The Instigator
shoutevenshy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
pendel444
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Hunting of whales that are not in danger of extinction.

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...
pendel444
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 363 times Debate No: 79544
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

shoutevenshy

Pro

Some people are opposed to whale hunting in general, even though the species is not in danger of going extinct. For example the pilot whale hunt on the Faroe Islands. The hunt is sustainable.

Source:

http://www.whaling.fo...

http://www.whaling.fo...
pendel444

Con

Your saying you can kill them because there not endangered. Humans are not endangered - can we kill humans? No. Do you know why? Because humans are alive, and so are whales. So you saying they were less important from birth. That's called discrimination. Finally, people have stopped rasism (discrimination of skin colour or country), but when will they stop rasism (discrimination of race)?
Debate Round No. 1
shoutevenshy

Pro

I see that this debate was accepted by someone who is opposed to killing of animals, not whales particularly. Which is not what I intended with this debate. I hope the voters will take into account when voting that my opponent is discussing whether we should kill animals or not, not whether we should kill whales.
pendel444

Con

I'm saying we can't kill animals, and if we can't kill animas, then obviously we can't kill whales.
Debate Round No. 2
shoutevenshy

Pro

You are against killing animals, so yes obviously whales too. However I intended for us to discuss whether or not it is wrong to kill whales, however you clearly in your first argument advocate why we shouldn't kill any animals at all, which is not what I intended for this debate. Your argument had nothing to do with whales, it had to do with animals in general.
pendel444

Con

"Your argument had nothing to do with whales, it had to do with animals in general." Whales are animals so it did have something to do with it. What I'm saying is that if we can't kill animals, there can't be questioning if we can kill whales or not since whales are animals.
Debate Round No. 3
shoutevenshy

Pro

Which is not the question in debating :) Hopefully the voters understand this.
pendel444

Con

The debate is should hunting whales be legal, and I'm saying all hunting should be illegal, so I am answering the right question. Please come up with an argument in the next round.
Debate Round No. 4
shoutevenshy

Pro

Your argument for why non-endangered whales shouldn't be hunted is..

- humans aren't endagnered
- we value our own species more than animal
- discrimination of animal races on earth

I fail to see how any of those arguments have anything to do with the actual topic, which is about whales. You are CLEARLY advocating why we shouldn't kill animals, there is no question about that. That is not what I intended for this debate.
pendel444

Con

I see that you have failed to come up with an argument. Bit I also see what you wanted your debate to be. But still, my answers answer the question nevertheless.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
RFD 1/2:

Pro really doesn't respond to Con's argument that killing all animals is wrong. Pro argues that some sustainable hunting is permissible, though Pro doesn't really expand on the impacts of this, and it's largely a bare assertion. I'm not getting a warrant for sustainable hunting being "good" or "permissible" with regards to whales. Con's argument is weak as well, since it acts as a -- relatively weak -- Kritik of the resolution, arguing that hunting of *any* animal is immoral. But there is some link, and some impact. The impact is that hunting of whales is immoral, following from the link that whales are animals and hunting animals is immoral. The reductio argument Con presents to warrant the link is dropped by Pro. Pro only argues that it doesn't relate to the resolution, but a Kritik is, inherently, general. A general Kritik that still covers the topic, however weak, can be voted on. I'm not really getting a warrant from Pro that the argument is abusive. In Round 3, Pro just concedes that whales are animals, but merely says "that's not what I intended." Intention otherwise, Pro *should have* clarified that kritiks of the topic aren't permitted. Since that was never done, Pro's argument is overly abusive, and I can just dismiss it at that. Pro just doesn't address Con's links or impacts, and concedes both, but still argues it's non-topical. Topicality isn't "what the instigator had in mind." Unfortunately, I can't vote on that. For these reasons, however weak Con's arguments, I have to vote Con.
Posted by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
RFD 2/2:

Some feedback: Con, expand on the links; I'm still not getting how a human and an animal don't have any morally relevant differences, and that should have been stressed upon. Pro, don't just drop arguments that are against *your intention,* since you could have easily responded to the Kritik. Dropping such an argument as abusive isn't even warranted, and you need further justification than it being your intention for the debate.

Therefore, I vote Con on arguments alone. I was tempted to award conduct due to the misconducted dismissal of arguments -- which is virtually a forfeit -- but am refraining since there's not much misconduct on either side.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
In fact, it's the whale hunters that are becoming extinct.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by AdithyaShark 1 year ago
AdithyaShark
shoutevenshypendel444Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.