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

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. . http://www.peta.org... 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. . http://stories.avvo.com... 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. . http://www.humanesociety.org... 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.