There should be harsher punishments for animal abusers.

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.