Hunting: Ethical Activity or Sensless Slaughter
Debate Rounds (4)
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
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.
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.
*Please see points made above;
Such as but not limited to-
a) More predators closer to urban areas
*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.
phantom123 forfeited this round.
phantom123 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
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.