The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
losedotexe
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Hunting should NOT be illegal.

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 9 votes the winner is...
losedotexe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 14,657 times Debate No: 13571
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (9)

 

blackhawk1331

Pro

Hunting should not be illegal because it is ethical, traditional, and morally correct.

First of all, it is morally correct because the quick death from a bullet or cloud of shot is much less painful or cruel than the long miserable death of starvation or disease caused by overpopulation.

Hunting is also traditional. We, as a species, have been hunting for thousands of years, and it is not right to take away our tradition because you disagree with it. I am by no means saying that you have to approve of hunting, in fact I respect your decision not to hunt. All I ask is that you respect my decision to hunt.

Finally, hunting is ethical because in the hunter trapper education class, hunters are taught to be respectful of both landowners and animals, to kill as quickly and effectively as possible, and to not disrespect an animals carcass. Finally, in the aspect of ethics, those who truly deserve the right to hunt will make a quick end to any animal that may have unfortunately survived the bullet/shot cloud, but not without injury. :(

As a last little side note, even though I hunt, I do NOT agree wih every aspect of it. I agree with you non-hunters in some areas. I don't agree with trophy hunting, baiting, or camera traps. I beleave that those are unethical and/or immoral reasons/ways to hunt.

I await a response.

Any and all information can be found in some form in "Today's Hunter and Trapper in Pennsylvania" or at a hunter trapper education course.
losedotexe

Con

I'd like to start with a few basic definitions, just to clarify this debate.

Hunting - The activity or sport of pursuing game.
Game - Wild animals, birds, or fish hunted for food or sport.
illegal - Prohibited by law.
moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.
Justified - To declare free of blame; absolve.

I'll start with my opponent's case, then onto my own. I wish the very best of luck to Blackhawk1331, for making this debate, and allowing me to debate with him.

*Opponent's Arguments*

-Contention 1-

My opponent says it is morally correct ; yet gives on standard as to how to judge what is moral. He merely says one form of death is more moral than another. Because, he asserts, a shot is less painful than suffering of disease and starvation, it is a moral action.

He only says one form of death is more moral than another ; this is false. We are TAKING LIFE as opposed to nature taking COURSE. We are playing an active role in their population ; A deer doesn't care if it's population is under control when it's lying dead from a gunshot wound. This is a bad argument. If we were to apply the same logic to humans , the arguments that come from it would be very, very different.

-Contention 2-

He makes the argument that hunting is traditional ; because we've done it in the past, we should continue to do it. This is a marvelous way of thinking, just like how we used to have slaves, beat children with switches, consider women a spoils of war, etc. Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy. No one claimed we were doing what was RIGHT ; only what HELPED the INDIVIDUAL, at whatever cost necessary. Traditions CAN be a good thing ; but as I've shown, some traditions need to be broken. Any tradition that involves the merciless genocide of animals, be it human, or game, is wrong. Who are we to say who or what should live and who or what should die?

-Contention 3-
His last contention says that because of education, hunters are taught to respect landowners and animals. Yeah, it's showing a LOT of respect for an animal by taking it's life. It does NOT MATTER if it is quick or slow ; you are STILL TAKING LIFE. I don't have to address the idea that hunters are educated to not disrespect the animal's carcass, and that all killing should be quick and painless ; this is irrelevant. He's failed to justified killing. In my case, I will show why killing is wrong.

===Arguments Against Hunting===

-Contention 1-

Hunting is immoral

My opponent claims that hunting has a moral high ground ; I've refuted this idea. The reason is that as humans, we are moral beasts. We can comprehend morals ; that is, what is right and wrong as far as actions. Biopower, the right to body, is vital to understand this situation. The act of hunting doesn't respect this INNATE RIGHT ; The right to body. Because a deer does NOT consent to death, we are infringing on THE ANIMAL'S RIGHT to LIFE.
Again, if we were to acknowledge that humans' are overpopulated, we don't form a human hunting party ; we know this because we do not have the right to take the life of others. Humans are not better than other animals ; to say this would require extraordinary evidence. But there IS evidence that humans' are overpopulated, as shown in the study conducted by biologicaldiversity.org, that because of our excessive growth rates, and our blatant abuse and exploitation of natural FINITE resources, we are killing off rare plant and animal species at an alarming rate. [1]

-Contention 2-

Humans are disassociating the blame

As I stated in my previous contention, we are destroying our planet's finite resources. Because of OUR abuse of resources, our infringement on lands which was originally animals, and our rape of or vital ecosystems, we are beginning to go down a path of self-destruction. [2] Because humans are constantly taking up more and more land at an alarming rate, animals have less and less land. Hunting is a sign that an individual believes they are better than animals and have more of a right to this earth than they do ; this is the path of SELF DESTRUCTION.
We, as a population as a whole, are destroying this planet and encroaching on land and destroying it with roads, cities, or forest clear cutting for lumber, we destroy the vital ecosystems that these animals live in.
Because WE have forced animals into less and less land, their likeliness of overpopulation has increased. For this, we say we must 'control' animal population. This is a blatant disassociation of the problems we created. We caused this problem for animals ; now we are going to kill them to 'maintain' their population?
This is an atrocity, not only does it infringe on an animal's right to life, it is immoral in it's own right ; We cause the damage, and then scapegoat it on something else.

In short, because HUMANS are to blame for animal overpopulation, and that is the only reason my opponent listed for hunting (that being, population control), we have a lack of moral high ground to do so.
Not to mention the fact that we are NOT respecting a FELLOW ANIMAL'S RIGHT TO LIFE as we would our OWN SPECIES.

We HAVE the technology to protect these vital ecosystems, and in turn, these species of animals; all we need now is the will, and the human spirit is strong ; a vote for CON is a vote for proper environment control, accepting the damage we've done, and acknowledging it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to make it right WITHOUT animal slaughter.

A vote for PRO is a vote for animal genocide, turning a blind eye to the problems HUMANS have created, and the justification of unjustified killing.

I look forward to my opponent's next argument.
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Pro

Thank you for your response, and good luck to you. Now, I'd like to post some of my own definitions, and concepts.
1.Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
2.Slaughter - the butchering of livestock for market
3.Livestock - animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit
4.Butcher - animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit
5.Respect - the quality or state of being esteemed
6.Esteem - the regard in which one is held
7.Regard - the worth or estimation in which something or someone is held
8.Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
9.Excise tax -
10.Fair Chase – in hunting fair chase means the animal has an equal shot of getting away as it has getting shot

I will start with my opponent's rebuttals, then move to his arguments, and finally post some new arguments of my own.

- Their First Rebuttal -
First, I will respond to my opponents comment about how one death is not more moral than another. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd much rather die quickly and painlessly as opposed to the long painful death of starvation or disease. Not to mention the fact that I would have to watch the hawks or vultures circle above me if I died from starvation or disease. My opponent also commented on how hunting is not letting nature take its course. I'm sure that they have seen the Lion King and heard of this little thing called the circle of life. Well, since humans are technically an animal, we are a part of this "circle", and we are a part of nature. Therefore, me hunting is still nature taking its course. We, as humans, are at the top of the food chain, and we are built to hunt. I know this because a predator, which we are, has its eyes more centered to allow for depth perception. An animal of prey, on the other hand, has its eyes wide apart to allow it to see more, and increasing its odds of escape. Finally, in response to my opponent's comment on how a deer doesn't care about over population if it's lying dead from a bullet, I'd like to point out that a deer doesn't care about much in this world when it's dead (and on its way to heaven if that follows your belief), so therefore that is a bad argument.

- Their Second Rebuttal -
My opponent has pointed out that not all traditions are good, and I will give that to them if they can put forth a bad tradition. What they have so far called "tradition" is in fact not tradition, and never was. The slave, beating of children, and taking women as spoils of war were ideas that lasted in very specific time periods. It was never a tradition to have slaves, people didn't get slave because their parents or grandparents had them, they got them because it made sense at the time. If you had more slaves, then you could farm more land, and ultimately make more money. People also didn't beat kids because they had been beaten, they beat their children as a disciplinary action. I'd also like to point out that beating still happens, just not as often and to the same degrees. Finally, people took women as spoils of war because the women were things they wanted. And this too still happens, just not necessarily among humans. It happens with other animals. During the rut, bucks fight to see who can win, and ultimately mate with, the most doe's. In a pack of wolves, only the Alfa male, who has been proven the strongest, can mate with females. Finally, you generally get one bull in a herd of cows. Finally, in this paragraph my opponent first introduces the idea of hunting being genocide. Now, if you'll look back at the definitions that I posted, you will see that hunting cannot possibly be genocide for two reasons. Reason one: hunting is not a deliberate or systematic destruction of anything; nothing is destroyed let alone destroyed systematically and deliberately. Reason two: animals don't fall into any racial, political, or cultural group, therefore, there can't ever be a real genocide of animals.

- Their Third Rebuttal -
As I've already stated, just because I respect an animal does NOT mean that I can't also kill it. To say I have no respect for the creatures I hunt would be to say I consider it to be worthless, and that could not be further from the truth. I would like to point out that if a driver runs over a squirrel, they probably won't care whether it died instantly or is lying on the road half crushed, and they will probably not think about it ever again. Whereas I feel terrible if I have even the slightest doubt that I may have wounded a squirrel, and as soon as I kill it, I make sure that there is only one bullet hole. When I went hunting last Saturday, and I got a squirrel, the only time I got upset was when I thought that I wouldn't be able to find it because I could not stand the thought of having shot an animal only to leave it rot. I know that most hunters feel this way because I have talked and hunted with quite a few people that I meet in the field. I also have a question for my opponent. Why is it irrelevant for you to address my statement about hunters being educated to not disrespect an animal's carcass, and that all killing should be quick and painless? Finally, at the end of this rebuttal of mine, my opponent states that all killing is wrong. What about the death penalty for a mass murder? Does that person still deserve their right to live? Oh, and don't try to say that hunters don't have the right to live under this same question because if you look at the definitions that I've posted, then you will see that murder applies only to people.

Here I have shown how my opponent's rebuttals are weak and poorly based. Now, I will show you where his arguments are lacking.

- My First Rebuttal -
My opponent mentioned how humans are overpopulated, and we obviously can't hunt them. Besides the legal reasons that this statement is true, there are technical reasons. In order to hunt humans, there would have to be a chance that you wouldn't get one, and there isn't one. If you wanted to hunt humans, you could get some with no trouble. If my opponent had taken a hunter trapper education course, then they'd know that inside hunting is fair chase, and fair chase means that an animal has an equal chance of getting shot as not getting shot, and in order to keep the chase more fair so to speak, some stares have banned things such as camera traps and baiting. He also states that humans think they are better than animals, and he goes on to state that this is not true without any proof. I, on the other hand, have proof that we are in fact better (we are better overall, not necessarily as living organism to living organism). Humans are better because we have developed highly effective methods of communication that allow for fewer misunderstandings, and are still so simple to learn that we have taught some pets some words. We also have a substantially more evolved intellect, and to deny this would demonstrate extreme ignorance. Finally, we have become capable of build massive structures to house hundreds or thousands of people in an amount of space that used to hold 20 or 30 people. My opponent also states that we are killing off rare plants and animals when in fact that is not the fault of hunters, but the fault of clear cutting located generally in African rainforests.

- My Second Rebuttal -
My opponent starts off very hypocritically by stating that we are at fault for animals predicaments essential because of development. I'm not denying the truth in that, but I would like to point out that I could almost guarantee that my opponent lives in a house, and I would bet that it's a new house. I'd also like to point out that this "alarming rate" at which we are taking up land occurs in mostly third world countries because industrialized countries such as America, England, Germany etc. are star
losedotexe

Con

--Definitions--
Tradition[2] - a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom).
Genocide (From the USHMM)[1] - The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.
Paul Watson defines Murder as ; To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. [3]

I'll start out by saying that because he provides no sources for definitions, and I do, we can assume mine are more reliable and should be used.

= Countering Opponent's Rebuttals =

-Contention 1-
He says he would rather die quickly from a bullet than from disease and starvation ; No one cares what you think, feel, or say, only what the facts are. This emotional appeal bears no merit.
Next he says that humans are a part of nature ; Yes, we are. However, we are an intelligent species ; us hunting is less for our survival and more for our own enjoyment. As a species, we do not NEED to hunt, we only choose to. We are moral beings ; we do not need to mercilessly slaughter for no true purpose. The circle of life is natural and necessary ; us hunting is not.
You go in to explain how we are predators, judged by our eyes and what not ; what does this have to do with the legalization or criminalization of hunting?
If that's a justification, that a deer does not care when it's dead ; you still don't acknowledge the fact we have no right to take it's life ; you drop my value of biopower, offering none in return ; this point still stands. You haven't shown WHY it is okay to take life.

-Contention 2-

On to tradition, he says what I've listed is not tradition ; because it was only relevant for set periods of time, and done because it was logical, not because it was traditional. Everything we do is done for set periods of time ; the tradition of arranged marriages lasted for certain time periods. You fail to back up your own claim. Only assert it ; this can be ignored. Tradition, as defined, is a customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior ; All 3 of my examples meet this ; you failed to rebut this.
I provide a source for my definition of genocide ; my opponent does not. My definition encompasses animals ; his point is moot. (Deer fall into the category of GROUP)

-Contention 3-

He starts his rebut with a bunch of his feelings and views ; I've already addressed why this doesn't matter and should be ignored. This is basically his entire argument. Because he failed to really refute anything, my argument flows on.
In the last section, he poses a moral question ; and I say, Yes, he does deserve his right to life. "An Eye for An Eye leaves the whole world blind.' We can not make judgments based on our emotions ; our legal system is based on rhetoric for a reason. It makes sense.

He says my rebuttals are weak and poorly based ; I've shown how this is false.

==Opponent's rebuttals==

-First Rebuttal-
My opponent immediately appeals to the authority of a Hunter Trapper Education Course ; they support hunting ; the source is biased and as such is not credible.
He goes on and says there is a fair chase rule ; That an animal has an equal chance of being shot as not. This is a flat out lie. A man sitting in a deer stand with a hunting rifle has a significantly higher chance of killing a deer than a deer even knowing that he is there. He also talks about banned traps ; okay? It doesn't eliminate the fact that we HAVE GUNS. Guns, even the weakest, shoot a bullet at 896M/s. [4] A white-tailed deer, at it's fastest, can run 36MPH.[5]
Convert the miles to meters, and it equates to ~16M/s. Obviously, a deer is heavily disadvantaged, seeing as a hunter can fire more than a single bullet.
He says humans are superior because have developed intellect ; this is true. We also have a weaker frame than even a deer, as shown by deer attacks.[6] We can also see we are slower than wolves in speed, and less agile than birds. He showed our superior intellect ; where we excel in some places, we lack in others.

-Second rebuttal-

My opponent goes on in this rebuttal to say nothing but Ad hom attacks ; "I could almost guarantee that my OPPONENT lives in a house, and I would bet that it's a new house."
Where I live has nothing to do with this debate.

In conclusion, I've shown how both of my contentions flow through ; I've disproved his rebuttal of my first ; he fails to rebut my second, and even agrees with it. "My opponent starts off very hypocritically by stating that we are at fault for animals predicaments essential because of development. I'm not denying the truth in that"

I want to point out that he says nothing of biopower ; He must agree with it, and thus his case is, in part, contradicted.
I've shown why his rebuts to my rebuts are flawed and easily undone ; my rebuts flow through.
I've shown how his first rebuttal of my case is just his personal feelings ; my argument flows through.
I've shown how his second rebuttal of my case was an ad hom attack ; not only does my argument flow through, but Conduct point goes to CON.

My arguments show why we have NO MORAL RIGHT (as shown through BIOPOWER) to take life, and as we cannot take the life of humans, or hunt humans, we must apply this standard to animals as well. I've shown why we are not superior to animals. This moral standard should be extended to animals as well.

We do not need to hunt to survive, and it's taking life we have no right to take.

VOTE CON.

[1]http://www.ushmm.org...
[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]http://www.seashepherd.org...
[4]http://hypertextbook.com...
[5]http://www.fcps.edu...
[6]http://www.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Pro

NOTE:This argument is picking up where argument 2 left off starting with the my last sentence in argument 2. If anything refers to definitions or previous statements, look back at my 2nd argument. Thank you.
NOTE:I forgot to define excise tax, so here it is.
9.Excise tax -Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good
I'd also like to point out that this "alarming rate" at which we are taking up land occurs in mostly third world countries because industrialized countries such as America, England, Germany etc. are starting to conserve land. Some of this conservation occurs in places like Yosemite National Park in Canada, and Yellowstone National Park here in America. Maybe you've all heard of one or both of these parks. I'd like to point out that the conservation doesn't stop there. Currently land is being bought by the government solely for conservation, and the money for these purchases needs to come from somewhere. Anyone who has taken a hunter trapper education course would know where this place is, but for those of you who haven't taken the class, the money comes from an excise tax. This particular excise tax is on products for hunting, fishing, camping etc. Therefore, without hunters and fisher, there would be more land getting developed than there already is. My opponent has also stated that hunters seem to think that they have more of a right to this planet than other animals do. I love telling my opponent this, but that belief of theirs is not at all true. I know that I have the same right to this planet as other animals, and all I'm doing is interacting in the way that I was meant to. My opponent also states that hunters deny the problems caused by development, and that is not true. I know that as a member of the human race I have helped to cause this problem, but there aren't any ways to fix it without lethal force, and if there are I'd love to hear them because I don't think anyone wants wolves and/or mountain lions running through their backyard, and that is basically the only way to handle animal populations without humans killing them. In response to my opponents voting slogan, I have already proven that hunting is not a genocide or slaughter, and you can check the definitions if you want to be sure. I have also proven that hunters are not denying that we helped humanity cause the problems that are currently being faced with animal population.
Now, for some new arguments of mine.
-Argument One-
First of all, hunting is a much better way to get meat than most of the world gets it. This is true because when an animals is acquired through hunting it has grown free and wild, not in a cage and swimming in its own filth, and it hasn't been pumped full of steroids. Plus, animals that are hunted have a chance at survival whereas the domestic animals raised for food are born to die.
-Argument Two-
I'm sure that my opponent believes that animals have the God given rights that humans do. Those rights would be to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd like to point out that by guaranteeing game species' right to life permanently, my opponent is denying hunting dogs and birds that right to happiness. I'm sure my opponent has never seen a hunting dog in the field, but I have. One dog I saw was literally crying to get out of the car and go hunt. A dog owner who I hunted pheasant with last Saturday said that his dogs were driving him insane from the moment he drove onto the rode that the field we hunted was on. These hunting dogs literally live to hunt.
-Argument Three-
My opponent acts as if they are better than me by trying to force their views and beliefs onto my fellow hunters and me. This is wrong especially since I am not trying to make my opponent hunt or even approve of it, just tolerate it.
In conclusion, My opponent has failed to prove anything while I have strengthened my argument.

Here are the sites I got my info from:
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://hunting.about.com...
http://www.scienceblog.com...
http://www.irs.gov...
*Some of the information I used isn't on these pages, it can be found at a hunter trapper education course.
-END ROUND 2-
To start off, I'd like to point out that I do have sources for my definitions. One of them being the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
I'd like to start off with a comment posted by tornshoe92.
"'He goes on and says there is a fair chase rule ; That an animal has an equal chance of being shot as not. This is a flat out lie. A man sitting in a deer stand with a hunting rifle has a significantly higher chance of killing a deer than a deer even knowing that he is there.'"
You're assuming that there is a deer there to be shot at all. I've been hunting for 5-6 years and have exactly 1 big game kill and my dad who has been hunting 7-8 years has a grand total of 3. The idea that animals are more likely to be shot than not is BS."
This is an excellent point, and the same one I was going to make my self. My dad has also hunted for years, and only made two big game kills. Just because you sit and wait for a deer does NOT mean that it will EVER show up. You could sit and freeze all day and never see a darn thing.
Next, assuming that one accepts my opponent's definition of genocide over mine, it still does not apply to hunting since there is no intent on wiping out an entire species.
In my opponent's rebuttal to my first rebuttal, they state that emotional appeals hold no merit. This is not true. Death is a highly emotional event, and has no fact surrounding it except for the fact that the deceased are no longer on this planet. Therefore,my argument still reigns true. I would personally like to know the readers thoughts on this, so if you would comment on your opinion I would appreciate it.
For his second rebuttal,as I've shown,I do offer a source for my definitions, and mine is one of the most widely used sources. My opponents definition of tradition holds true to Webster's dictionary,so I will accept that point, but i'd also like to point out that he was not able to name a tradition that has been around since man first became capable of the action, his traditions were ideas someone came up with, and then someone else decided to drop. Hunting has been around for centuries.
In my opponents third contention,he once again states that the matters that I've spoken about with emotion are not true, and i have shown how this view is incorrect. I'd like to point out that rhetoric is a way of writing or speaking effectively,and therefore our legal system can't be based on this. I also want to point out that our government, the parent of our legal system,is based off of The Elements by Euclid.
I would like to say that the hunter trapper education is not biased because it is run by the government as a whole. I have already addressed fair chase. I also want to point out that a hunter will not fire at a bolting deer, the risk of injury to the deer rather than instant death is too high.
Where my opponent lives does in fact hold nothing in this debate, but how old the house is does since my opponent commented on taking up land, and a newer house was developed sooner, and therefore we knew of the problems of development before the house was made. I'd also like to point out that biopower is "the way in which capitalist states exerted control over people to better promote life." Therefore, I don NOT agree with it since it doesn't apply to a right to life. My second rebuttal is not an ad hominem attack since my statement was not fallacy. My opponent has not shown why we have no moral right to hunt, and has not proven that we are not superior to animals. Finally, some humans must hunt to survive. Ex(s):Native Americans; people in 3rd world countries
A vote for Con is a vote for ignorance and intolerance.
A vote for Pro is a vote for tolerance and enlightenment.
losedotexe

Con

I'd like to start out that biopower is not referring Michel Foucault's theory of biopower ; I explained biopower ; please ignore his forcing of a new definition on the theory.

For clarification ; Biopower is the idea, that creatures have a right to their body ; their body, their right. It is their temple, and as such, no one may act upon their body without consent.

--R2 C1--

My opponent's argument starts by talking about wildlife conservation. This is a good thing, and I'm not refuting this. He says that this comes from excise taxes that are placed on hunting, fishing, and camping goods.
My opponent says all he is doing, with his right, is interacting like other animals. Is that why bunnies can blast the wolves and mountain lions away? No! Our interaction is more than that ; It's us taking into our hands other creatures' lives. There is NO justification of taking what is not ours ; again, he ignores my moral argument, that we must uphold biopower. He has failed to refute it ; he still leaves a moral argument without any justification.
He also basically argues that excise tax helps prevent wolves and mountain lions coming into our backyards ; this is a false correlation. The origin of the money can come from many places ; it doesn't HAVE to come from excise taxes. This lone statement breaks the rest of his argument.

I'm going to point out that it is now round 3, and my opponent is introducing NEW ARGUMENTS ; this is considered bad conduct ; conduct point goes to CON.

-Argument 1-

His argument says wild animal meat is better than store meat ; this is more than likely true. I, however, NEVER justified that store meat to begin with ; this is a straw man argument. Because we are so technologically advanced, we don't NEED to eat meat at all to meet our nutritional needs.[1]

-Argument 2-

I'd like to start out that my opponent says I think animals' have god given rights ; I am an atheist, therefor, this is impossible.
Next he listed the AMERICAN RIGHTS, not NATURAL RIGHTS.
Then he says HUNTING ANIMALS need to HUNT to be HAPPY ; I'm not promising happiness. I've said we have to uphold biopower ; that it's our body, and others have no right to act upon it without consent.
This is another straw man argument ; it tries to set up an argument, assume I agree, and then destroy it.

-Argument 3-
My opponent assumes that I'm forcing my views on to them ; I'm not forcing it on to anyone. I'm presenting the reasons why WE SHOULD NOT HUNT, and he, in turn, is taking it as a personal attack ; not only is this bad conduct, but inaccurate. This argument isn't even an argument.

My opponent uses a comment as an example ; just because you hunt, doesn't mean animals will show up. Okay? IT doesn't mean that 3 or 4 or 12 won't, either. It doesn't make it fair to take life ; also, this debate is at risk of turning into a huge 'high five, we rule,' issue ; I will ask both voters and my opponent to refrain from using voters' comments as evidence.

He contests my definition of genocide ; saying that it does not apply because it's not intent to wipe out. It says a 'to destroy the existence of the group', couldn't it be the existence of deer in a certain area?

-Rebuttal to Rebuttal 1-
Then he tries to justify emotional appeals ; Death is emotional for some ; not for others. The problem with his argument is that it doesn't provide ANY REAL REASON why we should do something ; he provides no reason to accept his argument, and acknowledges it as an emotional appeal ; this argument can be dropped in its' entirety at this point.

-Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2-
My opponent said I was unable to provide for a tradition that has been around since man first became capable of action ; This is demanding extraordinary evidence that doesn't exist. This would go into a very atopical zone of "How is Man here?", which I'm not going to acknowledge. The definition of tradition holds strong to the tradition of owning slaves, beating children, and taking women as spoils ; this argument flows through.

-Rebuttal to Rebuttal 3-
My opponent concedes this is an emotional appeal ; we can drop this argument. I've shown how emotional appeals hold no bearing on the facts. He goes on to say that rhetoric is a way of writing or speaking effectively. This is true ; emotional appeals hold no merit, however. They may be able to persuade, but an argument (of which debates are comprised) are persuasive arguments based on LOGIC. [2]
HE also goes into an atopic statement about our legal system being based of The Elements of Euclid. I'm not arguing this one way or another ; it is atopical.

-Rebuttal to Rebuttal 4-
My opponent once again assumes that where I live has to anything to do with this debate ; other than that, he drops this argument ; The argument flows on.
I've refuted the argument against biopower earlier in this case ; It's a moral philosophy ; not the philosophy by Focoult.

He drops my argument about why humans are NOT morally superior ; this flows on.
He drops my argument of biopower ; this flows on.
He accepts that 2 of his arguments are emotional appeals ; these are dropped.

I've shown why his arguments/rebuttals are flawed and have destroyed them ; my arguments are standing strong.

I'd like to point out that hunting is not necessary ; We have more than enough ways to obtain vital nutrients and calories without meat.[2]

In addition, hunting is perpetuating the idea that we are a superior species ; I do not have to justify we aren't ; it is assumed. My opponent bore the Burden of Proof on this, and ignored it ; he must agree we are equal.

Voting PRO is continuing the abuse of biopower, justifying the killing of animals, and protecting outdated tradition ; just like many did during the 1800s with slavery.
However, a vote for CON is a vote to put an end to needless slaughter, and to respect both our place in this world and animals' right to life.

VOTE CON.
Debate Round No. 3
blackhawk1331

Pro

First of all, I think biopower should be completely disregarded since we have two definitions that are equally accurate. I'd like to point out next that if you choose to keep biopower and go with my opponents's definition, you may want to ask my opponent were they got their definition for biopower because I checked ALL of the sites they offered, and not one refers to biopower even once, at least not in the way my opponent uses it. Finally, in reference to biopower, my opponent uses it as a reason to say that "because a deer does NOT consent to death, we are infringing on THE ANIMAL'S RIGHT to LIFE."(this came from round one). I want to point out that a deer has NOT consented to death when it's lying in a field or the woods dying slowly and painfully of disease and/or starvation, therefore, a "natural" death also violates the idea of biopower. As you can see, I have shown three flaws in my opponent's use of biopower, and I would recommend dismissing biopower all together. Granted, I can't tell you what do to, and this leads to something else I want to point out. My opponent, throughout the debate, tells the voters to dismiss certain arguments, I want to point out that whether or not an argument is dismissed is neither my nor my opponent's choice, it's the choice of each voter individually.
Next my opponent states that I said I am "interacting LIKE other animals". This is a fallacy, I stated that I am interacting WITH other animals in the WAY THAT I WAS MEANT TO. THAT is why bunnies aren't blasting away wolves and mountain lions. RABBITS ARE MEANT TO BE EATEN! MOUNTAIN LIONS AND WOLVES ARE MEANT TO EAT, THEREFORE, MOUNTAIN LIONS AND WOLVES EAT RABBITS! See how that works? I have already shown why biopower should be ignored. Finally, I did NOT say the excise tax keeps wolves and mountain lions out of our back yards, I said the excise tax went to education courses and land conservation. And while the money doesn't HAVE to come from excise taxes, it generally does. My opponent would know that if they had taken a hunter trapper education course. I'd also like to point out that there is no rule that states I can't introduce new arguments in the middle of the debate, therefore, conduct point does NOT go to Con.
My opponent states that we don't need meat. This is not entirely true, while it's no longer a staple like it used to be, most people still eat meat, and taking it away would destroy their lives. Being a vegetarian(not eating meat) is a choice, but us being omnivorous(we eat both meat and plants) is scientific fact, therefore meat is still something we should be ingesting. Visit this link.(http://wiki.answers.com...) Next, my opponent states we have the technology to avoid meat. While this is true, it does NOT mean we have the money. Ex: We have the technology to send people to the moon every year, but we don't have the money.
Next, I will drop the God given rights, and pick up natural rights. First of all, natural rights apply only to man(visit this link http://www.u-s-history.com...), so they hold no ground in this debate. Next, my opponent states that they do NOT insure happiness. Now WHAT is the POINT of LIVING if you aren't HAPPY?! There is none, a miserable life is just as bad, if not worse then, death.
I'll consent that my third argument is not really an argument(there is also no bad conduct there). This is because in order for my opponent to be forcing their views on me, they would have had to stick to the debate topic of why hunting should or shouldn't be illegal. They haven't been doing this, they have been arguing why killing is immoral, and that is not what the debate is about. My opponent also comments that taking life isn't fair. Guess what. LIFE ISN'T FAIR! I'd like to address genocide again. My opponent claims that hunters are wiping out deer in certain areas. This is, once again, a fallacy. My opponent fails to realize that hunting has regulations to avoid deer being wiped out in any areas, and if they are wiped out in an area, it is because of poaching(an activity done by a poacher. Visit this link for the definition of a poacher. http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Since poaching is illegal to begin with, outlawing hunting would NOT eliminate that problem.
Next, my opponent states that death is emotional for some and not others. A fallacy. Death is ALWAYS emotional, but the emotion doesn't have to be that of sadness. The emotions can range everywhere between depression and apathy. I'd also like to point out that there is NO RULE AGAINST EMOTIONAL APPEALS. Because of this, my argument still stands.
My opponent has admitted there have been no traditions around as long as hunting, so the other short traditions listed cannot be used in this area. If my opponent agrees, I propose we drop tradition entirely since it is getting neither of us anywhere, and just wasting characters.
I've shown how emotional appeals hold strong, so keep my response to my opponents third contention. I'd also like to point out that the point of a debate is to persuade the reader to your views, therefore, arguments do NOT have to be based solely on logic.(not that this matters because my emotional appeals are based on logic and emotion together anyway) By the way, the comment on Euclid's Elements was just a fun fact, not an argument.
Where you live DOES have something to do with debate. Now, since you have kindly asked me not to quote comments, I won't. I will, however, use the idea from a comment since it is a better way of getting my point across. My point was on how you comment about land usage. Where you live matters because you must use things that used up land, and this is not the fault of hunters.
The rest of what my opponent says is just recap that I've already addressed.
Finally, I'd like to thank my opponent for not bringing up safety as a reason for why hunting should be illegal(not that they really gave any solid reasons for hunting to be illegal, just reasons for why killing is wrong which doesn't address the debate topic.) because statistically speaking, hunting is a very safe sport. Soccer is eight times as dangerous and cheerleading seven times. Go to this link for exact details.
http://books.google.com...

