The Instigator
Himan360
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Hunting should be banned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
JustAnotherFloridaGuy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 689 times Debate No: 87081
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Himan360

Pro

Hunting animals is a bad thing. Some animals are hunted to extinction. Why don't you just wait till' it dies before you hunt'em.
JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Con

I accept this debate.

Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow:

1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy.

2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have rather limited amount space to work with here, so if Pro doesn't mind, I'll propose an outline for the debate. In my first round, I'll state my assertion, the burden of proof, an overview of what Pro will have to argue, and then I'll state my argument(s). In Pro's second round, he will articulate his case and refute my argument(s). In my second round, I'll refute his case and defend my argument. I will not make any new arguments in the final round. Message me or comment if this seems unfair, Pro.

That being said, I'll start.

Pro's resolution is that hunting is bad and therefore should be banned.

As Con, I believe that poaching is bad, however, I assert that other forms of hunting are not bad and should not be banned.

Burden of proof lies entirely with Pro to prove why hunting is entirely bad and should be banned.

Before continuing, let me clarify how I can win. Pro's resolution is that hunting is bad and should be banned, so I can prove that any aspect of hunting can be good and their resolution will be negated. Pro did not specify in his resolution what form of hunting they were referring to, so they will have to argue against it on a broad scale.

Definitions

Hunting: The activity or sport of chasing and killing live wild animals

Poaching: To hunt wild animals illegally

Pro, if you disagree with these definitions, feel free to propose new ones.

Poaching

Pro asserts in their second sentence that some animals are hunted to extinction and they are not wrong. Poaching is essentially the act of killing animals that are protected by the government of any particular country. The reason for the protection is usually because the animal in question is an endangered species. However, the issue is that poaching is already illegal (banned), so Pro cannot use the argument that animals are being hunted to extinction. Since that point won't support Pro's resolution, they are left to argue that the hunting of common animals (deer, rabbits, ducks, etc.) in general is bad and should be banned.

Hunting to Survive

Human Life > Animal Life

It's common knowledge that human lives are more valued than animal lives. So in the case of a survival situation where a human has to hunt animals for food to keep from starving to death, hunting is good. To further elaborate, if an animal life is taken to save a human life in the form of hunting to eat, this specific form of hunting is therefore not bad as it has saved a life.

Brief Syllogism

(P1) Some forms of hunting can be generally considered bad.
(P2) Some forms of hunting can be generally considered good.
(C) Hunting is not entirely bad nor is it entirely good.

Pro's resolution is effectively negated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To conclude, Pro has to provide evidence/reasoning that hunting is bad, but they cannot use poaching (illegally hunting endangered animals) as an argument as it is already resolved. As well as that, Pro will have to argue against the "Hunting to Survive" and "Brief Syllogism" arguments as they are currently negating their resolution. In my next (and final) round, I will refute Pro's arguments then defend my argument(s).

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Himan360

Pro

It looks like you just copy and pasted everything! Vote pro!
JustAnotherFloridaGuy

Con

Pro has made a false accusation that the content of my round 1 arguments are not geunine. This is a red herring as it attempts to derail the topic of the debate.

I extend all my arguments.

Pro has failed to uphold their burden of proof and their resolution remains negated.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Pro should just eat dirt, after picking the living microbes from his spoonful. Oh, the humanity......
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Con fancies himself as a definer, like god.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Peepette 1 year ago
Peepette
Himan360JustAnotherFloridaGuyTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO did not rebut any of CONs points, poaching or hunting to survive, instead accused CON of plagiarism. Whereas CON rebutted CONs contention there are instances where hunting is good; poaching is already illegal therefore a non issue. Conduct to CON due to PROs accusation, S&P are equal, neither side showed glaring errors. Sources are equal, neither side used them.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Himan360JustAnotherFloridaGuyTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a weak and unsubstantiated claim. He falsely accused Con of copy and pasting so that merits a loss of conduct. Con provided in depth arguments that showed that hunting is necessary and these successfully negated Pro's assertions and since Pro offered up no rebuttal he loses by default.