Hunting (for food, not sport) is Inhuman
Debate Rounds (3)
**Please note that I said food, not sport.
*Rules for Me
Round One: Introduction and rules
Round Two: Argument
Round Three: Rebuttals
*Rules for my Opponent
Round One: Argument
Round Two: Rebuttals
Round Three: "no argument as agreed upon"
Failure to follow rules will result in a 7 point deduction.
I look forward to a great debate, good luck to my opponent.
The hunting of animals in general is inhuman, whether it is for food or not. Hunters don't always kill their targets, sometimes it gets away, but injured. Fore Example a hunter may blow the jaw of a deer, but how is it supposed to eat when it gets away. It will starve to death. Also how about the young that depends on the animal that the hunter just shot? What is going to protect them, they haven't learned how to survive yet. Also hunting can destroy animal populations. Have you heard of the dodo? The bird was hunted to extinction, that is inhuman, hunting leads to drops in animal population. In fact 23% of animal extinction was directly caused by hunting.
Also do you think its humane to shot a guy in the chest at a salad bar? That is what you are doing with the animals. Walking up to them when they are eating then emptying a magazine into the animal. Also many hunter use illegal forms of weaponry like machine guns, which cause a great disturbance to the animals, snare traps and pitfall traps which hurt the animal a great deal before they die, and sometimes the hunter doesn't comeback to check for days.
Also hunters destroy bio diversity on the planet. At a time the Grey Wolves were the dominant predator across the continent. Then they were hunted to extinction by hunters. This caused a tremendous explosion in the elk population after that. A team of biologists noted that soils were eroding, unpalatable grasses were spreading, and high quality browse plants were vanishing under the onslaught. Soon the elk started starving. Why? There wasn't any food left. The died in a painful way, and a natural habitat was destroyed. Thanks for that hunters.
Hunters who hunt for food will be more desperate that hunters who do it for sport. These hunters know that their family is depending on the food they bring in, so they are more likely to do the things above. They ignore the rules to make sure they have enough food. They know that snares and pitfall traps will increase the likely hood of a catch, and they will kill as many deer as they can on the basis that they are not going to starve during the winter. This is why we should discourage hunting animals for food.
First of all, for the purpose of this debate, I will supply two definitions that I believe are crucial that my opponent and I do not confuse.
Hunting: the activity of hunting wild animals or game, esp. for food or sport
Source: google definitions
Poaching: the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission
There are two ways that Americans get their meat. That is, through hunting or farming. I shall explain the process of both separately, then compare the two together.
Farming is the practice of raising animals in captivity then slaughtering them for their meat. However, there are two main different types of farmed meats, and that is organic meats and non-organic meats. Due to the major differences in the two, I will be describing the processes in both separately.
a.) Organic Farming
Organic farming is a guarantee about how an animal was handled before it reached the consumer. To become a legally certified organic farm, a farm must provide a detailed application containing practices and procedures that take place on the farm, a list of all substances used, a maintenance plan, and more. Should the conditions in the application appeal to the certifier, a detailed inspection will follow.
So what is it that sets organic farms apart from the others, other than the fact that their products are much more expensive? Basically, all animals must be treated to the livestock provisions of NOP. They must be fed organic food with no additives and have suitable organic living conditions. Free range for at least half of the day is another thing that organic certifiers look for. Also, slaughter methods should minimize fear and stress to the animal. However, whether or not organic slaughtering techniques are humane are still in question. The most common process is to stun an animal, string it upside down, and slit its throat. The stunning in an animal lasts approximately 50 seconds, so the process is not necessarily painless, especially when you take into account that many organic farms eventually veer away from regulations after certification.
b.) Non-organic Farming
Non-organic farming is horrifying, to say the least. It is unlikely that chickens will ever see the light of day, as they are kept in tiny metal cages and often fed pesticides and growth hormones through tubes. Cattle are fed animal by-products and manure. However, despite these horrific living conditions, it is the slaughter that honestly brings tears to my eyes. Animals are beaten, shot, and stabbed into unconsciousness. Yes, unconsciousness, as all of this is happening to them when they are completely aware and subjected to the pain of it all. Normally, animals are strung upside down fully conscious and slashed and beaten until they bleed out. This is commonly done to newborn calves for veal.
Hunting, as we very well know by now, is the process of killing wild animals for their meat. Hunting licenses in most states are given out annually. There is a limited amount of licenses, and should you be lucky enough to get one, a limited amount of animals you can kill. For example, one license may account for the shooting of one bull elk (the killing of females or young is illegal and considered poaching). I shall save most of my information on hunting for my rebuttals. There are slightly different regulations in every state, however they are quite similar.
C) Why Hunting is Better Than Farming
Like I said, hunting and/or farming are the two ways that the people get their meat. So now, let us compare the two. While hunting (hunting, not poaching) you do not have unlimited access to killing all the animals you wish. The animal you kill has lived in its natural habitat in the wild it's entire life. It has been fed no hormones and preservatives, and is in organic (obviously) living conditions. A simple gunshot is what kills it. However, even if the bullet misses it's vital areas, the animal does not feel the pain of the bullet (it goes so fast it is mostly numb). In fact, it normally doesn't even know it has been hit, and eventually just wears out and "falls asleep". Though that may sound unsettling, compare it to all the horrific and fear inducing techniques of slaughter.
Also, while animals who are slaughtered for their meat, much of the animal is discarded. However, hunters use every part of the animal's body they have killed that they physically can. I have hunted and been around hunters my entire life, and once you spend days tracking an animal, you aren't just going to walk away with a leg. Bones can be used for knife handles, skin can be used for blankets, and every diligent hunter has plenty of ways in which they can cook different parts of the animal. Nothing goes to waste, the animal is killed in the most humane way possible, and has lived a hormone free and healthy life.
MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
MolecularBird06 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by goldtrotter 2 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Seven points for forfeit. Not only this, pro had a weak argument and confused hunting and poaching, damaging their ethos for this topic.
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.