that they owe us.

Pro asks the question if I would want my kids near someone who beats the hell out of animals day after day and tortures them and my answer is that I would definitely rather them near that person than near someone who abuses or kills humans, especially children. I also think that such a person likely is physically strong and has good reflexes so I wouldn't mind them being a bodyguard of some kind for my children whether professionally or just as a favor. I'd trust an animal abuser to keep my daughter safe on a night out far more than I would a timid John Doe.

Argument 3 is not an argument, it is Pro's personal opinion and bias portrayed to somehow justify itself which it fails to in any way whatsoever. Pro made up a random time of sentence and justified it purely by his/her own feelings on the matter.

The rest of Pro's debate is simply ranting about their opinion without any substantial justification given for it whatsoever.

In conclusion, Pro has proven nothing at all and simply has assumed that they are in line with the majority which is self-evidently wrong as if the majority agreed with Pro, they would be in support of the status quo and yet they are the one challenging it.
Debate Round No. 1


Con has completely ignored the stipulations of the debate as I clearly said in round one that round one was just for opening arguments, and NOT rebuttals. The con does not give his arguments at all as to why he disagrees with the subject but constantly attacks every point I make and tries to rebuttal although that was for round 2. Therefore, I cannot rebuttal anything cause he gave no arguments for round 1 but can only continue to provide clarification for my arguments.

Please vote pro.

Now, as I was saying, animals should be held to more value than what they are thought of now. That does not imply anywhere that I value animals more than humans, but simply implies what it's meant to imply which is animals should have more value. I clearly demonstrated animals provide many uses, they can search for bombs, provide protection, and so forth. I did not hear a rebuttal to this fact from the con ironically enough as he seemed to try to attack everything else, but this point I am making goes back to animals should have more value, and seeing how useful they are, I think people take that for granted, and like I said, just because they aren't humans, doesn't mean you should trash them and care less.

I mean there is entire organizations that care for animals, to me, they are worthy of caring for. The con attacks my post when I claim that humans who abuse animals and kill them are more of a danger to society. The con says practically it does not have a meaning to this debate, but he i wrong because IT DOES, and allow me to explain why. First off, the title of this debate is those who abuse animals and kill them should face harsher sentencing, if you tie that to this statement I made that people who do such things to animals are more likely to be a danger to society, it goes hand and hand, and I find it crazy to believe the con cannot see that and at this point think he is just irrationally attacking everything without much thought, and cherry picking.
I would argue that his statement he made is irrelevant when he says and I quote "Pro asks the question if I would want my kids near someone who beats the hell out of animals day after day and tortures them and my answer is that I would definitely rather them near that person than near someone who abuses or kills humans, especially children. I ". The topic is not about humans abusing other humans at all, but it's worth addressing because I think if you were to put the two different abusers and have one babysit your child, everyone would undoubtedly pick the animal abuser over the human abuser but that's completely irrelevant to this debate, and furthermore only proves my point when I say that humans value their own kind, and hold themselves above all animals and have these double standards. The con here is exactly proving my points and does not even realize it.

And of course it's an opinion when i say "I think those who abuse animals should get a harsher sentence" but provide enough arguments as to why by illustrating animals self worth is more than we take it for. Obviously this judicial system is messed up when someone who gets caught for weed and such gets a felony and a longer sentence than someone who is a registered sex offender. Yes, the system is obviously in the need of a rework here. Luckily weed is becoming legal, but that's irrelevant but more so a quick point I want to make which is how the judicial system is flawed and I believe giving these sick twisted humans who do horrible things to animals a slap on the wrist is flawed. It needs a rework because the human is obviously mental and crazy if he is doing sickening things to a animal, and it's proven already by many accounts these animal abusers later turn to domestic violence in their households, again the con here is trying to argue that is not so. It's a good argument to why these guys need longer sentences, maybe even good rehabilitation while they are in jail or prison.

Now let me clarify that I am not a big support of PETA, and do not like them much, but am just going to list them as a source to my argument about humans who abuse animals later turn to domestic violence.
Not just this link, but there is a ton online to be found that support my argument, and it's true. Imagine a kid who breaks house rules all the time, now he is going to keep on breaking rules, and maybe even break bigger rules and get into more trouble until he is punished. A timeout isn't going to cut it. These animal abusers get far more worse day after day when they abuse animals, you think a slap on the wrist is going to change their ways? Of course not.
This website here almost perfectly tells you why animal abusers need tougher sentences. It also backs my argument that humans who abuse animals again turn to domestic violence and lists serial killers such as Jeffery Dahmer as a animal abuser before he murdered people, and other serial killers. A pretty good statistics of animal abuse cases among other types of animal abuse in the US. I mean, these cases clearly show that there are practically a ton of animal abusers in the US, and crime organizations that put dogs vs dogs in a fight to the death and you know why? Because they don't get tougher sentences laid upon them, and these cases grow more and more each year.

So given that people turn to domestic violence on humans after abusing animals, and given that the judicial system itself is in the need of a rework and how we devalue animals as trash, these abusers really do need tougher sentences. Again, that doesn't mean life sentences although like I said in round 1 I wouldn't care, but something needs to be done about these people who like the children analogy go back to their ways of breaking the rules.

Seeing that the con has not gave any arguments, as stated clearly in round 1 rules, his entire first round should be thrown out because this round 2 would have been my rebuttals against his opening arguments as to why humans should NOT get a harsher sentence.


GenuineLiar forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by GenuineLiar 9 months ago
Well I realized you were an angry blogger and angry people are a pain to argue with. :)

I easily could have won if I cared about beating you but I'd rather pacify you so you leave me alone.
Posted by AngryBlogger 9 months ago
Looks like my oppnent decided to concede the final round of the debate.
He ignored the ground rules of acceptance/opening arguments only in first round
never did provide his own arguments as to why people do not need harsher sentences regarding this topic
also never responded back to my clarifications and arguments in round 2, and conceded.

Vote pro.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 9 months ago
also tbh I see you value animals as much as humans. The problem is if you are a Christian like me and you believe we have a soul and animals don't you kind of in a sense have to value humans a bit more.
I don't agree with dogs having equal value as humans partly because of genesis 3 however I can agree that people who beat animals tend to be deadly and maybe a harsher sentence in some cases is needed. Will watch this debate since I agree with the resolution really.
Posted by MikeTheGOd 9 months ago
tbh I think 6 months in jail for killing a dog is a lot. I thought it was less tbh.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Forever23 8 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff by con
Vote Placed by Ritik33jain 9 months ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff