There should be harsher punishments for animal abusers.

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.