Debate Rounds (3)
I thank my opponent in advance for taking on this controversial topic and wish him good luck.
What I surmised from my opponents argument is:
1) Many animals have become extinct from hunting.
2) Hunting will cause the extinction of all animals.
First of all I would like to set out a few definitions:
Hunting- the act of a person, animal, or thing that hunts. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Poaching- the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Bag Limit- A bag limit is a law imposed on hunters and fishermen restricting the number of animals within a specific species or group of species they may kill and keep. (http://www.ask.com...)
Game- wild animals, including birds and fishes, such as are hunted for food or taken for sport or profit.
In case this wasn't understood, I'm arguing that hunting should continue as it should, with the rules and regulations that are being used presently. Con is arguing hunting should be expelled all together.
The list of some recent animal extinction in North America include:
*Banks Island Wolf
*Cuban Red Macaw
Like I said these hardly cover all of them but I tried to get a diversity and choose some of the major ones. Lets start with the extinction of the Oregon Bison. The extinction was caused by overhunting and skinning. However, this happened before hunting rules and regulations had been put in to stop this type of hunting (http://www.uwsp.edu...). The Banks Island wolf the same (http://www.itsnature.org...). Eastern Elk? Same (http://web.utk.edu...). Cuban Red Macaw? Same (http://www.petermaas.nl...).
So what's the moral for the above facts? Is it that hunting is a horrible, cruel thing that should never be allowed. No! The only reason those animals became extinct was because of no government regulation on the bag limits and sometimes even government encouragement. Since around the 1950s when laws and regulations for hunting were put in place not a single animal has become extinct in North America from hunting (try and find one on google if you don't believe me). This disproves my opponents argument that [modern] hunting causes extinctions. By modern hunting I mean hunting with the rules and regulations we enjoy today.
Another comment my opponent made is that if we keep on hunting we'll end up with no animals. This conclusion is incorrect. As already stated modern hunting does not cause extinctions. This means we'll still have animals for generation after generation.
Now that I have disproved my opponents points I would like to make a few points of my own. First and foremost, the #1 cause of animal extinction is loss of habitat. #2 is introducing new species and #3 is overhunting. This is for the whole world though so overhunting still is caused by "prehistoric" hunting. As in hunting without limits or regulations(http://books.google.com...).
So what do we gain from this information? It's that if you want to stop hunting totally, you also have to stop building houses. Now the second is obviously too radical and holds no weight so that automatically negates the first by right of fairness. Although, once again I would like make the point that "modern" hunting does not cause extinctions.
Common misbeliefs about hunting:
1) Hunting is a slaughterfest where the animal has no chance and the hunter kills at will.
2) Killing an animal is murder.
3) Hunters kill simply for the fun of killing.
Hunting is not a slaughter. This is a huge misconception for most people. Hunting is generally extremely challenging and difficult to get good at doing. Animals are not stupid, they are very skittish and wary. First a hunter needs to find a good spot. If he doesn't, day over and nothing is taken. If he does he then needs to have a good setup (i.e. decoys, eliminate smell, camoflauge, etc). If he has steps one and two he then needs to get whatever he's hunting into shooting range (calls, rattles, decoys, etc). Finally at the moment of truth if the hunter does all steps before correctly he will mostly get some game in range. When the animal gets in range he then takes his shot(s) (depending on what your hunting there are laws prohibiting certain amount of shells, or bullets your gun can shoot) at it. From my own hunting experience and from the experience of others it varies on what your shooting to the percentage of times you actually hit something. A bad shooter maybe gets a hit 25% of the time while a good shooter hits maybe 75% of the time. I hope you can see how difficult it is for a hunter to get some game and try and fill his bag limit. The wariness of animals makes it very hard to get close to them and the challenge of it is what hunters hunt for in gneral (details later).
Killing an animals is murder. This one is opinion based so I can't put out facts that make it wrong. I can however, put forward facts that could change someone's point of view. Many animals are used as sacrifices. For every Christian out there if you've read the Bible you'll know that God use to want animal sacrifices for certain sins. So for Christians saying killing animals is murder makes God look like a murderer. What about all the non-christians of the world? Well for you I have but one argument. That is that animals kill other animals. Of course just cause they do it doesn't mean we have too but that isn't the point. If you think it's cruel that animals are killed then you go take it up with the predators of the world. Animals will die, and animals kill eachother much more than humans kill animals (common sense).
Although I can't speak for everyone I can say that in general (myself included) hunters hunt for the adrenaline of game getting close, the challenge of getting game, and the overall anticipation of the hunt. I have met perhaps around 250 hunters at least in my life and not one of them was some crazy, psycho lunatic on the loose who took out his angers on "helpless" little animals. Hunters hunt for the challenge and when they do get the game they eat the meat, use the skin, and other uses depending on the animal. It's not like we go out to shoot animals then just leave them there dead. I personally believe that killing an animal for nothing more than fun is wrong. Some may disagree with me but that's just my point of view. In general (as once again I can't speak for all hunters) we do use the animals that we shoot.
If my opponent would like to try and correct my view points and form a rebuttal to my argument I bid him good luck. I would just like to point out though that to win he has to prove that "modern" hunting is wrong and that we should get rid of hunting totally.
rex-town forfeited this round.
Due to my opponents lack of response (as he forfeited with about 2 days left to leave an argument) I have clearly won the debate. I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge and urge all voters to vote Pro or at the very least explain their vote on the comments page.
rex-town forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.