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

Hunting: Ethical Activity or Sensless Slaughter

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: 2/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,864 times Debate No: 29717
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (1)




I believe Hunting is acceptable when done for the the purpose of usage of the animal while teaching and acquiring greater skill, controlling population densities, safety, and income.
I however do not believe it to be acceptable practice to kill for fatuitous pleasure.

Pro: Will defend the statement above, and refute Cons arguement.

Con: Will give reason that no hunting should be acceptable in society today, defend their reasoning, and refute the above statement(s).

R1-P: Opening Instigation
R1-C: Rebuttal, Reasoning, Opinions
R2-P: Rebuttal, Reasoning, Opinions
R2-C: Open Forum
R3-P: Open Forum, Questioning
R3-C: Answers, Questioning, Open Forum
R4-P: Answers, Closing Arguements
R4-C: Closing Arguements

Please remember, Opinions are welcome!
Thank you! -Bill


Hi Bill,
I negate the resolution.
I believe that hunting is a wrong murder. I am not saying that it is a senseless slaughter but it is not right for one to kill other organisms. Of course there could be an exception. For example, when you are lost in a forest and need something to eat or you will die. I know this is kind of extreme but if it is not a extreme case, I think we should not kill any animal. They have the right to live too since God made those creatures too. We have the power over them but it does not mean that we can do whatever we want to.

This is why I negate the resolution.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank You for accepting this debate!

First, I would like to dive a little deeper into my opening statement.
1) Hunting for purpose of usage of animal while teaching and acquiring greater skill:
*In the event that an action needs to be performed, the more you practice by doing, the more proficient you become. In that "Extreme Case" that you would need to survive, if you do no have the required skill to hunt, your chances of successfully hunting an animal for food would be very low. Couple that with no knowing how to prepare and cook said animal, and your chances become dismal.
*The reason hunting should be taught, is to ensure that these abilities are not lost to time, and to also create a more skilful hunter to achieve the task with greater odds of success if and when required.
*As humanity in the physical sense progresses technologically, we begin to lose the essential qualities on many levels that enabled us TO advance in the first place. All too often, we see natural and human disasters bring society to its knees. These scenarios cause troubles such as food shortage/famine and displacement/homelessness. This is then followed by chaos. The ability to successfully hunt would help to ensure that you, your family, your friends and possibly others would stay alive. Even with assistance from the government, people still end up falling short of supplies in relatively small areas.

2) Controlling Population densities:
Environments are constantly changing. I would like to specifically point out one animal species, Whitetail Deer (Deer), due to the fact it is the most hunted large game animal in the USA. Some of these points are not limited to this one animal species.
*Deer hinder new growth of plant life in forests. Many people argue that deer will not overpopulate an area if not hunted. This is not entirely true. As far as evolution is concerned, species both thrive and die out without the aid of man. As for people, we are constantly steadily growing in population. As human population pushes into new areas, we actually create better environments for deer to thrive. Human impacts include clearing land for lumber which the new growth is commonly destroyed by deer, along with crop fields. One of natures methods of population control is natural predators. More deer means more predators, mainly Bear, Wolves, and Coyotes. These larger, more cunning animals will have a more steady food source, with little or no natural predators of their own. The only thing left to hinder their numbers would be disease.
*More Deer, mean more time and money spent by farmers to protect their crops. Farmers will then have to come up with more ways to protect their lands from these deer, that can jump over large fences already. Less hunting and eating animals also brings the troubles of needing more farmland to sustain life of humans.
*More deer also means less new forest generation. Plants, and the animal species that require this habitat to grow and flourish, may not survive- at least here. This could push more nuisance animals such as racoons, skunks and mice into urban areas bringing along with them the risk of disease.

3) Safety:
*Please see points made above;
Such as but not limited to-
a) More predators closer to urban areas
b) Disease

4) Income:
*Not everyone live in cities or areas hat can be farmed year round. Some of these people rely on hunting as income to support their families by selling pelts to be used for various goods, and meat that can be sold. Nuisance animals also need to be dealt with at points. Larger animals attack livestock like sheep and chickens. Rats infest cities like new york (extermination can also be looked at as a form of hunting). Smaller animals destroy farmers crops. There are even cases that show beavers create dams, backing up running water into still pools where bacteria grows, in populated areas that depend on that water for drinking. I do not feel I have to go on much further with examples of why hunting can be required. Not everyone hunts, so these issues would have to be resolved by someone who is both willing and able. Money received for service complete becomes income, sometimes a primary means of such. People should not be made to abandon their homes because of any of these difficulties, or for not being able to perform these duties.

