The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Animal cruelty is involved in Pigeon shoots.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2015 Category: Sports
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 250 times Debate No: 82350
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Pro will contend for the resolution.
I Con will contend against the resolution.

Here's a video of a pigeon shoot for those unfamiliar. [1]

Animal cruelty definition "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival."[2]


"Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Harm is defined as "to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt:" killing a pigeon is causing harm, it damages the body of the bird. If the pigeon is not killed that would then be both suffering due to the pain of the injury and harm due to the damage of it. Pigeon shooting is cruelty to animals.
Debate Round No. 1


I will argue that pigeon shooting counts as self-survival and thus is not animal cruelty. Anyone who has watched the news knows of violent crimes and of war. Wielding a firearm and being well practiced with a firearm can help a person survive in this modern era. Pigeon shooting provides valuable target practice .

Unlike inanimate objects pigeons are more unpredictable. This is why target practice on pigeons, also known as pigeon shoots are key to human survival.


Your argument is that wielding a firearm is helpful in survival and an unpredictable target is required to get good at it. For practicing shooting you could purchase a remote controlled car or helicopter attach a target via flag attached to the helicopter or cardboard target on top of the car and have a friend drive it around while you shoot at the target thus making it an unpredictable moving target. In addition pigeon shooting is not done just by people learning to use a firearm it is also carried out by people who know how to use a firearm very well and do not require practice to use it effectively. Another thing to note is that guns are rarely used in self defense as reported here: There are also many people and households that do not have guns This shows that many people are surviving well without need for a gun much less very careful practice on animated targets.
Debate Round No. 2


"In 2012, across the nation there were only 259 justifiable homicides
involving a private citizen using a firearm" [1]

As you can see there were 259 cases in 2012 where a firearm was put to good use. Animals are a threat to humans too.

"Beagle"s, Dauschund"s, Labradors, and even Golden retrievers have killed humans." [2]

"Dogs 31
Spider 6.5
Rattlesnake 5.5
Mountain lion 1
Shark 1
Alligator 0.3
Bear 0.5
Scorpion 0.5
Centipede 0.5
Elephant 0.25
Wolf 0.1
Horse 20
Bull 3" [2]

As you can perceive a firearm and firearm training could have helped with this. The best way to defend oneself against an animal is target practice against live animals, in this case pigeon shoots. Therefore, pigeon shoots are not animal cruelty because target practice against live animals helps ensure human survival.


The population in the united states in 2012 and currently is over 300 million compared to those 300 million less than 300 justifiable homicides occurs less than one in a million people.
In the cases with animals a centipede, spider, or scorpion death could not be prevented with a gun as if they were seen in time to prevent could easily be stepped on or sprayed with insecticide. that leaves 62.65 animal deaths that could be prevented with a gun a year combining that with the justifiable homicides making it so that 321.65 making it just above a one in a million chance that you will need a gun to protect yourself. These odds are so low that it would not be considered necessary for survival further more if shooting pigeons to practice shooting animals for self defense were to be considered self defense in it's own by that logic shooting humans to practice shooting violent attackers for self defense would also be considered self defense on it's own. It is clear to most that the latter is not true as the human you were shooting was not a threat to you and it was not so necessary for your survival to shoot the human that it would be considered self defense. Add in these facts
Number of deaths: 2,596,993
Death rate: 821.5 deaths per 100,000 population
Life expectancy: 78.8 years
Infant Mortality rate: 5.96 deaths per 1,000 live births
Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 611,105
Cancer: 584,881
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
Diabetes: 75,578
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
found here
and practicing using a gun to the best of your abilities is the last thing you need to do to protect yourself. Instead if worried about survival one should take care of their health, keep on top of their medical records with constant check ups, go to therapy or consistently confide in someone when you are down and have someone check up on you all before worrying about practicing shooting a gun effectively. These deaths also do not include the many causes that are much more common than animal or human attacks that should be attended to first as well.
Debate Round No. 3


Claim 1: Animal cruelty is illegal. Warrant: "FBI Makes Animal Cruelty A Top-Tier Felony To Help Track Abuse"[1]

Warrant: "All 50 States Now Have Felony Animal Cruelty Provisions!" [2].

Claim 2: Nobody was arrested at the Inholfe fundraiser. Warrant: "Senator Inhofe's Live Pigeon Shoot Draws Criticism"[3].
Warrant: I know I am attempting to prove a negative, but if somebody was arrested surely it would have made the news.

Impact: Claim 2 is relevant because no laws were broken at the Inholfe fundraiser, if no laws are broken and claim 1 is true then logically pigeon shoots do not qualify as animal cruelty.

Impact: Jim Inholfe's fundraiser sets the precedence that pigeon shoots do not qualify as animal cruelty. The fact that this event is allowed without arrest and conviction proves that the felony animal cruelty did not take place.

Impact: If pigeon shoots were animal cruelty people would be in jail. The fact that people aren't going to jail for pigeon shoots shows that pigeon shoots are not animal cruelty.

Vote Con.


Claim 1 is incorrect. Not all animal cruelty is illegal. Factory farming is legal and is clearly very cruel to animals. It cannot be argued that this is for survival as there would be much more human survival had we all switched to a plant based diet instead of breeding farm animals that consume more crops than we would need we would have more food available and thus the food would sustain more people.

This proves that animal cruelty still goes on without legal infractions making the argument that because no one was arrested for pigeon shooting means it is not animal cruelty invalid as no one is arrested for factory farming when it is animal cruelty.

While claim 2 remains correct it's impact that if no laws were broken and animal cruelty is illegal pigeon shooting would be illegal is incorrect as not all animal cruelty is illegal.

This leaves us no ability to rely on the law as to what is considered animal cruelty. I feel my statements and facts presented earlier on in this debate are enough to conclude that pigeon shooting is animal cruelty.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CJames 11 months ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made more convincing arguments, in particular with the relation of gun use to hunting. In addition I found his sources to be of less questionable type, though both were clearly biased in their own way.