The Instigator
Rockylightning
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
Kinesis
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Seal Clubbing does more harm than good

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 9 votes the winner is...
Kinesis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,265 times Debate No: 11342
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (9)

 

Rockylightning

Pro

Definitions-
Seal Cubbing: see these pictures:
http://www.nederhoed.com...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com...

1. Cruelty to animals
According to recent studies done by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the hakapik, when used properly, kills the animal quickly and painlessly. However, the aforementioned CVMA report also urges "continued attention to this hunt" due to nine types of "violations and abuses." The Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada, also known as the Malouf Commission, claims that properly performed clubbing is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, and according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), these studies "have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely." Another study, conducted by the IFAW, an anti-sealing group, disputes these findings, however, detailing "42% of cases where there was not enough evidence of cranial injury to guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning, and 79% of cases where sealers did not check to ensure that the seals were dead prior to skinning them."
A study of the 2001 Canadian seal hunt conducted by five independent veterinarians, commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), concluded that, although the hakapik is a humane means of hunting, many hunters were not using it properly. This improper use, they said, was leading to "considerable and unacceptable suffering," and in 17 percent of the cases they observed, there were no detectable lesions of the skull whatsoever. In numerous other cases, the seals had to be struck multiple times before they were considered "unconscious." These findings are at odds with the CVMA report which states that Daoust, at the same time and in the same location, recorded that 86 percent of skulls had been completely crushed by strikes with hakapiks. It states further that two years previously, Bollinger and Campbell had recorded that 98.2 percent of the skulls examined were completely crushed.
2. Kills young pups
despite Canada's ban on the commercial hunting of suckling pups. The HSUS explains this by saying that images of the legally hunted "ragged jackets" are nearly indistinguishable from those of whitecoats. Also, they state that according to official DFO kill reports, 97% percent of the estimated million harp seals killed in the last four years have been under three months old, and the majority of these are less than one month old.

Sources:
http://www.ctv.ca...

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca...
Kinesis

Con

First, allow me to note that Pro has copied his entire case from the wikipedia article on seal hunting - http://en.wikipedia.org... This combined with the emotional nature of this debate makes it clear that Pro is simply trying, like many other cheaters on this website, to get a easy win. The sources he lists at the end of the debate appear to have no relation at all to his arguments (presumably he was hoping nobody would notice) and are simply there to get the sources point. They should be disregarded.There are a number of points I would like to make.

1. Pro's source, coming from the neutral website wikipedia (you know what I mean - I don't care about accusations of leftism, that has nothing to do with this debate), actually provides many of the refutations I need to win this debate. Indeed, every single contention he presents contests itself! For instance, the first is actually more in MY favour than Pros. It shows that used properly, the 'hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely' and that it 'is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses'. The only counter point it seems to present is speculation that the seals may have not been knocked unconscious or that the sealers didn't check to ensure that they were dead prior to skinning them which, while unfortunate, is not actual evidence that those seals hadn't been knocked out - that's sheer speculation.

2. Pro's second argument is misleading by virtue of him copying it without looking at the context. The point is in response to anti-sealing groups actively misleading the public by using supposed images of whitecoat seals despite them not being hunted anymore. In actual fact suckling pups are not hunted but legally hunted "ragged jackets" look very similar so that observers can be fooled into thinking that suckling pups are being killed.

3. I feel no compelling reason to present my own argument since Pro has plagiarised all of his, I'll leave you with this quote from the wikipedia page: 'in 2005, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) commissioned the Independent Veterinarians Working Group Report. With reference to video evidence, the report states: "Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion, and on visual images that are often difficult even for experienced observers to interpret with certainty. While a hakapik strike on the skull of a seal appears brutal, it is humane if it achieves rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness leading to death."

The resolution, by virtue of my opponents own plagiarised arguments, is negated. Thank you, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Rockylightning