Rebuttal to Cons opening statement:
*I believe "Organisms" by definition are -forms of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran-. Please clarify what you mean so that I may accurately defend some of the reasons i believe hunting may be necessary.
*As far as a extreme case of needing to kill for food, the average person with no knowledge of how to hunt or prepare an animal to eat would not make it very far. I feel that it is my responsibility to do everything I can to keep my loved ones and myself alive in the face of an "extreme case". If drought, other extreme weather such as hurricanes and tornadoes, insect infestation, or an embargo was to limit food supplies enough that people were starving, It should be classified as "Extreme". These are realistic situations that are not unbelievable. So again, imagine a world where nobody knew how to hunt. I am sure some would say that if you needed to, you would figure it out. I would challenge them to a similar situation: Spend some time in the woods and sample some of the vegetation. "Figure out" what you can and can not eat and digest.
*Please, if you do not mind, inform me of your religion. If you are going to use "GOD" as your platform on this debate, I should be given the opportunity to defend myself against those particular beliefs. If you are not comfortable with divulging this information I completely respect it, but I would ask that you refrain from using it in this debate.

I feel I have defended my opening statements. Now it is time for Con to refute my reasoning and provide his own reasoning for his stance on the issue.

**Please make note that I have nor will I make any reference to Hunting as a Sport. I believe I have made this clear in my opening statement, stating my purpose on this issue. Thank You, Bill


phantom123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Since Con has not signed in at all the last 6 days, I will also forfeit my round in hopes that he returns.


phantom123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I guess Phantom123 will not be returning.


phantom123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ICU 3 years ago
Hey Bill, made a new account, i'll debate u on this topic!
Posted by BillKace 3 years ago
Please do not forget to vote!
Posted by BillKace 3 years ago
@ ishallanoyyo
I would also like to debate this topic again. I will let you know when I post it. Thanks!
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
Or you axeman.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
I will gladly debate you on this topic Bill.
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
Yes, almost just like corn. The reintroduction of Siberian Tigers saved that species [1], why not wolves?
The moral question is not whether or not I can tell you if you have the right to hunt, but the moral question is "is the killing of animals as a result of hunting ethical." Whether or not I can tell you if you can hunt is not part of the debate.

It seems I"m unaware that hunted game is eaten? No, most of it is not eaten. [2] Most hunted game ends up on walls? Yeah, that"s what happens [3] I have little knowledge on the subject? I assume you"re a hunter yourself.

Why would it still be necessary to still shoot and kill these wild animals? Why not just ban hunting instead of forcing people to eat the game?

People hunting for sport is exactly what makes this unethical, we"re killing animals because it"s fun for us.
I"m not a vegetarian, in fact I enjoy eating meat. However, whether I am a vegetarian has no bearing on this as shooting and killing animals for fun, screwing up ecosystems, and eating livestock are completely different. The moral argument is this: shooting animals for sport is not ethical. Your rights don't have any bearing on this debate.

SOURCES (just to prove my facts):
Posted by ax123man 3 years ago
sorry, that should read "military intervention". And the end was cut off "... moral argument".
Posted by ax123man 3 years ago
Just like that. Just reintroduce them. Like planting corn. Don't you think they tried to save them the first time round?

I concede your Red Herring point. I admit I was distracted by the severe contradiction of those who argue against hunting while supporting killing humans.

You've not addressed the moral question of whether you have a right to tell me I can't hunt. Or more to the point, to ask others (with even bigger guns) to tell me I can't hunt.

Regarding eating the game, I assume that "sport hunting" is defined as hunting and not eating the game. It seems your unaware that almost all hunted game is eaten. How on earth does eating the game defeat the purpose of sport hunting? Do you think that most hunted game ends up mounted on a wall? Your ignorance regarding hunting and wildlife knows no bounds.

Maybe the question we should be asking here is whether someone with so little knowledge on a subject should be entitled so such a strong opinion.

My point was that if such a law was passed, then all hunted game would be eaten. Nothing would change. So how do you address that? Implement a "needs" test? Based on income levels? Where are you going with this?

People hunt for sport, not for food. They eat their game because it is part of the sport. Why do you have a problem with it? Your Safeway comment is a non-sequitur.

Unless your a vegetarian and have taken equal issue with the killing of all animals, you have no justification for your complaint. In fact, you would also need to take this up with all the other animals who are carnivores and kill their own game.

In other words, the only way you can put forth a consistent moral argument is to be against the killing of all animals, including humans. An anti-hunter who eats any meat or supports our military is a contradiction.

But let's say your a vegetarian. Good for you. You live in the land of the (still somewhat) free. You still have no right to tell me I can't hunt, as you've put forth no mo
Posted by ishallannoyyo 3 years ago
I've bought venison steak before from my local grocer...

Easier solution than to encourage people to go out, shoot animals, bring them back, butcher them, and eat them like we still live in a stone age or something is to try and make slaughterhouses more humane. I believe there are already laws in place that prevent the inhumane treatment of animals.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Dunno about you, but I've never seen venison steaks or bear sausage at a store such as Safeway or Kroger. Oh and I mention bear sausage because they're good, I've had 'em.

And I've seen a pig slaughtered once. While this hasn't put me off of eating pork, I will say that hunting is a more humane source of meat than shooting a restrained animal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff