The Instigator
JRivers
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RowanM
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Hunting vs Meat Industry

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 52904
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

JRivers

Pro

After a nice long debate with a good friend about this topic I felt the need to bring it up on here.

I see that there's a lot of people doing the whole unable to accept the challenge thing without discussion first and due to the nature of this debate I have done so as well.

The debate is that of hunting for food vs. the meat industry. This debate may fall into many different areas, what is sustainable for the population, which is more humane, health factors of both, but what I do not want out of this debate is an argument of carnivore vs herbivore. I have respect for vegetarians, some of my best friends are and I've debated pros and cons of that often with them but this debate is not meant to debate should we or should we not eat meat. It is a debate about the method of obtaining that meat.

This does not have to be an argument to completely shut down the meat industry or completely ban hunting though it can become that should the argument proceed in that direction. But simply a weighing of facts, arguments and rebuttals about the pros and cons of sustenance hunting vs industry meat products.

As seen here, I have not provided an argument in my round one. I will be taking the position of Pro-Hunting in this debate.

I'm looking for someone willing to contend my stance and defend the meat industry, however they see fit, against my argument that hunting is superior.

I will leave an option open to my opponent. This is structured for 5 rounds, 72 hours to submit a round, my opponent may begin their argument in round one and forfeit their final response in round five agreeing to write only "Debate concluded as agreed" my opponent may also simply accept the debate in round one, providing no argument at all, in which I will begin the debate in round two. Either option works for me, but it allows my opponent to choose if they would rather structure the direction of the debate by going first and allowing me the final argument or if they'd like to wait for me to establish the direction but take the last word.

Final rounds will be closing arguments only, whether this be my opponent's last statement in Round 4 and mine in Round 5 or both our statements in Round 5.

Look forward to finding an opponent for this debate.
RowanM

Con

I accept. Bring forth your arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
JRivers

Pro

To begin this debate I would like to frame the concept of that which is being argued. I will make ____ points that I will focus on.

Of course, definitions must be employed first and for the purpose of this debate I am indicating that "hunting" be defined as any killing of an animal by a human being that is in the wild, for the purposes of this debate I will allow wild to include private property so long as the animals are not tagged, marked, or otherwise tracked or domesticated by humans. Hunting ranches in which animals are herded to a piece of land for sport hunting is not included in this definition.

Meat Industry is to be defined as any for-profit enterprise involved in the domestication, breeding, slaughtering, butchering, processing and sale of meat products.

1. Hunting is a more sustainable use of animals.
Hunting utilizes animals in a as needed basis, meat from hunting for food purposes is wasted much less than that of meat from a grocer, and wildlife agencies manage the quotas and licensing that ensures the preservation of species of the hunted animals. Additionally, hunting encourages the conservation of wild lands, thus reducing the environmental impact of its acquisition of meat compared to that of large farms that place a major footprint on the land.
Sustainability is also maintained through the reduced use of meat production facilities and their large levels of carbon emission.
2. Meat from hunting is healthier and more nutritional than that acquired from the store through the meat industry.
With a wider range of meat to select from, the lack of injected growth hormones and other chemical additives, and generally healthier animals at time of death, the meat from hunting is far healthier than that of the meat industry.
3. Hunting is more humane and respectful towards the animals.
While it is often argued that hunting is inhumane, this is often done by those completely arguing against meat in general. When compared to an industry in which animals are bred simply to be slaughtered and raised in undersized pens, treated cruelly and eventually killed with no sporting chance, the act of hunting an animal through long trained skills, in its natural habitat, with it having a chance to escape and after it has lived a free life in the wild, seems like a much more humane act.
It is also far more respectful to the animal as it is pitting man against beast in a battle of skill and wits. Rather than an animal penned up in a cage. And the use of the entire animal rather than discarding it or mashing it up into McDonalds burgers is a far more respectable treatment than the meat industry.
4. Hunting provides a wide spread injection of revenue into the economy and creates jobs.
From the license to the hunting gear, the ammo to the food for the hunting trip, the lodging to the transportation, hunting spreads out the wealth in a $55+ billion industry annually in the US alone. And it creates thousands of jobs on top of that. And this is with only 3% of the population actually participating.
5. Hunting preserves rather than hinders bio-diversity.
Hunting leads to bio-diversity as the hunters themselves as well as land owners, rangers, and wildlife agencies all want to protect the land to ensure the hunting season is just as prosperous the next year. Revenue from licensing goes back into conservation programs, parks are maintained, natural habitats are protected and wildlife thrives. Additionally, it is in the hunters interest to ensure the species to hunt is back in good populations the next go around so hunting agencies and hunters have it in their best interest to protect and conserve nature and ensure the bio-diversity that maintains the ecosystem remains intact.

This are my initial points, I await my opponents response. I will provide evidence and backing to all my arguments in the next round.
RowanM

Con

RowanM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JRivers

Pro

JRivers forfeited this round.
RowanM

Con

RowanM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JRivers

Pro

My opponent has yet again forfeited
RowanM

Con

RowanM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JRivers

Pro

My opponent has still not responded
RowanM

Con

RowanM forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by JRivers 3 years ago
JRivers
My opponent forfeited the second round, he failed to post, I did not post in the third as I had nothing further to say without any rebuttal.
Posted by JRivers 3 years ago
JRivers
Upon reviewing the content of previous debates, I will accept RowanM's challenge. However, ManofFewWords, I thank you for the challenge and I would be interested in debating another topic with you if you wish. Feel free to challenge me. But for this one after reviewing the content I feel RowanM will be the best challenger for this.
Posted by RowanM 3 years ago
RowanM
I'll accept.
Posted by ManofFewWords 3 years ago
ManofFewWords
I will accept this if you challenge me and shall use round one for acceptance in exchange for having the final say.
No votes have been placed for this debate.