Finally, just as a reminder to all, the closing statements will contain NO NEW ARGUMENTS. They will only contain recap.

A vote for Con is a vote for ignorance and intolerance.
A vote for Pro is a vote for tolerance and enlightenment.
losedotexe

Con

Alright. I'm going to begin by countering my opponent's attempt to destroy biopower.
It doesn't matter where biopower comes from. It's a value ; the name doesn't matter, the idea does.
He fails to argue against the value ; biopower flows through.

Next, I agree. a deer doesn't consent to death ; but we don't have a RIGHT TO TAKE IT FROM THEM, EITHER. I don't consent to breaking my arm, but that doesn't justify someone smashing my arm with a hammer.
Nature is not a moral entity ; it does not contain a conscious. If you are going to claim a moral high ground (as you do in R1), then you need to justify it ; you have failed to do so.

The value of biopower is obvious ; It holds strong because my opponent attacks the definition, not the ideal, thus practically ignoring it.

My opponent has claimed I'm telling voters how to vote ; I'm explaining why a point SHOULD be ignored.

My opponent asserts rabbits are meant to be eaten ; this is incorrect. The rule of nature is survival ; No animal's WAY OF LIFE is to be FOOD. You provide ABSOLUTELY NO justification that rabbits, quote, "ARE MEANT TO BE EATEN!". This point should be ignored ; it makes an incredibly extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence.

My opponent talks about the excise tax ; he fails to defend against the attack, merely clarifying where the money comes from. "Well, it TYPICALLY comes from here," doesn't justify anything ; laws, regulations, and tax revenue can be changed.

Again my opponent is asserting an extraordinary claim ; "...most people still eat meat, and taking it away would destroy lives." This is ridiculous claim, and I've shown evidence to the contrary ; my opponent provides no evidence ; this point can be ignored.

I'll agree that we are BIOLOGICALLY INCLINED for an omnivorous diet ; I agree. This still has NOTHING to do with the morality of HUNTING. He also says we SHOULD be ingesting meat ; If you are going to assert the claim, justify it ; my evidence trumps this as it is not necessity, and not doing so upholds biopower.

My opponent says we do not have the cost to not eat meat ; however, the opposite is actually true. it costs 6-20x more fossil fuels to produce meat proteins versus plant proteins.[1] In addition, it costs ~31.5x the amount of water to produce a single pound of beef, versus a pound of wheat. [1] If we stop eating meat and eat non-meats, such as wheats, we actually are capable of producing SIGNIFICANTLY more food.

My opponent goes on to assert a theory of natural rights ; When I refer to natural rights, I'm referring to the innate rights all creatures have. The definition of natural is, 'in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature.'[2]
Rights is defined as 'legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement.'[3] We cannot say that animals do not have rights ; Otherwise, animal fighting would be legal.

My opponent voices his own personal views ; That a miserable life is worse than death. This is untrue ; if you are alive, but miserable, there is still a chance your life could improve ; if you are dead, you have destroyed any potential of feeling happiness.

My opponent says i'm not sticking to the debate topic because i'm talking about killing ; Isn't hunting killing an animal??
He asserts life isn't fair ; This I can agree with. However, this doesn't justify NOT trying to make things more fair, especially if it's in our power to do so.

I'll concede that genocide is a bad word ; the idea behind it, however, stands. That hunters are killing with little to no discretion for their own gains. Hunters are wiping deer out ; not entirely, but they are still reducing their numbers.

Emotional appeals are a logical fallacy.[4] My opponent says death is always emotional ; then isn't it good to ban hunting so as to stop bad emotions?

Tradition doesn't have to exist for a set period ; A tradition is defined as, "an inherited pattern of thought or action". [5] The argument against tradition stands.

I've shown how emotional fallacies are fallacious. Debate is about persuasion ; however, without logic, we are establishing nothing and harming academia ; Debate is also intended to increase discourse of ideas ; without logic and reasoning and evidence, all we are left with is how we feel.

Where I live has nothing to do with this debate. I never claimed that hunters are to blame ; merely that hunting isn't justified because of our society, as a whole, has taken action to put animals in the situation they are in as far as land goes.

