The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Animal Hunting Should Be Illegal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 899 times Debate No: 41297
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




Round 1- Acceptance and Rules
Round 2- Opening Statements
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Cross Examination
Round 5- Rebuttals and Conclusions

Cross Examination Rules:
- At the beginning of Round 4, I, the Pro will give a series of questions (Max 7 due to character limitations) for the Con to answer in their turn of Round 4. As the Con replies, he may ask a maximum of 7 questions that will be answered in Pro's Round 5 argument. No rebuttals, simply questions and answers.

Thanks! I am looking forward to debating you without the distractions!

- The definition of hunting that will be accepted and used throughout the debate will be as follows, "the activity of hunting wild animals or game" with game defined as "any animal hunted for food or not normally domesticated"
Use resources when needed and try not to create hypothetical situations unless necessary to make your point known


Yeah, sorry about the pest killing. Don't know why I mentioned that.
I accept
Debate Round No. 1


Argument 1: Humans Drive Animals to Extinction
"The animal became the target of a brutal extermination campaign after many island natives believed the leopards were kept by witches to menace their fellow villagers. [1]" This is an example of one of the ten animals that humans have hunted to the point of extinction. The animal in the quote, the Zanzibar Leopard, was hunted to extinction just because the inhabitants believed that these animals were kept by witches to menace the villagers. Other animals that face extinction, or are extremely close to extinction due to humans, include crocodiles (simply because of their skin) and Great White Sharks (simply because their fins create a delicacy- shark fin soup)[2]. Hunting animals to extinction causes huge fluctuations in balance and biodiversity [3]. [3] shows a specific example -- the gray wolf. With a mass killing, the gray wolf's typical prey such as raccoons, coyotes, etc overpopulated the area and I'm sure pestered the people who killed off the wolves. This shows the severe consequences of hunting, therefore showing that it should be illegal.

Argument 2: Hunting For Sport is Immoral and Uneccessary [4]
"A study of 80 radio-collared white-tailed deer found that of the 22 deer who had been shot with “traditional archery equipment,” 11 were wounded but not recovered by hunters."
I will admit that this source is PETA, a known animal rights advocate, but that does not devalue their information. The quote shows that there were deers that were injured and not killed that were not recovered by the hunters. How is it moral to leave a hurt animal on the ground with a wound that they cannot heal themself? "For animals such as wolves, who mate for life and live in close-knit family units, hunting can devastate entire communities. The stress that hunted animals suffer—caused by fear and the inescapable loud noises and other commotion that hunters create—also severely compromises their normal eating habits, making it hard for them to store the fat and energy that they need in order to survive the winter." So not only does it physically hurt the animal, it can scare the animal and ruin its family units/packs much like said with the wolves.

In Conclusion,
The effects on animals by hunting, whether for sport or survival, constitutes that hunting should not be legal. It has both moral and physical downfalls as hunting can lead to animal extinction, thus leading to a fluctuation in balance and biodiversity.


Thanks, your go!


Argument 1: Population control is necessary.
It's a wildlife management tool. Although nature has naturally balanced the eco-system for the strong to prey on the weak, industrialisation, environmental destruction, and many other causes has affected the wildlife/food chain. Hunting helps balance wildlife populations with what the land can support, and limits crop damage.
Ever heard of overpopulation? The whitetail deer is one of them. First off, it's in the least concern conservation status. Second off, they were hunted to endangered, and thanks to the EFFORT OF HUNTERS AND RULES AND REGULATIONS, they have thrived to the point where their population went over 30 million. (Citation at the end.) What these deer are essentially doing are damaging crops, eating tree-seedlings, and reducing the possibility of certain regions of forests regrowing in the region.
What this will impact are not only the forest itself, but the other living organisms in the area.
I agree on your position entirely that hunting has driver certain animals to extinction. However, it has been shown that with strict regulations and conservation efforts animals can make a comeback again to the point that they overpopulate and even become a nuisance, as shown with the white tail deer.
As for the inhumane ways of killing the deer in your PETA source, the deer are actually affecting humans in car crashes. Over 1.5 million deer and vehicle crashes in 2003, and injuring about 13,000 people. And are you aware of the meat industry? Slaughterhouses are killing pigs, cows, and chickens that are BRED SPECIFICALLY TO BE KILLED. Compared to that, these hunters are actually aware of what they are doing, and are simply defending their own human properties and rights. And really now, why is something we've been doing for thousands of years suddenly, "It's so inhumane"?

Argument 2: Some actually need it.
As I have mentioned in my earlier debate, tribes such as the inuit need it to hunt. They hunt for survival, and are granted special privileges to hunt whales, seals, etc. They are not doing it for sport, they need it. Not only that, it is a tradition they have been continuing for thousands of years, hence why they are isolated from modern society. If we were, to force them to quit their hunting activities, it would be simultaneously exterminating their traditions and their culture, AND leaving them to die because they have no food? Is this, ethical and humane? Exterminating a tribe's traditions and people that very few remained because of modernisation and the colonisation of america.
And please give me one example (EXCLUDING the tribe that drived the leopard to extinction) of a tribe/traditional group that has made an animal extinct.

