The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Recreational Hunting

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,527 times Debate No: 61784
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Round 1

This debate will be centered around the question of whether or not recreational hunting is good, both morally and environmentally. I will take the Con side of this question and will attempt to prove that recreational hunting is both immoral and environmentally harmful.

I have made this debate impossible to accept, and I ask that anybody who wishes to debate this topic leave a comment or PM me. I hope that this will be a civil debate, as I have had a number of let downs as of late.

The debate structure will be generic, with the first round for acceptance only.


Recreation: Activities done for enjoyment.

Hunting: The act or sport of chasing and killing wild animals.


Recreational Hunting: Chasing and killing wild animals for one's one enjoyment.

I Hope that this turns out to be a fun debate, and good luck!


I accept this challenge, and will seek to demonstrate that the act of recreational hunting is neither immoral or harmful to the environment.

Good luck to the Instigator, or, as some of me and my friends say in competitions of skill... "Happy Hunting...".
Debate Round No. 1


Round 2: Argument

For this debate, I will attempt to show that recreational hunting (defined in round 1) is both immoral and negative for the environment. Therefore I will split my opening argument into two, fundamental subdivisions which are:

D1: Morality
D2: Environmental Impact

D1: Morality

Argument #1: Hunting to Extinction

Due to the fact that the human race has such a massive population it is easy to understand how if even a small percentage of them (approximately 5%) hunt, then there is the possibility of driving a certain species to extinction. The famous example of over hunting would be the Dodo Bird, which was hunted to extinction just one hundred years after Europeans discovered it in the late 16th century. However, the Dodo Bird is not an exception as there are dozens of other species that suffered a similar fate, such as the Tasmanian tiger and the Great auk [1].

Since the beginning of the 17th century there has been a record of over one hundred animals that have become extinct due to human beings [2]. Graph A shows that 23, or about 1/4, of these extinctions have occurred due to hunting. If one were to do do the math, that would equivilate to about 25 species that have become extinct due to hunting.

Graph A:

Admittedly, it is true that not all of these species became extinct due to recreational hunting, and not because of just regular hunting for the sake of providing food. However, due to the fact that the vast majority of mammals became extinct in the 1900's, a period in time where humans were no longer required to hunt in order to feed themselves due to an agricultural boom, it is clear that the majority of animals that became extinct due to hunting were the victims of recreational hunting, and not regular hunting. Graph B displays the overrwhleming number of mammals that became extinct during the 1900's.

Graph B:

This raises the question: is it right that human beings should have the ability to kill and lead an animal to extinction solely for the sake of recreation. In my opinion, absolutely not.

Argument #2: Pain of the animal

Another point that shows that recreational hunting is immoral is the fact that a large portion of the animals that are the victims of recreational hunters are not killed instantly and therefore suffer immense pain. One study about British deer hunting showed that 11% of deer killed by recreational hunters were shot multiple times and often took over fifteen minutes to die [3].

Another study on 80 white tailed deer revealed that twenty-two of them had been shot with "traditional archery equipment". As if this wasn't inhumane enough, the study showed that of these twenty-two deer, eleven of them had been grievously injured, yet were not recovered by the hunters [4]. Yet another study conducted by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks revealed that over 3 million wounded ducks shot by hunters go unretrieved every year [5]. Both of these studies show that a large amount of recreational hunters hunt solely for the purpose of killing animals, and have no intention of using them in any useful way after that. I believe that this certainly qualifies as immoral, as there is absolutely no justification for killing a creature that is weaker than you are solely for the sake of killing.

D2: Environmental Impact

Argument #1: Effects on the biosphere

Over hunting a particular species does not only effect that species, but every other species that lives in the same ecosystem [6]. To give an example, let us create a hypothetical situation. In said situation there is a Parasitic relationship (meaning that one species is benefiting at the expense of another species) between wolves and deer. However the relationship is quite stable as there are never enough wolves to truly wipe out all the deer and there are enough deer for the wolves to have plenty of food. However, if we introduce hunting into this scenario, the entire relationship will be destroyed. If humans start hunting deer, then the deer population will inevitably drop due to the combined factors of better technology, a higher population of human hunters, and the continued threat of the wolves. Once the deer population drops, the wolves will no longer have there food source and inevitably their population will decline as well. If humans continue to hunt in this region, they will eventually hunt the deer to extinction, and by doing so will cause the wolves to become extinct due to the fact that they had lost their food source.

