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

Animals should not be killed for sport.

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
sunnyskies has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/1/2016 Category: Arts
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 219 times Debate No: 95793
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




If animals are hunted for sport, they will go extinct. The same thing happened to the passenger pigeon. They once thrived and now they are extinct. If you want to practice hunting for sport, you could simply use targets.


As con, I will argue that it is acceptable to kill animals for sport. Since it was not specified whether R1 is acceptance only, I will assume it is not and commence to argue in favour of allowing the killing of animals for sport.

Pro makes the assertion that "if animals are hunted for sport, they will go extinct". This is demonstratively not the case; just look at pheasants in the United Kingdom, for instance; there's absolutely no way such a stupid and helpless bird would have survived in Britain for as long as it has without humans actively breeding them to shoot for sport. The species only continues to exist *BECAUSE* we kill them for sport. It would of course be a reasonable position to hold that one should not kill animals for sport in a way which is harmful to their populations, but it is clearly possible, as in the case of pheasants, to hunt animals in a responsible way which, quite contrary to depleting the species' numbers, actually *INCREASES* them, or at the very least doesn't diminish them to a severe degree. Pro's assertion that "if animals are hunted for sport, they will go extinct" is a non-sequitir fallacy, and is clearly not true in all- or even most- cases.

Another reason hunting can be good is the effect known as a "Trophic cascade". Explained in more detail here: , it occurs when the introduction of a predatory species acts to control the population of a pest species they hunt, which has knock-on beneficial effects on the rest of the ecosystem. For example, deer numbers had skyrocketed in Yellowstone National Park, and as a result of their excessive grazing, much of the vegetation in the park was decimated. This lead to many other species which relied on the vegetation, such as birds and beavers, to severely reduce in numbers. However, when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, they reduced the number of deer, which meant more foliage could grow, which was just generally a good thing for the whole ecosystem. Humans can serve the same role wolves do in this example- pest control. Allowing humans to hunt the deer in Yellowstone would have had much the same effect as introducing wolves, but would have required more effort on our parts.

So, to summarise my main points: hunting can be done in a way which is ethical in that it is not unnecessarily cruel and does not threaten a species' numbers, and it can even be used to control a species' numbers in a way that is beneficial to the environment. It is for this reason that I urge the reader to side with me on this issue, and to conclude that hunting for sport should be allowed, at least in some contexts.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PsychicPhysicist 2 weeks ago
What do we think the chances pro will actually respond are? So many people just start a debate then don't reply when they see they'll lose if they do ._.
Posted by TheBenC 2 weeks ago
People hunt deer for sport. There are still plenty of deer out there.

I hate this concept of endangered species. I think we, as humans, should not kill out any species but I also believe in evolution and strongest live while the weakest die. Pandas are fucked. They are endangered and we are trying to keep them around.

Why are we trying hard to stop the extinction of pandas? They eat horrible food that does not provide proper nutrition for any animal. They have sex at such a low rate that they naturally would die out. So why are we trying to force pandas to stay on the planet? By all measures pandas should be extinct soon. Why are we trying to force our will on evolution?

We should help species when we were the main cause to their endangerment but let some of these weak species die out. Dodos do not belong on our planet but if there were 20 of them alive now you can guarantee there will be weak minded people trying to save the dodo.
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.