The Instigator
PinkSheep123
Pro (for)
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Con (against)

Ban big game hunting

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
PinkSheep123 has forfeited round #2.
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: 10/19/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 142 times Debate No: 96271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

PinkSheep123

Pro

To begin this argument, my first point on why these Creatures should not be hunted for pleasure begins here. Most things that our race has cost money, and If we have enough of this money, we can legally hunt any african animal, including the Addax, a peaceful herbivore treasured for its horns whose numbers are a little over 200 today, and the ethiopian wolf, as there are only about 400 of these animals still are alive. Judge, think about this as a tapestry, you pull one or two threads and what happens? The whole tapestry unravels. The same can happen with an ecosystem which brings me to my second point on why Us, The Humans, should stop hunting big game. With many animals critically endangered, if we continue legally hunting them, they can become extinct. For any hunters out there, what makes you think you have the right to kill a sentient being that thinks, hurts, and dies, just like us? These creatures have rights to live, just like us. Don"t you agree judge? When these hunters go and hunt big game, they could cause irreversible effects as the entire ecosystem falls apart. Last but not least, Most hunters are only allowed to hunt if some of the money goes to the government for wildlife conservation. Most Big game hunters only pay the government about 5%, then spend the rest on airfare and paying the landowners so they can come back and kill more big game. Is that right Judge? NO! Before I end this debate, I would like to restate my three points. One, If you have enough money, you can hunt any african animal, including the addax, which there are only about 200 left in the world. Second, big game hunters can collapse the whole ecosystem by wiping out just one or two species. And three, the government that funds them is only paid about 5%, and the rest is spent on airfare and Is used to pay the landowners for allowing them to hunt on their land. My name is brandon badrick, and that is why we should try to conserve these majestic beasts from whatever may stand in their way trying to kill them. Goodbye.
PowerPikachu21

Con

I was personally challenged to this debate. Not often do I get into debates not about video games. But still, I accept.

Rebuttal:

I'll start off by examining my opponent's arguments.

"we can legally hunt any african animal, including the Addax, a peaceful herbivore treasured for its horns whose numbers are a little over 200 today, and the ethiopian wolf, as there are only about 400 of these animals still are alive." Animals are endangered? Make it illegal to hunt them! The resolution just states "big game", which I assume aren't reffering to animal populations less than 5,000.

"Judge, think about this as a tapestry, you pull one or two threads and what happens? The whole tapestry unravels. The same can happen with an ecosystem which brings me to my second point on why Us, The Humans, should stop hunting big game." Well, it wouldn't hurt to kill a few lions out of 200 in a grassland. As long as there's plenty of those species, it should be fine.

"With many animals critically endangered, if we continue legally hunting them, they can become extinct." Exactly! So ban those hunts, and legalize hunting elephants! You're off topic. Why should we not hunt lions or elephants?

"For any hunters out there, what makes you think you have the right to kill a sentient being that thinks, hurts, and dies, just like us?" Appeal to emotion. Besides, animals aren't at human complexity. As far as we know, animals don't know right from wrong, just eat, kill, and survive. We, humans, do have a moral compass, and can choose what is right and wrong.

"When these hunters go and hunt big game, they could cause irreversible effects as the entire ecosystem falls apart." How drastic is the fall? We could kill off a few elephants. Sure, plants won't get eaten as much, and there's minus some food supply for predators, but only some. I feel like Pro's exaggerating the cause and effect. Either that, or I'm oblivious.

"Last but not least, Most hunters are only allowed to hunt if some of the money goes to the government for wildlife conservation. Most Big game hunters only pay the government about 5%, then spend the rest on airfare and paying the landowners so they can come back and kill more big game." So I sell elephant tusks for $50. 5% of that would be $2.50. Us customers pay a similar amount; it's called tax. Maybe the hunters want a bit more profit, which is kind of the point of hunting.

"Is that right Judge? NO!" OBJECTION! Appeal to emotion. What percentage of hunter's profit do you want them to pay? 10%? 20%?

Conclusion:

My opponent's arguments are these:

1) Money can be used to bribe the law into allowing you to hunt endangered species.

My answer: Then ban the hunting of endangered species, not neseccarily hunting altogether.

2) Killing off 5 elephants ruins the ecosystem.

My answer: Prove it. So I killed a few elephants. Big deal. Elephants have predators too, and they kill and eat the elephants. So how come nature can kill, but not us humans?

3) Hunters pay 5% fee, then use rest of profit for more hunting grounds.

My answer:The reason he's hunting is not to kill. There's this thing called eating the animal, and selling the fur or other pieces that can be sold, like teeth, scales, and tusks. While he is hunting, the government does get some profit, and hopefully they're not allowing endangered species to be killed.

Argument:

The resolution states "Big game hunting should be banned". Big game is, as it sounds, merely animals that are large, like elephants. I'll be arguing from, of courses, an economical standpoint.

Hunters often hunt to make a living; to make money. There are hunting grounds in many countries, which are for shooting. Most animals get killed for their accessories; tusks, teeth, scales, and fur. After killing the elephant, he can sell the tusks to anyone that want sot buy them, usually for necklaces and stuff (I didn't research yet). So profit for the hunter. But then, as my opponent stated, there's a fee for hunting, which the hunters do pay. Profit for the government.

I do think hunting should be limited to species with large populations, to avoid extinction. But I'm pretty sure that's already a law. Instead, hunting should remain as it currently is. So what do you think, Pro? Mr Judge, your honor?
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 PinkSheep123 4 weeks ago
PinkSheep123
I'm sorry, I do formal debate and I just copied my speech into the debate box
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 month ago
PowerPikachu21
Wow. You personally challenged me, so I excpected a bit more... Ah well. Hunting legal for a good reason.
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.