This clearly shows how hunting does not solely effect the prey, and often times the relationship is more complex than the generic deer-wolf example, therefore effecting more species. In truth, hunting can sometimes benefit another species and therefore become prosperous. However, this should be avoided as well because a rapid increase in population of a particular species can prove to be damaging for the other species in the ecosystem.

Argument #2: Hunting creates starvation

Ironically, nowadays hunting actually causes starvation more than it provides food. It does not create starvation within the human community, however it does generally cause starvation to the victims of hunting. There are many reasons for why this happens, such as:

a) Hunting causes the victims to move out of the ecosystem that they were previously living in. If this happens, the species is going to have a difficult time feeding itself due to the unfamiliar environment in which they are now living in.

b) Hunting can cause a break up the so-called "family" of a species. These families stay together in order to feed and protect themselves. If this group is split up, the individuals are going to have a hard time fending for the selves, due to the fact that they don't have the support of their family.

If an animal is shot and wounded, yet not received by the hunter, it will obviously have a very difficult time getting food for itself in the wild. Since over 30% of animals shot are not killed, but wounded, it is clear that their is a significant amount of animals that die of starvation because they cannot feed themselves anymore [7].


I have shown that recreational hunting is an unnecessary and harmful act due to the fact that it is both immoral and harmful to the environment. I look forward to hearing my opponents argument in the next round.




[3] E.L. Bradshaw and P. Bateson, “Welfare Implications of Culling Red Deer (Cervus Elaphus),” Animal Welfare 9 (2000): 3–24.

[4] Stephen S. Ditchkoff et al., “Wounding Rates of White-Tailed Deer With Traditional Archery Equipment,” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (1998)

[5] Spencer Vaa, “Reducing Wounding Losses,” South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, accessed 25 July 2013

*For Sources 1,2,3, and 4 use {} as a URL to find them.




For the first round, Pro has a few premises to introduce, and will address Con"s contentions next round for rebuttals.

Men kill animals, and eat their flesh. This particularly pointed concept is at the heart of many debates regarding hunting since the modernization of farming. There really is no such thing as "un-recreational" hunting, at least in civilized societies. Animals are slaughtered, herds killed in droves with each tick of the clock across the world to satisfy our hunger, so the morality of killing for food is a moot point: we do it all the time without batting an eye. The only real question behind it is motive. This question is better summed up by asking it in reverse from the (inevitable) death of an animal. Did we kill it for the sheer joy of killing it? Was it the challenge of marksmanship and the field craft of stealth? Was it the personal desire to take an animal on your own, rather than relying on a grocer, or butcher to sell you the same creature? Did something better come from the act? The morality of an animal"s death is based solely on the desire of huntsman, which is NOT to be confused with their skills of marksmanship, their knowledge of tracking, or the random happenstance that might cause an unclean kill. No reasonable person wants an animal dead JUST for the delight of its death. Unlike the Johnny Cash tune about man, no one shoots a deer "Just to watch"em die".

Man has a desire for independence. We enjoy being able to do things on our own, be it fix our own vehicle, build our own living spaces, and yes, even provide our own food. This desire doesn"t stem from malevolence toward nature. We as a specie want to keep and hone the ability to harvest our own necessities, but Con would have you believe that to be immoral.

Environmental Impact:
Now, before it gets brought up, Pro will state that indeed many hunted animals are not killed for their meat. They are not killed because they poses some quality that the hunter will harvest and use for a better benefit, and indeed, they killed by sportsman. Who would want a creature killed in such a manner? Ironically, nature herself. Con was polite enough to mention this premise, so Pro will in turn be kind enough to explain it. With the unnatural introduction of specie (which as Con volunteered, generates 16% more animal extinctions than hunting), who better than to thwart that problem than hunters! The benefits to nature are of course immediately found, the foreign specie is systematically exterminated so that the balance on the local ecosystem isn"t violated or is at the very least mitigated [1]. This, combined with hunter initiated conservation efforts to correct the irresponsible (but far from immoral) over hunts of the past can be used to restore the natural balance. This doesn"t include the other benefits to such a hunt, like the permits paid for, the local merchants that can cater to such a hunt, and the various industries that are now supporting what should be dubbed an eco-friendly act. Speaking in dollars and cents, hunting generates 1.6 billion dollars per year toward conservation efforts, and through taxes and permits fund the US fish and Wildlife Service, and Forestry Service, [2] but, again, Con would have you believe all that to be immoral.

So, obviously, trophies are bad. Killing an animal for the purpose of stuffing it, and hanging it on the wall just to say "Look what I did!" is despicable, right? What if it"s done for the betterment of the specie as a whole? Or even MORE specie than the one hunted? Many big game hunts, the variety of which that garner negative attention by their controversial nature, neglect to have the benefit or even the cause of such a hunt publicized. The shock value of the slaughter of one African Rhino via sold hunting permit drives viewers, but does the other factors of such a location and practice a disservice. Wildlife refuges in impoverished nations have sold hunting permits on specific nuisance rhinos (nuisance to either local human populations or even a detriment to the herd itself), generating 6 figures per trophy that may go toward anti-poaching efforts and extension of the refuge. Furthermore, additional monies (upwards of 11 million collectively for this practice!) go to further aid the local community via eco-tourism. The benefits of a managed hunt easily outweigh the generated hysteria of such a harvest. [3]

Such an overall positive benefit cannot and should not be considered immoral, and as shown, recreational hunting brngs such a benefit. Money is generated for conservation efforts, practical solutions for alien specie can be adopted, and nuisance animals are dealt with. Speaking on the morality of hunting when compared to the whole of society consuming animals on an industrial scale makes the prospect of calling such hunting 'immoral' almost hypocritical.

Resolved: Recreational hunting and its environmental impact is an upright and moral one.


For more interesting facts and figures about the benefits of huntering, give [2] a good look over, the various industries and side benefits of permitted recreational hunting are more completely listed!
Debate Round No. 2


Round 3: Rebuttals
I apologize for the late response, as school has required a large amount of my attention. With that aside, lets move on to the rebuttals.

I thank my opponent for recognizing that animals are rarely shot in the wild for food anymore, and more often are shot by recreational hunters. However, I find that the argument that shooting an animal to prove ones personal skills and independence is moral to be highly impractical. I find that there is nothing moral in shooting a defenseless creature with a gun from one hundred yards away.

Independence is not a valid reason for murder. If I were to commit murder against a fellow human being, could that be justified by me saying that I wanted to see if I had the ability to kill another. Absolutely not, and if you do believe that this is justified then I believe that you might be slightly psychotic. I understand that murdering a fellow human being is not exactly the same as killing a deer in the woods, but the basic principal remains intact. Murder for the purpose of proving ones sovereignty and skill cannot be justified in any regard.

Environmental Impact

The flaw with my opponents argument is that the majority of invasive species are not mammals, but rather are plants. These plants (i.e. Purple Loosetrife) are infamous for reproducing rapidly and therefore crowding out the majority of the other plants in an ecosystem. This greatly harms said ecosystem because once these plants are essentially driven out by the invasive species, the primary consumers which feed upon these plants run out of their food source and therefore die out. This is why species introductions account for 39% of animal extinctions since 1600. Unless my opponent proposes that hunters go out and shoot at the invasive plants, which I would heavily endorse, then my opponents argument is invalid.

My opponent also points out that hunting can sometimes be beneficial to an ecosystem as a whole, because it can limit the success of an overly-dominant species. However, if we turn back to the classic wolf and deer relationship, I can show how this is not always a successful path. When colonists first arrived in American in the 17th century, they discovered that their was a huge and thriving population of Gray Wolves. Afraid that the wolves would kill both their livestock and their children, the colonists sought to eradicate the Gray Wolf population by hunting them. The colonists, and eventually the Americans, were so successful that they nearly succeeded in their original goal of eradicating the Gray Wolf, and by 1960 the Gray Wolf population in the contiguous US had dropped to just 300 [1]. This, however, proved to have a negative influence on the biosphere as a whole. With such a small population of wolves, deer thrived and their populations boomed. This had an extremely negative effect on the plants, as the huge deer population resulted in overgrazing. This caused there to be a huge drop in food sources for a huge number of animals and their populations consequently plummeted as well.

Once the Americans realized that they had made a huge mistake by killing off all the wolves, they began to try and help the wolf population re grow. One perfect example of this would be at Yellowstone National Park. At Yellowstone, the ecosystem had been suffering greatly because the deer had overgrazed the parks plants. Therefore the National Park Service decided to reintroduce the wolf population in 1993 [2]. Graph C shows the population of deer in Yellowstone.

Graph C:
It is clear that the deer population had been prospering after the wolves had been eradicated, however when wolves were reintroduced the population began to decrease nearly instantly.

This example shows how hunting a dominant animal in an ecosystem will inevitably have repercussions due to the fact that every single creature in said ecosystem impacts each other in one way or another.

