The Instigator
NoahMuns
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Moonwater
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Opinion on hunting

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 6 votes the winner is...
Moonwater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 521 times Debate No: 54560
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

NoahMuns

Pro

Hunting is good and helps my family on are ranch in the Colorado Rockies (the mountains)
Comment and vote what you think.
Moonwater

Con

While hunting may help your family and their income, I believe that hunting is not a good activity.

An overabundance of hunters will slowly decrease the amount of game in, let us say, the Colorado Rockies. (Please do correct me if I get any facts wrong: I do not live in the Colorado Rockies, and am probably grossly misinformed) As game grows scarcer and scarcer, the ecosystem is impacted in negative ways. For example, if hunters are hunting deer, then as the deer grows scarcer and scarcer, their natural predators will also begin to die out from lack of food. Aside from this, little ferns and grass that the deer would usually eat will begin to grow more and more, choking off the other natural life. And this chain reaction will go on and on.

However, though I emphasize that an overabundance of hunting is detrimental to the ecosystem, I do believe in moderation. If the population of the deer begins to dip, then hunting must be stopped or at least lessened. If hunters cannot do that, then it is clear that hunting would be quite detrimental to the ecosystem.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LUshooter 2 years ago
LUshooter
You do realize that is why the state game and fish departments regulate the the sale of tags etc. right? Hunting generates the bulk of the income which in turn supports these species....
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
NoahMunsMoonwaterTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter Lt. harris
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 2 years ago
Lt.Harris
NoahMunsMoonwaterTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Hunting is good.
Vote Placed by DerKing 2 years ago
DerKing
NoahMunsMoonwaterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Admitting you are misinformed lost Con some points, but Pro did not give a real argument.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
NoahMunsMoonwaterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO didn't make arguments, con wins that point.
Vote Placed by The_Gatherer 2 years ago
The_Gatherer
NoahMunsMoonwaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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 present any real argument or sources just a one line opinion. Con gave a better argument stating reasons for their 'con' opinion.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 2 years ago
larztheloser
NoahMunsMoonwaterTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "Helps my family" is far too vague to qualify as an argument. Pro should have elaborated on this case more - how does hunting help your family exactly? The judge is supposed to act as an impartial referee with NO knowledge on the topic whom you are trying to convince. Con's case was fine but I don't think the comments about moderation did them any favors. It's perfectly acceptable to take a hard line in debates like this and just argue against all hunting in general. In more complex debates with more rounds, this would be a significant issue because hardline cases are (contrary to popular wisdom) somewhat harder to rebut. If you want to get more feedback, please send me a message. (: