The Instigator
MikeySweet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
usi_debsoc
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Hunting for food should be kept legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/22/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 370 times Debate No: 78954
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

MikeySweet

Pro

In this debate I will defend the age-long tradition and necessity of hunting for food (This does not include trophy hunting, which is a completely different topic)

For round 1, you may choose to make an opening argument or just say "accept."

The Con will have to prove that hunting for food and sustenance is wrong.
usi_debsoc

Con

Accept and hunting food for sutenance is wrong because it may cause harm either physically or internally because if you're to hunt for example wild animals it may be dangerous for your health because it might have somr parasites inside that animal and their is a precise way of cleaning it because you never know it may have worms that can cause illness to and physically because some of those animals can attack you and harm you physically while you are hunting it.
Debate Round No. 1
MikeySweet

Pro

Your only argument was that hunting could harm your health. And you pretty much refuted it yourself when you said that there is a way of cleaning the animal!

An argument that you did make was that the animal could attack you. I will respond by saying that, quite frankly, the likelihood of this is extremely low. Besides, there are many precautions to prevent an animal attack. ultimately, without hunting, animal population would rocket out of control, and humans would die out due to a lack of meat that is ESSENTIAL to keep the body working. Ultimately I would say that it would be immoral to OUTLAW hunting, on the very grounds that I just stated above.

In conclusion, you have no argument in this debate, and I should win by default.
usi_debsoc

Con

The thing i'm most concerned here is the health and let tell you this you didn't state if everyone can hunt for thier food or is it just going to be professionals only because if commoners try to hunt for thier own food because of starvation would they know how to clean this food properly or can they actually tell the difference between poisonous plants from non-poisonous see that's what i kept on stating that maybe because of that it could do you more harm. Another thing is that the word hunting is basically connected to the word wild right and so the wild/forest is a very dangerous place forsome commoner to hunt right so that's what i'm pointing out i my REAL ARGUMENTS.
Debate Round No. 2
MikeySweet

Pro

MikeySweet forfeited this round.
usi_debsoc

Con

usi_debsoc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MikeySweet

Pro

MikeySweet forfeited this round.
usi_debsoc

Con

usi_debsoc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
MikeySweet

Pro

No matter who is hunting for food- professionals or others- without hunting, the human population would not be able to sustain itself. hunters and carnivores by nature, without hunting, the human population would go extinct. extinction far outweighs your problem of possible injury or sickness (which is a trivial and little-occuring matter in reality)

You said that a commoner should not hunt for food even if he was starved, because he might not clean it correctly. Even if he couldn't clean it correctly, eating unclean food is better than starving to death.

You also claimed that the wild is too dangerous to hunt in. That is simply not true. Even if it was too dangerous, it would be keeping humans alive.

You also claimed that hunting was too dangerous because of poisonous plants. plants have nothing to do with this debate, as we are talking about hunting, not foraging.

Vote pro, because pro provides logical arguments that negate and destroy the arguments of the con. The con has provided no argument that I have not solved.

Thank you.
usi_debsoc

Con

usi_debsoc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MikeySweet 1 year ago
MikeySweet
Hi Usi_Debosc, one more time? I'm sorry, but we had a family crisis and this was at the bottom of my list of worries.
Posted by MikeySweet 1 year ago
MikeySweet
Usi_Debosc, I apologize for not having responded in time. Do you think that you could just type in "extend" for your next response? I have been really busy and have not been able to get on here in a while. That way we will still have a fair debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.