I have shown that their is both no legitimate way to justify the shooting of another animal for recreation and that hunting will not always prove to be beneficial to an ecosystem, and most often will prove to be a negative effect.





No need for apologies, take all the time you can.

Morality and Independence:
Con has opined that shooting an animal to prove one's personal skills and independence to be highly impractical, and there is nothing moral about shooting a defenseless creature, specifically with a gun, at distance. While broken down into component parts for shock, Con decided to avoid a very prominent factor of Pro's argument, which Pro would contend is rather important to a basic understanding of freedom. Pro wouldn't be so base as to call it patriotic, but there is a certain degree of latitude one must assign to an individual whom would prefer to stalk and kill their own food rathern than depend upon others for their provisions, and that skill is one deserving of practice. Con furthers their opinion into the human realm, by stating that murdering a human for the purposes of seeing if they could would be psychotic, but there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals. Well, in light of appreciating differences between humans and animals, I would like to remind Con that we do hold regular competitions in which we as humans beat, shoot, punch, kick, tackle, and grapple with eachother, for no better reason than to demonstrate superiority and martial prowess. Boxing, mixed martial arts competitions, paint ball/airsoft events, football, wrestling... these are all contests in which we demonstrate as a human we could have done in another human, and in some extreme cases, some actually are and have been at such events.

Now, on the topic of impractical: it is NOT immoral for one to have a taste for duck. Or venison. Or turkey. Is there really an appreciable difference in morality in which hundreds are slaughtered in mass, as opposed to one wanting to shoot a duck for one's self to eat? Clearly, it was a recreational hunt, one doesn't need to chase and kill anything. Pro contends that a hunt of such a nature is more 'moral' than a store bought counterpart. If the hunt fails, no duck (or venison or turkey) is killed. On the flip side, in the name of what Con is calling 'practicality', thousands are still butchered regardless of the appetite. How is it immoral for ONE person to feed ONE self a desired flavor of game? Considering that "...Eliminating just half of the waste at just the consumer level would spare the lives of over 500 million chickens used for their meat, over 35 million egg-laying hens, over 15 million pigs and over 3 million cows each year....", suddenly recreational hunting on a meal-to-occasional-meal basis seems decidedly sound, rather than leaving millions of pounds of domesticated stock to rot. [1] This makes the unrecoverable or wounded animals from hunters seem paltry by comparison, if operating on a moral scale. How does game that a recreational hunter want to eat but gets left in-field due to circumstances morally stack up against thousands, no, millions of other animals whom were killed and subsequently wasted based on flighty consumer buying trends?

The pain of the animal is of course a serious question, but lets be real: no hunter wants that! Further expenditure of ammunition, further tracking a wounded animal, then lugging it back to a base camp or vehicle... its all a much greater chore than to shoot once, decisively through a practiced skill. The recreational hunter no more wants an unclean kill than a slaughterhouse wants the same for its raw materials, its not worth the cleanup to do a sloppy job in the first place. Not to argue in a circle, but if we are speaking on a morally relativistic scale, again, how does wounded and suffering animals stack up to the millions wasted via a so called 'practical' method? Kantian philosophy aside, surely a quantity argument could be made for cruelty through industrial farming versus recreational hunting. By sheer volume of waste, and how its self perpetuating and largely unchecked, Con doesn't have a moral leg to stand on.

Invasive Specie:
Pro does not consider boar, nutria, pythons, lionfish, carp, or certain frog varieties to be 'plant' life. These have all been listed as invasive specie around the US, whose hunts (or potential hunts) all can halt their numbers, and generate money for further conservation and (in the case of say.... certain wolves?) fund repopulation and reintroduction efforts.

On Gray Wolves and deer: "Afraid that the wolves would kill both their livestock and their children, the colonists sought to eradicate the Gray Wolf population by hunting them." Pro was under the impression that this debate was about recreational hunting, and not the protection of a livelihood, or protection of children. Pro would further ask of Con regarding wolves and deer, which we are to be more concerned with? The specie that doubled, and subsequently was being returned to its numbers post-end of wolf hunts? By looking at that graph, it would seem that the numbers of deer were roughly equivalent to numbers pre wolf shoots, and by extension problematic over population and over grazing, has been satisfied, assuming of course the fires and drought didn't immediately rectify part of that problem already.

