There should be harsher punishments for animal abusers.

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.