My opponent attempts to sneak an argument in here ; that hunting is safe. Hunting is NOT safe ; it's not safe for the animal you are robbing of life. That is the goal of hunting.

I want to address again the assertion of atopicality against me ; hunting is killing ; therefor, killing is TOPICAL.

The debate has gone into atopic arguments, merely because it is necessary in order to address arguments asserted by my opponent ; otherwise, the argument would be considered dropped.

Dropped arguments
_________________
Hunting is unnecessary for survival
Species superiority
Biopower (as the value, not a definition)

Because he didn't argue against these, he must agree with them.

My rebuttals accurately destroy my opponent's arguments, whilst ensuring my own are still stable.

A Vote for PRO is a vote to extend the needless slaughter of animals, the assertion of species-based discrimination, and the destruction of biopower ;

However, a vote for CON is a vote to protect animals, to acknowledge that species are equal, and to uphold THE RIGHT TO YOUR OWN BODY.

VOTE CON.

Sources
_____________
[1]http://www.chooseveg.com...
[2]in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://www.nizkor.org...
[5]an inherited pattern of thought or action
Debate Round No. 4
blackhawk1331

Pro

I'd like to start out my closing statements by saying that this has been a very fun debate, and I look forward to my next debate with losedotexe. Also, I'd like to remind everyone that this debate was over whether or not hunting should remain legal, not the justification of killing. I said yes, hunting should remain legal and losedotexe said no, hunting should NOT be legal. Now, without further ado, it's time for my closing statements.
I have used many examples to prove that hunting should remain legal. These include the fact that hunting is morally correct, necessary for survival, ethical, and, since my opponent insists it was an argument, safe.
First of all, I have proved that hunting is morally correct. I have proven that it is morally correct because it saves animals from a slow, possibly painful, death. Animals are at risk of this type of death because they are vulnerable to disease and starvation. They become vulnerable to these through over population, and as humans(the dominant race) it is our responsibility to save them from a death like this. We can save them from this death by leaving hunting legal. Leaving hunting legal helps because if animals are hunted, then they have a predator, and a predator will keep their numbers in check. I have already shown how humans are predators because of our design. Now, my opponent correctly pointed out that it is the fault of humans that animals ever got the opportunity to become over populated. This, however, does NOT mean that we should outlaw hunting seeing as hunting is the only means of population control. I challenged my opponent to provide ways of population control that didn't require hunting back in R3. As one can see, they didn't provide any means. That is because, as I correctly stated, other than releasing other predatory animals into the wild(mountain lions, wolves, etc.) there IS NO WAY to control population without hunting. Deer(most common animal for overpopulation problems) can NOT be relocated. The first reason for this is that no one wants them, so they die in captivity(from starvation or disease). The other reason is that if they are lucky enough to be released, they die soon because they are such a timid animal, and being captured ad trucked around is a very traumatic experience, therefore, it is much more humane to hunt them. Finally, my emotional arguments about death are valid, and my opponent conceded that in saying "death is always emotional ; then isn't it good to ban hunting so as to stop bad emotions?" I added the part about banning hunting because I'd ;like to point something out about it. My opponent says that it's good to ban hunting in order to stop bad emotions. This is false because, as I stated, the emotions don't have to be sad(a.k.a. bad) ones, they can be apathetic. This means that all emotions tied to banning hunting aren't bad. In conclusion of this paragraph, hunting is morally correct because it save animals from suffering, and it is the most humane way to deal with overpopulation.
Next, I say that hunting should remain legal because it is ethical. Hunting is ethical because hunters respect their kill. My opponent stated that I can't respect an animal because I kill it. I showed that this is not true because, in accordance to a lot of definitions, for hunters to not respect animals would mean that hunters consider the animals worthless. This is not true at all because even if a hunter doesn't value the animal's life, they value the food or fur it provides, and to say this is a lie would be highly illogical.
Hunting is necessary for survival in some situations such as third world countries that have no other ways of getting food, and Native Americans who have clung to their old ways of life.
Finally, hunting should remain legal because it is safe(I'm only using this because my opponent insisted that when I said this it was an argument. I was sincerely thankful they hadn't brought it up, but since they insisted it was an argument, I will use it as one). Hunting is safe because, as I've stated, statistically speaking, you are eight times as likely to be injured playing soccer, and seven times more likely to get injured cheerleading(http://books.google.com...). My opponent tried to rebut this by saying that hunting is unsafe to the game animals. This is a duh statement. We aren't debating how safe hunting is for animals, if we were I'd have very little to argue. But since animal safety came up I'll point out the reasons why animals are safer being hunted. 1.5 million vehicles collide with deer every year (http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...), therefore, deer are in more danger from cars than hunting. This article states that trophy hunting makes no difference on deer population, but I don't support trophy hunting anyway. If you keep reading the article, however, you will notice that it states hunting does WILL help population control, and reduce deer-car accidents. Keep reading the article, and you'll see more benefits of hunting.
In conclusion, hunting should remain legal for multiple reason. Reason one: it is morally correct. Explanation: hunting causes fewer deer to die slowly and painfully from starvation and/or disease by providing a quick painless death, and it controls population. Reason two: it is ethical. Explanation: hunters respect game animals for one reason or another, whereas when an animal is hit by a car, the driver will probably never think of the animal again. Reason three: hunting is safe. Explanation: statistically speaking, it is a very safe sport(see previous article), and in terms of safety to animals(even though the legality of hunting can't be based on the safety to game animals) it's a less painful and quicker death to be shot than to be hit by a car.
Now, there were some topics that should be dismissed. The first is the argument of tradition. This should be dismissed because, in hindsight, it has nothing to do with this debate, and will neither help nor hinder anyone. The next topic is that of biopower. My opponent has already consented that biopower can be dismissed as a definition. Now, I say that biopower can be dismissed as an idea since my opponent has stated that personal views don't count for this deabte, and my opponent has failed to cite a source for their form of biopower, therefore, biopower can be considered as my opponent's own thoughts and dismissed as an argument. Species superiority is non applicable because the dominant species doesn't matter when it comes to the legality of hunting.
Finally, the ideas that hunting is a genocide or slaughter can be dismissed. Hunting is not genocide because there is absolutely no intention of totally wiping out any animal in any area. My opponent has conceded this in stating "I'll concede that genocide is a bad word". They also state the idea behind it still stands, but this is a fallacy because the idea behind genocide is the total inhalation of something, which I already stated is incorrect because there is no intention to totally eliminate anything in any area whatsoever.
Slaughter cannot be applied here, and this is why.
Slaughter - the butchering of livestock for market
Livestock and butcher - animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit
Since game animals are not livestock, they cannot be slaughtered.
As I have proved, hunting should remain legal. My opponent has provided no good reason to outlaw hunting so vote for Pro because...
A vote for Con is a vote for ignorance and intolerance.
A vote for Pro is a vote for tolerance and enlightenment.
Thank you for reading my debate.
losedotexe