Pro is begining to notice that a lot of the arguments put forth by Con are relying on form of pre-enlightenment. In the way of technology and tracking, things really took off in the 60's. People (Hippies!) became more aware of the world around them, and a generation of advocates, conservationists, and even educated hunters came about. The "Green Movement" spurred various eco-movements that have both benefitted from and contributed to well regulated recreational hunting. Bluntly, Pro would like to suggest that an immoral hunter whom kills animals to extinction, wastes their meat, and inflicts cruelty for the purpose of cruelty is a charicature. Its an illogical construction designed to embody the worst of an idea to bring a gain. Even the most selfish of people could understand that if they enjoy hunting, killing something for the sheer joy of killing it into annhilation becomes self defeating, their source of joy would be gone. It begs the question if this is a 'sins of the father' discussion? Even then I would contend that hunters of bygone eras weren't immoral.

Just uneducated.


Debate Round No. 3


Round 4: Final Rebuttals
As this is the final round, I would like to thank my opponent for engaging in this debate with me. It has been an extremely fun and also informational debate.

Now on to the final rebuttals.

Morality and Independence

I feel that I must have misunderstood my opponents original rebuttal. Rather than saying that people are killing animals solely for the sake of seeing if they could do it, my opponent claims that people hunt down animals for the sake of feeding themselves as opposed to buying their own food. This argument makes much more sense, however I still find it impractical. It is legitimate to say that murder for the sake of feeding yourself is justified. However, the only problem with this point is that the majority of hunters are not hunting for the sake of feeding themselves, but rather are hunting for the sake of recreation.

As for the sports argument I see that there are two very different things between killing another man/woman and simply fighting or wrestling with him/her. Also, I disagree with the claim that these sports are being played with the sole intention of demonstrating superiority. It might be true that this is how some or even most of these sports originated from, however now people participate in such events so as to simply play the sport itself. In a way, I find this similar to the case of recreational hunting, as the hunters have lost their original intentions of killing for the sake of providing food and now simply kill for the sake of recreation.

Moving on to the next argument, I once again agree with my opponent that it is reasonable to shoot a duck or deer or any other wild animal if you have the sole intention of providing food for yourself. However, due to the fact that hunters no longer both need or want to shoot animals for their meat, the argument that hunting is more moral than slaughterhouses is faulty. I would also like to remind my opponent that this debate is about the topic of recreational hunting, which defined in round one as "Chasing and killing wild animals for one's enjoyment". This argument is leading in to the realm of hunting for neccesity rather than hunting for recreation.

Finally, for the final argument about the pain of the animal. My opponent suggests that since the hunter has no intention of harming the animal, therefore it is perfectly OK for them to shoot it even if it brings great pain to the animal in question. Allowing an animal to survive through an extremely painful wound in the wild is the very definition of immorality, and it would be much better for the hunter to simply kill the animal rather than let it suffer its fate in the wilderness. My opponent also dropped my argument about how hunting creates starvation, which is another point that shows how hunting is generally immoral.

Invasive Species
I understand my opponents argument that not all invasive species are plants, and that there are actually a great many of them which are animals. However the vast majority of invasive species are indeed plants, and the plants are what cause the vast majority of the number of extinctions caused by invasive species [1]. The reason for this is because the plants crowd out the other plants and therefore cut off the food source for all of the species that rely on those plants. Animal Invasive Species may be a nuisance, but they do not cause species extinctions at such a high level or at all. Graph D shows the vast disparity between the number of invasive plants and animals (while admittedly in Denmark, but still shows my point).

Graph D:

On to the point about the deer vs. wolf scenario. I do acknowledge that the original purpose for hunting wolves was not for recreational purposes, however it eventually did evolve into a sport as opposed to neccesity. This can be seen in that the price of wolf fur doubled from 1830 and 1850 from $1 to $2 [2]. This shows that now people were hunting wolves for their furs and not to protect livestock.

Concluding Statement

I feel that I have provided sufficient arguments for why hunting is both immoral and bad for the environment. I appreciate my opponents point about how hunting for the sake of providing food is not necissarily immoral, and in fact agree with him. However, given that this debate is centered around recreational hunting and not necesital hunting, I feel that this argument does not refute my original arguments.

I would also like to thank my opponent for a civil debate about this matter. While I do not think that my opinion on the matter of recreational hunting has changed, I do feel that my opponent convinced me of the fact that hunting for food is not always bad and I would like to thank him for that.





Animals are rarely shot in the wild out of necessity for food. Modern industrialized farms butcher millions of animals each year to put nature's table at our grocer. There is no 'practical' reason for hunting. Con is desperately trying to lump practicality and morality in to one usage, when its clearly not the case. Con is trying to tell you that your recourse, for the purposes of morality, is to exercise the practical solution, and partake of modern day contrivances. At all times. No exception. You are not allowed to harvest your game, for your own purposes. That would be immoral: Con has provided for you. Are we confident we can abide by that loss of independence?

