The Instigator
paulbrevik
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
StormySkies
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Norwegian Whaling

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 60861
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

paulbrevik

Pro

I will be arguing in FAVOR of the whale hunt in Norway. To start off, the minke whales that are targeted by the hunt are NOT endangered. [1] Secondly, the kill is generally very humane, with 80% of whales dying instantly. [2] Thirdly, whaling is important to fishermen in remote villages, who have not much income from fishing in the spring and summer, because the cod are away for this time. [3] And lastly, minke whale meat is not as mercury-laced as people like to think, because they eat mainly plankton and small fish. It in fact meets the standards of both Norway and USA for mercury levels. (This concerns meat. Not blubber or liver, rarely eaten.) [4]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://www.nammco.no...
[3]http://www.fisheries.no...
[4]http://www.prowildlife.de...
StormySkies

Con

I accept :)

Okay, so first of all: Just because the minke whales aren't endangered, doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt the species. There are many records of animals that used to be abundant, but then they slowly died out due to humans hunting them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
One of the most famous of these animals is the passenger pigeon. Billions of the birds used to be around, until humans hunted them to extinction.
And from many articles I've read, and everything I've heard as well, whaling is known as unquestionably cruel. The whales don't die "instantly" all the time. Even if it's 80%, there are still a significant number that suffer. Whales are able to slow their breathing and heart rate, so sometimes they can appear dead or unconscious, but instead they are feeling intense pain. They are often chased until exhausted, before they are harpooned a few, and they sometimes don't even die then. There's blood absolutely everywhere.
http://www.ifaw.org...
Actually, the whaling is quite unnecessary and uneconomical as well. The quota is 1286. But the years leading up to 2014 have had an increasingly less amount of whales caught. This could signal that the species is at the very beginning of running out, or, it's not quite as important.
Eating whale meat is quite uncommon, even if it meets the standards of mercury levels. It's way expensive, and most people see it as controversial.

And by the way, most of your sources are good, but I would advise against using Wikipedia as one of them. (I'm not being rude, I'm just pointing that out)
Debate Round No. 1
paulbrevik

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his acceptance. Firstly, he stated that while a species may be abundant, it can still be hunted destructively. This is certainly true, but the quota for hunting is widely understood to be sustainable, at approximately 1% of the accessible portion of the North Atlantic stock[1]. In addition, due to the whales' small size, hunting them is not very easy because they are hard to find, particularly in rough weather. [2]

My opponent stated that whaling is very cruel. However, part of his source is written from 1946, when harpoon grenades were rudimentary black powder bombs, that killed slowly by lacerating wounds. These days, in Norway, only small minke whales are killed, which makes it easier to kill them quickly, and they use penthrite grenades which kill very quickly with a shock wave which tends to destroy the nervous system and kill instantly. My source in fact states that even whales which do not appear to have died instantly are in fact unconscious or dead and simply exhibit post-mortem movements.[3] And of course whenever an animal is killed there is blood, but in a slaughterhouse it all goes down a drain and no one sees it.

My opponent states that the whaling industry is uneconomical, but the past 2 years have been very successful with increased catches and increased demand.[4][5]

[1] http://www.fisheries.no...
[2] https://vimeo.com... (18:00)
[3] http://www.nammco.no...
[4] http://www.thelocal.no...
[5] http://www.norwaytoday.info...
StormySkies

Con

You're welcome.
You say that whaling mostly benefits small town fishermen, because the cod have all gone during the spring and summer. Although cod are a significant part of Norway's fishing business, they aren't the only type of fish that can be hunted. There are many types of fish that can be hunted during the winter and fall seasons, such as the angler, which is admittedly less popular yet still beneficial.
Whale meat isn't necessary, nor is it bought often. Most of it goes to waste, or has trouble getting in supermarkets, as stated here:
http://us.whales.org...
Simply because the demand has increased, doesn't mean that it is successful.
If the minke whales are small, as soon as they are hit directly, they will die faster. But the smaller they are, the harder the target they are. And even if 80% die instantly, that's not all of them. That doesn't guarantee a completely smooth death for all whales. Their deaths may be fast, but the chase is still exhausting for them. And what if they have offspring that need to be taken care of, or are not born yet? I know that it's fully grown minke whales that are caught, but certainly the younger ones certainly deserve to live more. Whales are known for their abilities as parents.
Once again, I will say that whale meat is not necessary. There are abundant fish year round, as well as other game. It's much easier for farmers to raise lambs or pigs, and have them breed, to get humans the necessary nutrients that they need.
I only bring up the blood to emphasize the point of how gruesome the killing can be (along with a number of other animals, depends on the slaughterhouse.).
Even if it is legal in Norway among other countries, it can encourage illegal whaling as well which can be very harmful.
Debate Round No. 2
paulbrevik

