The Instigator
Bri_Nicole
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
LtnDog
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Animal Hunting should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,286 times Debate No: 54907
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Bri_Nicole

Con

Most people think that animal hunting is hurting the environment and should be banned. I believe that hunting should not be banned. A lot of people believe that people hunting animals for food will eventually cause extinction of our animals however, there are strict laws for hunters and how many animals they are allowed to take. Hunting goes way back in history. A few thousand years ago, hunting was the only way we knew. It was one of the only thing we could do to survive. Today, hunting is considered a sport. Hunters still need to eat and some of them hunt because they would rather harvest their own venison rather then buying it from the store. Some hunters prefer the taste of wild game then animals who have been raised on a farm and feed steroids and other chemicals. Other people simply may not be able to afford to buy meat from the store, therefore they fend for themselves by hunting. Hunting is often considered a tradition and is passed down from generation to generation.
LtnDog

Pro

You started by saying how hunting is not harming the environment. 13 Animals have gone extinct due to the effects of hunting including The Dodo Bird, the Tasmanian Tiger, Passenger Pigeons, The Great Auk, The Quagga, The Falkland Island Wolf, The Zanzibar Leopard, The Caribbean Monk Seal, The Carolina Parakeet, The Atlas Bear, The Toolache Wallaby, The Sea Mink, and The Bubal Hartebeest. Many more animals are becoming extinct due to hunting. The Pangolin is a cat-sized creature that is described as a "Miniature Dinosaur" by one of CNN's publishers, John D. Sutter. Pangolin are hunted and trafficked every year by the thousands. It is said that their scales are boiled off and used as medicine, their meat is a delicacy in Vietnam and China, their blood is said to be a healing toxin. None of those have been scientifically proven. The beloved tiger, an animal that many see as a noble and stunning creature is being hunted to extinction for their fur and bones. You also claim that a few thousand years ago, hunting was the only way. This is the twenty-first Century, and we have more effective methods than hunting wild animals. We have farms where we have non-endangered animals including cows, chickens, and more. We also grow many plants thanks to modern science. If you got lost in the woods for three days, then I would understand the need to survive any means necessary. If you are living in a community where there are farms and stores, then there is no reason to hunt wild animals in their natural habitats. You call it a sport, then I call you a phsycopath. The claim that someone cannot buy meat from a store is false. You can either get a job, go for unemployment, or get food stamps from the government that hands them out for whoever needs them. You call hunting a tradition between generations, but some traditions are not meant to last forever. It was less a tradition and more survival two thousand years ago. This is the modern age, and we do not live in a barbaric society anymore. Things have changed, and that means so will some traditions.
Debate Round No. 1
Bri_Nicole

Con

Okay, so it's is not scientifically proven. If we stop hunting these animals, will we ever be able to prove if the method may work? There goes an idea of potentially saving some one else's live because now we can't get the resources. If we do stop hunting, we will eventually face the consequences of overpopulation. Some of the animals being hunted are chickens, cows, turkeys and more. The same exact animals that are being caged on farms, killed, and sold in the store to buy. So either way, theses animals are still facing death. According to the International Association Of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, There wouldn"t be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. This means that outdoorsman are doing most of the funding so we can enjoy other activities. According to a special positions paper,
$746 million " Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen"s licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies

** $300 million " Additional money contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

** $4.2 billion " Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money.
Here"s what all this translates into" The needs of wild animals " especially endangered and threatened species " are immeasurably better served by the millions of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters" dollars are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive forces facing wildlife of all types today.

Call me a psychopath if you want. Hunting Is a sport. Learn more here https://www.wildlife.ca.gov... http://www.ncwildlife.org...
LtnDog

Pro

We will be able to prove it if we try to stop hunting, but we haven't tried. Thus we may never know. The animals that are currently on farms are not endangered, and that is why we have them there. I'm talking about animals that are highly endangered, and may go extinct before they are recognized. There are less than 700 Pangolins, there are less than 3,200 tigers left, and there are 29,000 Rhinos left today. These places to hike, bike, and more would still exist. You just deter the biggest, and more dangerous, animals from finding their way on to those areas. The funds generated for hunting help pay for these lands, then that means no real funds go towards more important things like schools, roads, and other public necessities that the U.S. government is always trying to find money for. Hunting, tracking, killing, and disturbing animals in Their environments is not a good step towards keeping endangered animals alive. The tiger is a predator that if it were not hunted, it would be able to expand its population. Biking is a sport, football is a sport, basketball is a sport, many more thing are sports. Hunting is killing. Killing is meant for survival, not for sport.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
I can't lol. I don't have my voting privileges.
Posted by LtnDog 2 years ago
LtnDog
I agree, and those invasive species are being controlled when they become a problem. Be sure to vote! :)
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Dodo bird went extinct because 'someone' thought it was funny to batter their heads as a sport. Lots of contradictions within Con. The chances of overpopulation merely involves invasive species only, but local species do have a chance, but their numbers soon diminishes due to darwin's theory.
Posted by Dilara 2 years ago
Dilara
It should be banned. It's cruel and immoral to kill an innocent animal.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater369 2 years ago
KingDebater369
Bri_NicoleLtnDogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe Pro had better arguments
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Bri_NicoleLtnDogTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con presented a case that included regulation to ensure that overhunting doesn't occur. Pro's main argument seemed to be overhunting, but Con had already addressed it and, further, that argument as Pro presents it only applies to endangered animals, *not* generally, as the motion is phrased. As such, arguments to Con. Conduct was equal enough. S&G was likewise. Sourcing was almost nonexistent. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.