Exterminating Killer Whales
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate and will argue that we should NOT hunt every last wild Orca whale to extinction
Other than that
Sorry for the wait deary.
Killer Whales are an enormous burden on their environment
Killer whales, ladies and Gentlemen, only take-take-take when it comes to their eco system. Being top carnivores they do not sustain any other animal by acting as food (unless you count the crabs that eat the corpses of Orcas that the Coastguard has had to hunt down to prevent attacks). However, they greedily feast on a menagerie of other animals that are vital to the well being of the eco system. Killer whale populations have a habit of spiking, and as a result we see the extinction of certain species in certain areas. To this day Killer whales are in the process of eliminating many seal populations; they upset the delicate balance of life in the changing Arctic habitats because they are nomadic-roves of them will swim to one area, decimate an entire species, and swim to the next. See sources-this is insane. I end this point with a reference to the declining sea Otter population in Alaska as a direct result of Killer Whales. Because of the lack of sea otters, sea urchins have flourished and countless miles of kelp forests have been lost. Killer whales offer nothing yet take everything from their eco-systems. How many more species, how much more habitat must be lost as a result of Killer Whales?
They are belligerent towards humans and eradicate many endangered whale populations.
I will share a piece of knowledge with everyone-Killer whales are not whales! They are dolphins, they have their name because they actually kill whales all the time. And people. Most Killer whale attacks happen in zoos and aquariums-wonder why? Because that's where they have the greatest access to humans. This goes to show that when they do happen to have access to humans in the Wild they are a great danger. They are very smart, we can see how well they can be trained. After a couple years of brutal subjection and training they can be as harmless as puppies (with the minor chance they will snap and eat their trainer spontaneously), but unfortunately we can hardly lock them all up so mass murder (as usual) is the only way.
More importantly however Killer whales are eradicating our already low Whale population. Considering how aggressive they are, it is not unusual at all for a group of three to four to surround say a Blue whale, and inflict fatal damage and blood loss with their teeth that are designed for ripping, as opposed to chewing. Any whale that escapes our over fishing has a considerable risk of being hunted down by a pack of killer whales. Worst part is they usually don't even get to eat the whale.
Killer Whales make fishing oriented lifestyles less sustainable.
Their main diet is composed of the same fish that humans eat (say the Herring), and with their voracious appetites they can make a fish population quickly dwindle. With out already over fished seas I propose we take action now and eliminate all Killer Whales to ensure that some fish have a chance of survival. Even if we were to stop fishing (not likely) many endangered fish species would be at risk of being decimated by Killer Whales.
"Killer whales metabolize blubber for energy, which increases pollutant concentrations."
This has two effects-it means that if a human were to hunt a killer whale for food it would be polluted, and secondly, it means that Orcas poison their environment (not very much, but there is some effect) with toxins that come from their blubber.
I know that many industries take advantage of the beauty of the Killer whale, and I also acknowledge the majesty of these beasts, but our world simply cannot sustain them. We may reproduce them in Zoos and hopefully one day they can be returned to the wild, but first we must eliminate the Killer Whale population from the wild for a greener, brighter future of all aquatic inhabitants.
1) Killer whales and their role in the environment.
Killer whales are at the top of the food chain, but even the Pro beings up the fact that once those whales die that decomposers digest the whales, recycle the nutrients and organic substances back into the environment, and then those nutrients are made available to be consumed by all the other organisms in the ecosystem. Thats how nutrients move through the food chain, and the same concept works with other top consumers such as birds of prey, bears, wolves, lions, and yes, humans too.
Killer whales do serve a purpose in recycling nutrients back into the environment, many other species do the same thing, and thats just how nature works....
2) Threat towards humans
"This goes to show that when they do happen to have access to humans in the Wild they are a great danger."
Thats kind of funny since there has never been a single fatal orca attack on a human in the wild.
Orcas encounter people rarely in the wild, and when they do its surfers, and the orcas will just swim alongside them and not even care! Sharks would tear these surfers to shreds while orcas would play along, why do the whales deserve to all die?
"They are belligerent towards humans and eradicate many endangered whale populations."
Humans kill more whales than all other whales combined, and we do it on accident 90% of the time, does that mean all humans should be exterminated too because all of these same arguments so far to argue exterminate whales could justify exterminating all humans....
" unfortunately we can hardly lock them all up so mass murder (as usual) is the only way."
So we should kill all whales because they pose a minor threat to people? The number of people who died from killer whales are usually just trainers who are in the water with them. Other animals kill far more humans than killer whales do, why should whales deserve to all die when they pose a much smaller threat to humans than perhaps a dozen other animals?
"With out already over fished seas I propose we take action now and eliminate all Killer Whales to ensure that some fish have a chance of survival"
So whales should all be killed to help fish populations survive so that they can later be killed by humans who are already over fishing the seas??? Humans have dozens of other food options to focus on, killer whales only have two, fish and seals. We cant exterminate all the whales for eating perhaps the only food source they have access to, thats how nature works....
I dont think that this counts as a reliable source since it comes straight from a blog site....
"The catastrophic decline of the common seal population in Scottish waters could be blamed partly on killer whales, marine biologists believe."
So right there your own source says that killer whales are only partially to blame for the decline in seal populations in Northern Scotland, not the world.... What else could be causing this drop in seal populations?
"The Scottish Government's Special Committee on Seals report for 2008 found that competition for food from the more stable grey seal population might also be a significant factor in the decline in harbour seal numbers."
So now we see that killer whales may be affecting only a single seal population while other seal populations are doing perfectly fine.... But this source says that one of the biggest reasons that seal populations are declining, is because of other seal populations!
You know what though, to be fair the only way this entire argument could be dismissed was if there was something that could single handedly show that seal populations are declining due to something other than the presence of killer whales.
"But Mark Simmonds, the director of science at the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, said the decline was much more likely to be linked TO THE LEGALISED SHOOTING OF SEALS TO PROTECT FISH FARMS"
Well no f***ing wonder why seal populations are declining, humans are allowed to hunt them to no extent and seals are competing with other seals for the same amount of food!!!!!! Killer whale presence in the area must account for maybe 4% of seal deaths when you factor in everything else!
This link says that killer whales are the biggest reason of why Sea otter populations are declining, but this link too even says how other factors play a role in why sea otter populations are falling.
"The recovery plan does identify some other potential threats to sea otters, most importantly the role of disease and whether there is adequate oil-spill response in southwest Alaska."
"The plan also considers potential threats from biotoxins, contaminants, food limitations, commercial fishing, the subsistence harvest, loss of habitat and illegal take."
So killer whales are once again only a fraction of the reason why a seal population in some remote corner of the world is declining. I for one fail to see how this is even remotely enough to justify the EXTERMINATION of all killer whales.
Killer whales are completely harmless to humans in nature and rarely attack humans when in captivity, so why should they all be killed when more harmful animals get to live and continue to kill people? killer whales also play a fair role in recycling nutrients back into the ecosystem contrary to what the Pro states, and any damage they do cause to other animals is done about 10x as much by human activity alone. When you then compare killer whales to other top predators like say other whales, bears, tigers, cheetahs, birds of prey, etc then why is is that only killer whales have to be exterminated when so many other animals commit many of the same crimes at a far greater rate? They dont, and Killer whales should not be exterminated.
Now Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome back to The Pro.
I feel like Pro has presented a stronger side for a few reasons. Con has given us only one reason why Killer Whales are good, he has only given us one reason why they are positive for their environment (That they decompose and spread their nutrients) and I'll be dealing with that shortly.
The rest of speech was challenging me on what the causes of the environmental disasters I listed were.
Unfortunately most of Cons speech was built of straw men.
It's neither here nor there if humans are also committing much larger acts of mass murder of fish seals and otters, Killer Whales are also a cause in the drop of numbers and destruction of habitats.
Cons speech in a sentence: I agree that they are harmful, but NOT as harmful as you make them out to be at all, you hyperbolise, and ignore all the other factors that lead to this problem.
That may be true, but they are still harmful none the less. Just because humans pose a greater threat to the extinction of the Alaskan Cod than Killer Whales doesn't mean the whales aren't a problem. I didn't make this debate to talk about over-fishing, I made this debate to analyse the harmful effects Killer Whales have on their unstable Arctic environment.