Remember, Con is coming from the position that the poor defenseless deer whom is stalked (recreationally), hunted (recreationally) shot (recreationally) and whose meat is ate (recreationally) -- and that death on the altar or morality need not be leveraged against the demonstrated millions that went to waste for 'practicality'. Yes, Pro will happily assert that the handful of deer taken in recreational hunting (whom had MUCH better odds of survival than any random slaughterhouse bull whose meat was wasted) is MUCH more moral than the so called 'practical' alternative. Con wants that caricature to persist. The hunter, shooting up the landscape with no regard life, limb, and probably safety, leaving dead animals in their wake, ignoring all forms of bag limits and whistling a jaunty tune. If reason, rules, and regulation get injected into the mix, it starts becoming the mundane task that it is. Killing an animal for its hide, or its meat, or both, as man has done since we crawled from caves.

Pro sees things in a rather different light. If you want duck, hunt a duck. Sure, you can hit up your local ethnic food emporium and get it, but... why? Why not go out and get some fresh air, and practice a discipline. Why not plunk down a few bucks for a permit. Oh, permits. That's right... state and federal permits and licensing, hunter safety courses, duck stamps etc. Con seems to have opted not to argue how much money returns to conservation efforts for all this recreating. Not to mention the cottage industries that cropped up around it, the various lodges, stores, butchers, etc that are employed by this simple act of recreating. Con has decided not to argue how much an 'immoral' big game hunt can do for the surrounding villages in impoverished nations. Considering the bounty of programs and continuing research that recreational huntsmen's dollars have contributed, Pro would let that dog lie, too.

As we wind down this discussion, Pro would like to take a moment to inform our audience that 'recreational hunting' is 'hunting' when it comes to modernized societies. The reason for going out on the trail might be one of wanderlust, it might be one of independence, even communing with nature. Pro does not see recreational hunting as strictly a kill for pleasure event. There is practice involved, there is patience involved, there is field craft involved. Pro has never fought the contention that 'it need not be done'. But Pro never got his question answered: if we are to look at the morality of killing an animal for sport, and enjoy all the spoils that harvested game might bring us, why are we not applying that morality to the stock yard? If killing one because we can is immoral, then how is wasting millions, and giving them no life other than hormones and no land to roam before we waste them the practical/moral option? Its this reason that is making hunting (recreational or other) impractical. Men will always kill animals, and eat their flesh. The true test of this, though, is how good we feel about ourselves as we do it.

Pro would urge you to find the true morality of the situation, and fully apply the implications of the 'practical' choice presented by Con.

Based on the evidence of conservation efforts, the monies dedicated to those countries that could use it, developed skills, and abject horror of calling the 'practical' choice the moral one, I urge you to vote Pro, that Recreational hunting is both a sound environmental choice, and a moral one.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by USN276 2 years ago
There is nothing wrong with enjoying hunting as long as you take the animal you killed, respect it's body, and use it as food.
Posted by FaustianJustice 2 years ago
Apparently not accepting messages, but, whatever the case, congrats to con. I do have a question for our 1 voter, if he would be cool enough to allow me a PM on the ruling.
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
x.x lost the grammar/spelling points right off the bat. Its gonna be one of those days.
Posted by SiriusTrekkie 3 years ago
I would like to accept this debate. I come from a family of recreational hunters, so personally I believe it is good and a right. Thank you if you do choose to accept me and congrats and good luck if someone else is chosen.
Posted by cheyennebodie 3 years ago
Recreational hunting would become immoral only if the hunter leaves the animal to just rot away. We eat all the animals we hunt. Except if it is just a varmint. I have shot rats, and I certainly would not eat one. But I do it for one reason, to reduce their numbers as much as I can.
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 years ago
I feel as though I can answer this challenge in enough ways to assert that recreational hunting has no specific immoral or environmental consequences.

Please P'message me should you find my previous debates or potential worth sparring on.
Posted by Alduin 3 years ago
Hunting is approvedand regulated by the conservation agency so there solves your moral and environmental argument right there.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Morality: con wins. Simply put, the testing of skills and demonstration of superiority cannot just win over the torture and justification of starving an animal and letting them bleed slowly to death. Env. Impact: con wins by a little bit because invasive species can cause great harm; against the people's enjoyment. This was tough to judge but con has a *very* slight edge