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

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.