Con has only challenged me on the fact that they aren't as harmful as I make them out to be, but they are still harmful none the less. Con has only given one reason why the Killer Whale is good and I will deal with it now.
"killer whales also play a fair role in recycling nutrients back into the ecosystem contrary to what the Pro states"
I'll use Pros logic in this sense: A Killer whale consumes thousands of animals in its life time, turning their rich nutrients into useless waste. If Killer Whales were exterminated, every potential animal it didn't eat would have the chance to have their entire body recycled back into the environment when they died. That is to say more nutrients would be recycled back into the ecosystem if Killer Whales were exterminated.
Cons only reason as to why Killer Whales are benifical in any sort of way has been dropped.
So what are we left with?
A species of dolphin that is harmful to populations of seals, otters, whales and Kelp Forests, but as con sais "Just not as much as humans are".
In other words, Killer Whales offer nothing but only take. This justifies their extermination. Because of changing Arctic conditions they are unnatural in their environments, and play no positive roles in their eco system. We cannot afford the luxury of Killer Whales, we cannot afford species of animals that are counter productive to an eco system.
The difference between Killer Whales and any other top predator, is that most top predators are involved in the endless, perfect cycle of nature. Killer Whales have fallen out of the loop, they bring about countless deaths of endangered whales, and their lifestyle is not sustainable.
It doesn't matter that the human lifestyle is also not sustainable in this debate, it doesn't matter that Humans do 10X more damage than Killer Whales, because we have other purposes, our lives consist of so much more than the Arctic Eco-System, there are so many more arguments as to why we are good (Love, development, art) all that stuff that we have to offer.
Killer Whales have no other purpose or motive, as long as they exist they do harm. Sometimes irreparable harm ( See the gray Seal population).
The reason I have won this debate, is because there is no justification at this point as to why Orcas are good, why it benefits us to keep them alive.
Yet there are reasons why it benefits us to exterminate all of them, why they solely present harm on their eco systems.
There are no more rounds for me to debate so if Con starts new arguments why orcas are good I can't really deal with them.
Orcas aren't the sole reason for the decline in seals, otters, and whales. But they are a reason. And in light of the fact that they do no good (as every other single animal on the Earth does), there is no justification for keeping them alive when they only present harm.
We are probably going to hear tons of analysis on how the the minimal harms of killer whales justify their extermination, and tons of comparisons to similair circumstances, but remember, there is not one redeeming quality for Killer Whales that Con has showed us. When we have an unstable habitat such as the Arctic, every problem to it must be solved as quickily as possible.
Killer Whales are part of the Problem, Pro is part of the solution.
I beg, to propose.
The Resolution is about exterminating killer whales, not that killer whales are good.
Now lets look at your arguments,
1) Killer whales offer nothing to the environment
This has been negated since killer whales, along with all other top-of-the-food-chain animals, die and their nutrients are all released by decomposers back into the ecosystem
2) Humans are in great danger from killer whales in the wild
Falsified since there hasnt even been a recorded attack by a killer whale on a human in the wild ever....
3) Killer whales make fish-sustained lifestyles less sustainable
Irrelevant since thats the main staple of killer whales's diet whereas humans can center their diet on just about any other animal besides fish.
4) Killer whales destroy habitats of other animal populations
Ive shown that in every scenario youve listed that killer whales only play a minor role in those events and that more than half the time HUMANS are more responsible for the decline in populations there.
All of the Pro's arguments about why killer whales should all be exterminated while other top-of-the-food-chain animals get to live have been countered. Nature works by having animals eat other animals, it starts with plants and then goes from consumer to larger consumer to larger consumer. I dont know why the Po wants to kill all killer whales for doing what nature meant for them to do but all other reasons he has given have been debunked.
Dont kill all killer whales just for being themselves.....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||5|
Reasons for voting decision: I am going to vote Con here because Pro said a lot of things, but never showed how they where bad, and often didn't back them up. For example, I didn't see anything in his sources saying that killer whales were "decimating whale populations" or that they "make fish populations dwindle". Pro assumes that because they eat things, they are taking away, which isn't true. He also says that by eating fish, they are transformed from nutrients to useless waste, which isn't true at all. 5:2 Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.