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent argues that overpopulation is/should be regulated by hunting.
Let me not sound like I'm making a useless analogy, but there are 7 billion humans in the world. I realize that there may be distinct differences between an animal and a human, but does that make it right to control only the animals' populations? Humans consistently ruin the environment through pollutions and deforestation and ultimately ruins other enviroments, so why are humans allowed to damage resources but animals, which need this to survive, are not able to do this? Animals need other animals and crops to live, humans do not need to deplete this earth of its resources to live. Do I advocate hunting of humans by this statement? No, hunting should be illegal.
If you would like to debate thay humans are the smarter and superior of the species, refer to [1] stating that we are actually ranked #3 in this category.

"Slaughterhouses... BRED SPECIFICALLY TO BE KILLED... hunters are actually aware of what they are doing... defending their own human properties and rights."
Slaughterhouses, I must tell you, do not apply to the rule of hunting. Hunting applies to wild animals and game, animals that are not usually domesticated, that do not have constant contact with humans. You can argue that these animals are not domesticated, but you cannot reject the fact that they are adept to life surrounded by humans. Slaughterhouses get their produce from farms and breed them in the factory. But, like I said, this is not considered hunting. Also, I would like to point out that the slaughterhouse workers also know what they are doing and are just defending their right to live, if you want to talk about rights. However, I do not see how hunting correlates to human rights.
Let me explain this. Animals live off of the Earth while humans live in artificial homes with artificial electronics and artificial clothes. The basis of my argument is that animals live and depend on nature while humans live with artificiality. The inject hormones in animals and foods to grow them in order to get the most bang for their buck, persay.

My opponent argues that some people rely on hunting for survival.
While this is fact, does it overrule the statement that hunting should be illegal? Many of the people that rely on hunting live in the Arctic regions, and these peoples rely on hunting due to the impossibility of agriculture in their region. But, I ask the same question, does this overrule the fact that animal hunting should be illegal? I propose that it does not.
Now, as we all are aware, food does not start and end on your plate. Food comes from one place and is travelled to another to end up on your plate. Now, you stated that Inuits are dependent on hunting. That is true, but that can be easily changed if someone is willing to distribute food to their regions. The Inuits, therefore, are only reliant on hunting because they have no food being distributed to them as it is to us. To fix this problem, and in turn making hunting illegal under this consensus, we just need to distribute foods that help a healthy diet for these peoples.



*Ok, so your second link was broken. You might wanna check that out. Also, I'm not a hunter by nature, and if this topic was "SHOULD HUNTING BE ILLEGAL AS A SPORT" I would be with you.
You have stated that the inuit use alternative methods to obtain food. However, as I have stated before, it is part of their own tradition and have been doing this for thousands of years. IF, we were to distribute food to their regions it would result in the degradation in their culture. This is exactly the reason why they want to avoid this. They do not want their culture to degrade. If that commenced it would cause a whole new spectrum of problems. According to the inuit, it said that
"food sharing was necessary for the physical and social welfare of the entire group." Younger couples would give food from their hunt to the elders, most often their parents, as a sign of respect. Food sharing was not only a tradition, but also a way for families to make bonds with one another. Once you shared food with someone, you were in a "lifelong partnership" with them."
Because of the new stores available to the inuit (eg modernised food), the young people are consuming more and more junk food which is resulting in health problems such as obesity and teeth decay that western connivence has brought. So that answers your question of "sharing food to specific regions."

Furthermore, my opponent says humans are hypocritical for hunting animals while they are ruining the environment. "Does that make it right to control only the animals' populations?" Well.... sadly yes. But we have no choice. I hardly think it's possible to stop the ENTIRE deforestation, pollution, etc. I understand what you are implying. While we are destroying, pillaging, and causing ALL sorts of problems to the environment, why should we do that to animals? But you can't simply stop this immediately. Maybe in the future, cheaper energy sources will be discovered. But, we simply can't cease the entire modernised world that is necessary for our society to function. And don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this one, I am just saying that it is our only choice for now.... and hopefully only now.

Bennett, John, and Susan Rowley, eds. Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut. Canada: McGill-Queen's Univ. Press, 2004.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
Ysysgwbwkwu this was supposed to be 5 rounds wow
Posted by Bender75 3 years ago
People also need to feel how it feels to take another life off this planet and understand the severity/realness of it, something that isn't instilled anymore.
Posted by Bender75 3 years ago
I agree with shotime but I can't vote. He is right there are many regulations to modern day hunting hence why you need tags. A good Simple example of why hunting is needed is if a population of white tail deer Is let go they will reproduce like crazy to the point of and unbalanced ecosystem, inbreeding which also lead to genetic disorders, and easily spread diseases. Which one is better a hunter walking through the woods or what I named.Also some people like to not be cowards and get their own meat the real way unlike some people who want to get some farmer who raises cows that eat crap at a death farm to do it for them.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Numidious 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote pro, not because I agreed with him but because he clearly had stronger arguments here. His argument along the lines of humans are animals too I did not see refuted during the debate. Great arguments on both sides, though.
Vote Placed by dtaylor971 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Both made equal arguments, but for the small reasons, Pro comes out on top.