The Instigator
Texas14
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
AtheistPerson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Hunting (pro or con)

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 3 votes the winner is...
Texas14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,436 times Debate No: 66681
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

Texas14

Pro

Resolved: Hunting, in general, is a good thing.

Rules: Sources required for rounds 2 and 3, forfeiture results in a loss of conduct points, and proper spelling and grammar will be used, but occasional errors are fine.

I thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to it.
AtheistPerson

Con

I accept and look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Texas14

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate. I am in firm affirmation of the resolved: Hunting, in general is a good thing.
Contention 1: Hunting is one of the few things controlling wildlife population.
Anti-hunters around the country have begun spreading the idea that hunting has a negative impact on wildlife population. It"s hard to notice because especially in urban areas where the anti-hunter population is high, there aren"t very many animals that are legal to hunt. And for some reason, people in those regions feel an ethical obligation to protect something that is so rare to them. Well, if nobody in the country hunted, animal populations would be running rampant and there would be a huge clash for land to live on between humans and animals. Also, anti-hunters wouldn"t be protecting the animals because overpopulation is just as bad for animals as it is for humans.
http://www.hudson.edu...
Contention 2: Strict Laws and Regulations have been put in place to prevent the dangers of hunting.
It would be foolishness of course, to let individuals hunt without the strict regulations that we have today. The regulations vary from state to state, so I have selected some regulations of big game hunting from the state that I am currently living in, and one of the most popular hunting states in America, Colorado. In most states including Colorado, people have to purchase tags not only for specific animals and specific genders, but specific unit or region. For instance, this year I had an either sex deer tag in units 214 and 4 for public land. The Colorado Division of Wildlife takes sections of state and federal public land and sells tags for specific animals. This ensures that people cannot hunt wherever they please. Also, before an individual can hunt, every state in America requires people to pass a hunter safety test. It includes an online course, an eight hour classroom session, an exam needing an eighty percent to pass, and fourteen shots at a local shooting range with a twenty two caliber rifle. I have done all of this and I am very safe with guns and ammunition. http://cpw.state.co.us...
http://cpw.state.co.us...

Contention 3: Hunting can provide both exercise and an increased knowledge of the outdoors.
Surprisingly, many environmentalists are against hunting mainly because they think that hunting can negatively affect biodiversity. Like I explained earlier, they are wrong about that. Most hunters are very responsible when it comes to respecting the outdoors. I"ve hunted with about twenty four people, and the vast majority of them are very responsible about not leaving brass, shotgun shells, and other litter in the forest. Also, outside is a great place to be. It gets you closer to God, it gets you out of the house, and it gets you exercise. Hiking up and down mountains all day is hard work that is good for everyone. Not to mention, if you shoot an animal, you have to spend hours hiking back and forth from the animal to the truck to get the meat to the freezer.
http://debate.yukozimo.com...
To recapitulate, I am in firm affirmation that hunting, in general, is a good thing. I look forward to my opponent"s arguments.
AtheistPerson

Con

Rebuttals:

Contention 1 - The pro had said that hunting will keep the wildlife population controlled, but there are other ways.

You can capture and spay and neuter or other form of birth control to control populations. They do this with elephants and other animals in Africa.
Population even themselves out. Let nature fix itself like it has before we tried to destroy everything for personal gain. Disease, predation, and competition are natural ways the populations are sustained it been like this since the first microbiotic life started 4 billion years ago.

Contention 2 - It doesn't matter how safe and proper you are at hunting, that's not really what I'm trying to say. Hunting should not be done.

Contention 3 -
I don't understand how dragging a corpse through a forest is the best source of exercise. I'm pretty sure there are millions of other ways to exercise than that?
You don't need to kill animals to having knowledge of nature.

Points -

1. Deer kills do not keep deer numbers down

Deer are highly prolific, and their high reproductive rate can quickly compensate for declines in their population. When deer numbers are reduced after killing programs, the remaining female deer will often respond to greater food abundance by giving birth to twins or triplets. Fawns also have higher survival rates and earlier onset of sexual maturity. The end result is a quick "bounce-back" in numbers.

2. Immoral

It's immoral to kill animals in the wild when you can easily drive to the store and pick other foods up.

That's all I have to say for my points at the moment, thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Texas14

Pro

This debate has taken an interesting turn.

My opponent has stated that there are other ways besides hunting to control population. One of his suggestions does not commonly take place, and would only take place if hunting was banned. This debate is not about whether or not hunting should be banned. The resolution is that hunting, in general, is a good thing. Since hunting is the only effective way commonly used to control animal population, my opponents attack on my first claim is nullified.

To attack my second contention, my opponent stated that it doesn't matter that there are regulations to ensure that hunting is done safely because hunting should not be done. I am well aware that my opponent does not want hunting to be done. However, my opponent did not use that argument specific to my second contention, so that argument is false because they literally have not argued against the hunting safety regulations currently in place.

My opponent attacked my third contention by saying that dragging a dead animal through a forest is not the best source of exercise. I never said it was. I said that it was a good source of exercise provided by the great outdoors rather than a sweaty gym that costs money for a membership. My opponent also stated that you don't need to kill animals to have a knowledge of nature. That's very true, but you do need to go outside to have an understanding of nature. And hunting is a great opportunity to be in the great outdoors. Personally, when I hunt, I always feel like I'm on God's front porch.

My opponent's first brief contention stated that deer kills do not keep the deer population down. They stated that female deer will respond to being hunted by having more offspring. My opponent must provide a source for this, which they have failed to do. Since they have not provided a source in this debate like I said was required, all source points should go to me. To respond to this, I would strongly urge my opponent to click the link below to read an article by the University of Illinois. This article strongly negates and nullifies my opponent's first contention.
http://web.extension.illinois.edu...

My opponent's second claim was that it is immoral to kill animals. No it isn't. It's human and animal nature to hunt for a secure food source. Whenever I hunt, the meat never goes to waste. Specifically I'm referring to goose hunting. We either eat the goose meat the night we kill it, or we give it to a local raptor center filled with injured birds of prey that need the meat. I for one always thank the animal for its sacrifice and understand that it's life is going to the nourishment of another. I agree with my opponent that it is immoral to kill an animal and just leave it there, because its life means more than that, but I strongly disagree that it is immoral for an animal to go to something that needs it.

http://articles.mcall.com...

For all of these reasons and more, I can see no other option than a strong pro ballot today.
AtheistPerson

Con

AtheistPerson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
Crap... I thought I posted it! I hate when that happens!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
Texas14AtheistPersonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided reasoning and evidence to back up his points, and he did so in an organized and polite fashion. Con unfortunately didn't give a lot of reasoning, and didn't back any of it up. The forfeit was rather disappointing too.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Texas14AtheistPersonTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, and Con failed to completely refute Pro's cases leaving the resolution standing so the debate goes to Pro. Not to mention that Pro used more sources.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Texas14AtheistPersonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited the final round which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar. Arguments - Pro. Both presented compelling cases, however, Con failed to rebut Pro's arguments in the final round which left Pro standing unchallenged. Due to this, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Pro. Con did not utilize sources in this debate whereas Pro did.