The Instigator
Teen_driven_crazy
Pro (for)
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)

Animals should be protected, within reason

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Teen_driven_crazy has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 176 times Debate No: 96903
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Teen_driven_crazy

Pro

If you accept this then I am not arguing until round 2, so please just use this round to state your personal opinion on the subject. Animals should definitely be protected, and by "within reason" I mean not all becoming vegetarians but by improving farms and animal shelters.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I don't think animals are that huge of a worry. We can leave them behind.
Debate Round No. 1
Teen_driven_crazy

Pro

Sure we can leave them behind, if you don't want any more burgers or pepperoni/sausage pizza. Animals play an important role in our diet, and I don't think people want to be stuck eating bread and fruit all the time. Or what about pets? The wolves and cougars out in the wild are larger, wilder versions of your puppies and kittens, and I don't think anyone with a heart would want to just over hunt, fish, or farm animals until they are extinct.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I thank my opponent for continuing the debate. I'll begin my own argument now.

Argument:

The majority of animals are hostile to other creatures, like us humans. Some examples of hostile animals include: Wolves, Bears, Tigars, Lions, and Rhinocerouses. If we kill off these beasts, we'd be able to expand our territory. With all this extra territory, we'd be able to create new factories and research centers. Disease is a problem, especially cancer. And I don't see too many areas for extra houses, with our increasing populations. With extra territory, we'd be able to thrive, and make more hostpitals and homes. Crime's an issue too, so more police stations.

But what about the animals? Don't they have a big part in our society? Not really, except for hunting purposes. We'd still keep animal factories and farms, and perhaps put these in our new territory. But even if our farm animals get hunted to extinction, we've got plants. No more meat? I'll take an apple.

In conclusion, we should lower or remove the effectiveness of hunting restrictions so we can continue expanding our teritory, which we'd then build farms, factories, and hospitals in. If this leads to the extinction of farm animals, no worries. We've still got crops.

Anything my opponent wants to add?
Debate Round No. 2
Teen_driven_crazy

Pro

Your opponent does want to add something, thank you for continuing the debate. Have you no heart? It is that kind of thinking that starts wars. For example, take when Spain and Britain conquered the Americas. They pretty much considered the Native Americans animals, and slaughtered them as such. All so they could take control of the resources here in America, to "expand their territory". Imagine, if you will, a world where people have driven all predators to extinction, and are overhunting all prey animals. Just so they can build their factories. The thing is, saving places of wildlife drives to humanity to new discoveries. We could learn a lot just by studying the way ants and beavers build their houses, or how the animals in environments hostile to humans survive. Which could lead to us being able to survive on Mars(giving us much more population room than conquering all of Earth) or curing cancer. Do you want to give up barbeques, or hot dogs at baseball games? I highly doubt that we could find a vegan substitute that tastes the same. While you make a good argument about overpopulation and making more hospitals and police stations, the "beasts" you suggest we kill off are not actually hostile to humans unless provoked, or unless humans take away all their land and starve enough to be desperate to eat humans as food, which would be our own fault.
PowerPikachu21

Con

The debate continues. Let's delve into Rebuttals.

Rebuttal:

Pro's Round 2:

"Or what about pets?" They're not absolutely needed in society, though do bring comfort.

"The wolves and cougars out in the wild are larger, wilder versions of your puppies and kittens" I think this is an attempt at Appeal to Emotion, but it's weak. If it's wild, it's a threat.

"I don't think anyone with a heart would want to just over hunt, fish, or farm animals until they are extinct." The heart clouds judgement. It's a beast, which is hostile. Do you simply let it do whatever it wants? What about if you had a gun, and the beast is nearing you?

Pro's Round 3:

"Have you no heart? It is that kind of thinking that starts wars." I do have some heart, but I usually only use it for pumping blood through my body. By that, I mean I don't let emotions cloud my judgement.

"For example, take when Spain and Britain conquered the Americas. They pretty much considered the Native Americans animals, and slaughtered them as such. All so they could take control of the resources here in America, to "expand their territory"."

But animals are animals. The Native Americans are human. Though I do see where the Spanish came from, eliminating the natives in hopes for conquest.

"The thing is, saving places of wildlife drives to humanity to new discoveries. We could learn a lot just by studying the way ants and beavers build their houses, or how the animals in environments hostile to humans survive. Which could lead to us being able to survive on Mars(giving us much more population room than conquering all of Earth) or curing cancer."

Ants are colonies, much like us humans. We fight, we die, we conquer. Beavers build dams. Predators hunt, like humans. I don't think animals cure cancer. My point is, conquer as the ants do, then leave the ants behind.

And I have heard that NASA is researching giraffes to make better space suits. We can save the giraffes until they're no longer necessary.

"Do you want to give up barbeques, or hot dogs at baseball games? I highly doubt that we could find a vegan substitute that tastes the same."

Sure, why not? Well, we could still have animal factories for the meat. But we don't need meat to survive, it just makes life better.

"the "beasts" you suggest we kill off are not actually hostile to humans unless provoked, or unless humans take away all their land and starve enough to be desperate to eat humans as food, which would be our own fault."

So then a war starts. But, honestly, we're superior to lions and gorillas. There's several animals we could do without; birds, sharks, whales, snakes, and, yes, even wolves (Sorry Ammy).

Argument:

It's about survival, my dear friend. The resources are there, waiting to be found and collected. Yeah, animals can act in self-defense, but it doesn't change the fact that we're the better race. Well, let's look at it a better way.

Much of the land is covered with trees. We can get wood from the trees. Cutting down the trees, we get land where we build any needed factories or farms. I guess we'd come along a Boa Constrictor or a white wolf, but they don't bring any advantage to society. We can kill them, and sell their remains.

But people are probably asking now: Why are humans important enough to replace wolves, snakes, and elephants?

Humans are the only creatures that can comprehend right/wrong desicions. What would a gorilla do: Take the banana, or save his mother? (Actually, I'm not sure. What WOULD he do?)

Humans can defend themselves with guns. Can gorillas work a shotgun?

Humans work at factories. Gorillas take a bit more training.

What animals have an advantage over humans? (Well, aside from breathing underwater and flying.)
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 2 weeks ago
PowerPikachu21
Yeah. It's definitely interesting when someone has an argument for a difficult side (referring to myself).
Posted by Teen_driven_crazy 2 weeks ago
Teen_driven_crazy
Oops. Sorry I didn't check up on the debate and post another argument. Good game though.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 3 weeks ago
PowerPikachu21
24 minutes remaining, Pro probably won't respond in time. Good game, I guess.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.