Pro

My opponent stated that many other fish can be hunted in the winter and fall, which is true, but cod is the more dominant industry in this season. There are many fishing boats, and they can't all harvest the same product or the price would go down and the stocks would be stressed. Some boats hunt angler and some will hunt whales. There is money to be made in all of them and it is a choice by the fishermen what they will take. Rationally, all animals should have the same right to life, and whales should not be arbitrarily protected while other animals are seen as more acceptable to take.
My opponent's source for information on whale meat sales seems not to include the most recent data. The past two years have been a great success for the industry, with even the first acquisition of a new boat in many years. [1] My opponent states that the small size of minke whales makes them more difficult to hit, but the boats are quite small and usually approach the whale quite close before firing the gun.[2] This is to make the chances of a quick death very high. Of course, my opponent is correct that not all deaths can be instant, but this is also the case for big game hunting, and even slaughterhouses. It is unfair to hold the whale hunt to a higher standard than other forms of meat production. My opponent is correct in that a high speed chase would be stressful to the whale, but this is not the case in the Norwegian hunt. The boats will approach whales by radar and sighting, usually slowly to avoid scaring it away, and fire at it when it surfaces. [2]The Norwegian fishing boats used are usually incapable of high speed! My opponent brings up a valid point in that calves should stay with their mothers, but the boats try to only fire at a whale if it does not appear to be with a calf. Of course, such an unfortunate incident cannot be completely avoided, but the treatment of baby animals in slaughterhouses and factory farms is truly appalling and is much worse than the occasional death of a nursing mother whale. Whale meat is not necessary in Norway, but this can be said of almost any food in the developed world. Any food has a suitable substitute. It is up to the market to decide what meat will be sold and in what amount. My opponent made this point, but I encourage anyone to consider the fact that to replace a whale's meat, other animals will have to die. And many more of them. To obtain 2 or 2.5 metric tons of meat, is it more ethical to kill one whale or 30 pigs? 500 cod?
And lastly, while there are small illegal whaling operations, they mainly take place in Korea and the Philippines. There is currently no evidence of illegal whaling anywhere near Norway, I assume due to the existent supply of legal meat.

[1] http://mobil.lofotposten.no...
[2]http://www.nammco.no...
StormySkies

Con

I'm sorry, I won't be able to continue this debate. I just started school and I won't have time.
Debate Round No. 3
paulbrevik

Pro

Okay. Voters ignore the last two rounds please. I'd like to once again thank my opponent for this debate and his civility: something that is missing from most discussions about the topic.
StormySkies

Con

StormySkies forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
paulbrevik

Pro

paulbrevik forfeited this round.
StormySkies

Con

StormySkies forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by bademoxy 2 years ago
bademoxy
our species need to to reexamine our place on this planet without the conceit of human supremism.
subsistence hunting has enough moral issues (when our species can in fact survive without requiring the suffering/trauma to sentient beings such as fellow mammals) without adding the collosal misery of commercial hunting and/or factory farming.
we very well know that lifeforms other than our own experience not just physical pain but emotions,such as for cow mothers have when their calf male newborns are taken for slaughter?
how can we insist that their feelings simply don't matter or that they are unimportant in weight against our selfishness for gluttony?
a four year old child has less intellect than an adult dolphin, so why don't humans kill and eat children,which exist in far greater numbers than cetaceans?
just because nature has predation in it's life cycle doesn't excuse us from acting out the same roles, especially if we consider ourselves superior in self awareness-and not physochopathic
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
They are both murder. Also, pretty much everything is less cruel than a slaughterhouse.
Posted by paulbrevik 2 years ago
paulbrevik
Why is it "murder" when we kill a whale, but not "murder" to kill a pig? And I guarantee a slaughterhouse is much crueler.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Well, that's nice. Only 20% of the murder is drawn out.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
paulbrevikStormySkiesTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Because of Pro's gracious allowance for Con to abandon the debate, I'm nulling it rather than giving it to Con. Pro, for future reference, you have the BoP in a case like this. You not only have to argue against any negative case, you have to give a substantial affirmative case of your own, and what you did present I did not find compelling in that regard. But, of course, the debate was truncated, and I'm not going to hold that truncation against you--hence, a nulled vote. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.