Con

My closing is going to go over the main arguments, and conclude WHY you should vote for pro.

It is important to note that my opponent NEVER ARGUED against biopower ; and this is our judging standard for ethics.

I. Ethical Moral

My opponent has offered no justified reason for hunting being an ethical stance. Because we must respect right to body in life, we must also extend that respect to animals. Our interference with their lives, especially by taking life, is not justified. Because the human race is to blame for our extraordinary encroachment on their land, it is not moral to 'help' them survive by killing them. Animals have rights, too ; we are not gods ; we do not decide what lives and what dies.

II. Survival

I've shown why we do not need to hunt to survive ; in fact, the killing of animals, and the ingestion of meats with our current lifestyles is a detriment to our society, because our lifestyles do not tend to meet the amount of calories we consume. We can be significantly better off without meat at all ; thus this argument is invalid.
In addition, we do not need animals to survive ; this is just an excuse to continue an OLD, OUTDATED, and CRUEL tradition.

III. Safety

My opponent asserts this is an argument. It's blatantly obvious that hunting is NOT safe for the animals ; and because we do NOT have the moral right to take their lives, it's obviously intentionally unsafe action.

Dropped arguments
_________________

I. Tradition

This argument stands ; it is a tradition, and as I explained in the safety closing argument, it is an outdated tradition that we should do away with.

II. Biopower

My opponent attempted to do away with this ; however, if we do away with this, we are left with NO MORAL STANDARD. Without this, we cannot judge if something is moral.
Biopower is a vital aspect of life ; in order to respect anything in this life, we must FIRST respect that an individual's life is their own. Because of this, biopower is a strong argument ; this is why my opponent dropped it.

III. Species superiority

The idea that humans are superior to other animals has been shown to be wrong ; We may be smarter, but wolves are faster ; bears are stronger ; birds can fly ; and etc. We are equal, and my opponent says this is not valid to the debate ; IT just further proves there is NO REASON to allow the SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS to continue.

I'd like to finish by saying my opponent provides NO REASON as to WHY we shouldn't criminalize it ; where as, I have shown that we have no reason to allow this barbarous tradition to continue.

Our laws are based on morals ; I've shown how there is moral ground AGAINST hunting ; yet there is NO MORAL GROUND IN FAVOR OF.

This ALONE justifies the banning of hunting.

My opponent uses many arguments throughout the debate as justification of voting CON ; yet these reasons are insignificant and don't justify allowing hunting to continue. For example ; The definition of genocide.

To keeping hunting legal is to encourage species superiority, to concede that the right to body is NOT important, and that even when there is no valid reason to keep hunting legal, my opponent says we should.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Fine we won't discuss it anymore, but before I end I'd like to point out that moral standard still isn't justification for biopower because of the fact that whether or not something is moral is opinion and there's no argument about it. You think hunting is immoral as proven in your arguments, and I say that it is moral as proven in my arguments. That clearly shows that whether or not something is moral is an opinion.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
lets say I DIDN'T have ANY origin of this idea, and that it is indeed something that solely I believe is moral and correct.
You still failed to provide any other means of moral standard ; therefor, we must use the one which was presented.

I'm not discussing this anymore.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
I'm not debating the idea, I'm saying you can't use it without a valid source everyone can check, and that's essentially something you said.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
I'm not going to debate about it here ; if you want to debate about the legitimacy of the IDEA of biopower as an accepted value, then by all means, challenge me to a debate. But I am not going to continue it here to further influence this debate.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Yes, but there's nothing to back that name up besides what you say, so it's invalid. Your assuming that people have participated in LD high school debates. Most of us probably have not participated in this, so it's not a very valid argument. You could say just about anything and states it's from high school debates. Since most people haven't participated in them, they won't know wether it's true or false.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
It can because it's more than my opinion ; Anyone who has participated in LD high school debates has heard this value at LEAST once ; not to mention it's a value ; some people may already support the idea without calling it biopower. I'm just giving it a name ; not the idea.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Ok, because until then it can't really be counted in the debate.
Posted by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
I do not know where it came from, in all honesty. All I know is that it is an uncommon value in LD format high school debates, and is an incredibly powerful one.

I'm doing my best to find out ; I will let you know when I find it.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
Losedotexe, just as a side note, you may want to offer a source for your form of biopower because, as you stated in R2, "No one cares what you think, feel, or say, only what the facts are". Therefore, unless you provide a source for your idea biopower, it would be "what you think, feel,or say" and " No one cares what you think, feel, or say". So provide a source for biopower, or admit it's your own idea and invalid according to your statement from R2.

Oh, and people who comment, if you're going to take the time to comment could you please vote too. Thanks.
Posted by blackhawk1331 6 years ago
blackhawk1331
I hate to say it, but I agree with losedotexe that voting must be done based solely on what's said in the debate. Everyone has to read the debate then vote with a clean slate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 6 years ago
Demauscian
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by clucas 6 years ago
clucas
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Vote Placed by Elmakai 6 years ago
Elmakai
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by tornshoe92 6 years ago
tornshoe92
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 6 years ago
Aaronroy
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by debatefreak22 6 years ago
debatefreak22
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by losedotexe 6 years ago
losedotexe
blackhawk1331losedotexeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00