Pro

Because My Opponent Would Like To Play Dirty I would like to say that while I did copy from the wiki source I stated my sources, so this is not Plagiarism is defined as the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own, by Princeton university. By stating my sources I am NOT plagarising, obviously my opponent likes dirty debates.
-------------
1. My opponent stated that "It shows that used properly, the 'hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely' and that it 'is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses" As I have stated before, many seal hunters even don't know how to use a hakapik correctly or they don't care. The point is, that if a seal isn't killed instantly, it will be skinned alive.
2. "In actual fact suckling pups are not hunted but legally hunted "ragged jackets" look very similar so that observers can be fooled into thinking that suckling pups are being killed" This is a common misconception, in reality suckling pups ARE HUNTED! There is a black market in Europe that I have seen first hand that sells seal pup skin because it is "more comfortable" and more "stylish" . As I have stated before 97% percent of the estimated million harp seals killed in the last four years have been under three months old, and the majority of these are less than one month old. So, if killing baby seals is good, then has a point.
3. When you're done being a noob and attacking my sources I'd like to get on with the debate
4. I would like to point out the comment my opponent posted to this debate, her'es the link:
http://www.newgrounds.com...
That clearly shows that my opponent thinks clubbing seals is a game, there you go people

Arguments Repeated

For the reasons that it's Cruelty To Animals and it kills young pups, take the side that isn't extremely violent and disturbing.

VOTE PRO
Kinesis

Con

Well, if you read my round, my main accusations against my opponent were cheating not plagiarism (which is most definitely true). However since Pro brings it up, yes, he did plagiarise his entire round. He is correct that had he sourced his arguments (and a nice note saying: 'oh and by the way, I didn't come up with any of this - it all came from here' would be nice as well) then it would not have been plagiarism. However, he didn't! He gave lots of irrelevant sources, but none of those were links to the place he stole his arguments from.

1. Well, I invite Pro to provide some concrete evidence that a significant proportion hunters do indeed fail to use their hakapiks correctly. Since we have already established that when used correctly, the hakapik is a perfectly humane method of killing, then this is the only point Pro can argue. But until he presents concrete evidence, this is analogous to claiming that farmers use inhumane methods of slaughtering simply because they do not know how to do it - this is an irrelevant objection until evidence is provided that they actually don't use such methods correctly.

2. Pro assets, completely without evidence, that there is a black market that does in fact hunt suckling pups. I am a little sceptical of his claim that he has experienced this first hand (he's only fourteen), but in any rate this is irrelevant until he presents evidence. He also presents an emotional argument about killing young pups - well, we kill lambs for food; we kill many, many other animals when young for sustenance. If my opponent wants to pursue this, then he's essentially arguing against the entire meat industry which is really beyond the scope of this debate. Just because a killing method is used on a young animal doesn't make it inhumane; the killing method itself must be flawed for that to be the case.

3. 'Sources' is very different from 'arguments'. The two are not the same - one should complement the other.

4. This is absurd - I, and the person who created that game, are clearly joking (he also makes other games poking fun at sensitive issues). If that has offended my opponent I'm sorry, but it has nothing to do with this debate.

My opponent's last statement is revealing - he may find it 'disturbing', but that is very different from having a rational basis for rejecting it.
Debate Round No. 2
Rockylightning

Pro

Well thank you for being a jerk....

1. By law, you have to keep clubbing the seal in the forehead until you know for sure that it's dead. Sealers are supposed to "palpate" a pup's skull after they've clubbed it, to feel the caved-in bone beneath the skin and blubber. Or they can perform the "blink reflex" test, which consists of touching the seal's eyeball—if it blinks, you've got to club it again. (Few sealers actually perform these tests, though; some say they can 'feel' the skull collapse as they make contact with their clubs.) This proves that hunters most of the time don't even know if the seal is dead! The seal could be skinned alive! How would that feel? As I have stated before 79% of hunters don't check if the seal is dead before skinning it and 42% of cases there was not enough evidence that the seal was dead. Imagine how it would feel to be skinned alive? Imagine yourself seeing this gruesome sight and you're feeling all that pain. Seals probably go through this every day.

2. First of all, if you wanted to you could buy a seal cub purse in London or Paris or anyother major European city. You cannot deny that seal cubs are being slaughtered, if you want some concrete evidence here: (this is a little graphic, so don't look if you don't like seeing dead animals.)
http://www.canadiantouristboard.com...
tell me that is not real
(heres the souce if you need it...)
http://www.canadiantouristboard.com...

3. I meant sources. I know what a source and an argument are and they are different. I meant sources. *sighs*

4. Ok thank you... but as we have seen, people clearly take this issue as a game, and turn it into one, as my opponent's emo buddy has done.

Conclusion: My opponent has stated NO main points and has only provided rebuttal to my points. My opponent has yet to state why seal clubbing does more good than harm. And finally he has not stated any sources at all.
By the way, the sources I stated are relevant... they're about seal clubbing.

