There should be harsher punishments for animal abusers.

Thank you for challenging me again to this debate. I look forward to a great time. First of all my opponent failed to define animal abuse yet set standards for which animal abuse should be looked at as. I offer the following definition Animal Cruelty is defined as --- inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... This definition is important to the round because my opponent makes an observation that "keeping pets and killing animals for food are not classified as abuse. " My definition completely contradicts this because abuse is something that is not defined to a few circumstances because the abuse of animals can also be classified under killing them, for taking the life of an animal is truly the most serious and vile forms of abuse. So let us proceed to my case. Contention FUN (one): Abuse? Or Excuse? The abuse of animals is considered a very serious subject and is taken into high regard. Do you know why that is? Because most people do not get a kick from hurting innocent animals. However, the majority of abuse that happens to animals is completely LEGAL, I will assume that you will make all these forms of abuse that are current legal illegal. This includes, but is not limited to hunting, meat grinders, and animal slaughterhouses. Each of these abuse animals in their own way. Hunting abuses animals by taking their life away, meat grinders do the same but in a very inhumane fashion, and animal slaughterhouses do not even properly feed and take care of animals before the genocide of species begins. And if you are not advocating the legality of these things, then how on earth do you draw the line between abuse of animals in homes, or out in the wild? What makes an animal being killed in ones home any different than you killing an animal in broad daylight? The honest answer is that there is no difference, except for the intentions of hurting that animal. And if you are arguing for these things to become illegal, then this economic impact that would be had in our country is immeasurable. Our food, hunting, and fishing industries would be seriously reduced if not completely eliminated in America. That is surely not something our country needs right now. Contention 2 The punishments for abusing animals My opponent says that we need to increase the punishment of animal abuse to the same level as child abuse. However, what he does not mention is that one of the punishments he is advocating is serious jail time, because that is what happens in most child abuse cases. My opponent also fails to do two things to prove this point. To win the debate, he must prove these two things 1) The life of an animal is identically important to the life of a child in every way. 2) The abuse of animals is just as wrong as abusing a child. Either way, even just arguing that abusing a child is just as bad as abusing an animal is morally crooked, and I cannot wait for the response of my opponent. Contention 3: Humans are the predators. This point is simple. Humans are predators just like lions and tigers are predators, yet my opponent does not want to make the abuse between mountain lions and innocent cute fluffy woodland critters illegal because that would be just silly. So my opponent needs to prove the difference between humans killing an animal and a lion killing an animal as the predator. The circle of life includes humans, believe it or not. Onto my opponents case. Point 1: My first contention addresses this. You are not just advocating people not being able to own animals or not. Even if you are not aware of it, you are advocating the serious incarceration of these people, and you need to prove why this is morally acceptable. Point 2: This argument is calling for the emotion of it's readers, and I actually got pretty offended when I first read this. An animal is an animal. There are no two ways about it. Comparing my little brother or sister to a filthy dog, rat, or pig is insane and you need more than fallacious arguments with absolutely no warrant to back up such a morally crooked statement. Point 3: There is no kindness in abusing animals? !? !? ! I AM SHOCKED! ! Seriously who didn't know that? My second contention addresses this argument. To win this debate you need to show me why animals are important enough to be regarded with such reverent that the life of an animal would equal the life of a human AND WHY THIS DOES NOT DEMEAN HUMAN LIFE.