Let me restate my points (copied from first round):
1. Cruelty to animals
According to recent studies done by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the hakapik, when used properly, kills the animal quickly and painlessly. However, the aforementioned CVMA report also urges "continued attention to this hunt" due to nine types of "violations and abuses." The Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada, also known as the Malouf Commission, claims that properly performed clubbing is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, and according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), these studies "have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely." Another study, conducted by the IFAW, an anti-sealing group, disputes these findings, however, detailing "42% of cases where there was not enough evidence of cranial injury to guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning, and 79% of cases where sealers did not check to ensure that the seals were dead prior to skinning them."
2. Kills young pups
despite Canada's ban on the commercial hunting of suckling pups. The HSUS explains this by saying that images of the legally hunted "ragged jackets" are nearly indistinguishable from those of whitecoats. Also, they state that according to official DFO kill reports, 97% percent of the estimated million harp seals killed in the last four years have been under three months old, and the majority of these are less than one month old.

For all these reasons, there is no doubt that PRO has won this debate.

-=VOTE PRO=-
Kinesis

Con

Sigh...it would seem that Pro still hasn't learned his lesson. His argument from THIS round is copied from here - http://www.slate.com... . I'm really getting tired of this. Why should I have to respond to arguments that Pro has just stolen from another source? And yes, once again it's plagiarism, because Pro hasn't even told us where he stole his new arguments from. If Pro really feels strongly about this issue, then perhaps he should actually come up with his own arguments. I would like to point out that regardless of whether you think me or my opponent did a better job, the voting criteria clearly states that the arguments should be their own. Since Pro has not presented any of his own arguments, then he has really provided no arguments at all, and thus has failed to uphold the resolution.

Having looked at the source that Pro's plagiarised argument provides it is actually a distortion. In actual fact, the report emphasises many times that in the vast majority of cases the seals are rendered unconscious and that in the small amount of cases that the skull is not crushed completely, the seals will most likely have been bled unconscious anyway. For instance, 'during the hunt in the Gulf in 1999, which was carried out mainly with the use of hakapiks, Bollinger and Campbell examined a minimum of 225 carcasses of beaters. At least 220 of these carcasses were of animals that had been killed prior to the observers' arrival on the ice floes. Skulls of all but 4 (1.8%) carcasses had multiple depressed fractures of the calvarium, with massive destruction of the underlying cerebral cortex'. It goes on to say that the remaining four were probably rendered unconscious after being struck anyway - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... .

2. This is ridiculous. As already pointed out, ragged jackets look very similar to suckling pups. Otherwise, this is just a play on emotions. I imagine I could do the same with any animal after dead and make the audience feel sorry for it. The creature isn't suffering anymore because it's in that state.

3. Attacking your sources is perfectly legitimate even if you hadn't plagiarised from them.

4. Uh huh.

And...then Pro finishes by fleshing out his round with the plagiarised arguments from his first round. Good job: Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by homieq 4 years ago
homieq
i must congratulate neg for posting a link to newgrounds. it really made my day :)
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
Pro did not really show how seal clubbing does any harm at all except to seals. Of course seal clubbing does harm to seals, it by definition causes them to die. Also in debates it is only the job of Con to refute all of your arguments. Con does no need to provide any. Also I don't know how you're winning our debate.
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
are you kidding me? As Pixar director John Lassater said "It's not what tools you use, it's how you use them" or more fit would be "I'ts not the evidence you use, it's how you use it"

thanks for not posting any points kinesis
Posted by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
god if you want to make a huge deal about my sources then go ahead, just know that that's what you do when you know you've lost, for example, I had a small debate over some video game issue with a friend, so i brought him an article on it, then he discredited the writer of the article. That's how it goes
If it was a computer script it would look like this:

wHen.lose
access.jerk.parent.workspace
miscredit=(source)
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Neither of us has even come close to the character limit. And the reason I'm making a big deal about it is because his plagiarised round doesn't actually support his position.
Posted by CrysisPillar 4 years ago
CrysisPillar
What's the point of arguing over a source for two rounds? Make it a point, then move on. No need to keep going and take away the character limitation for your posts.
Posted by Xer 4 years ago
Xer
Tehe. Good job Kinesis.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
@pageantgrl: go to English class.
Posted by pageantgrl 4 years ago
pageantgrl
thanks so much pro for putting this on! i fully agree it's sick what people do animals will decrees them self's naturally but what people do is sick. with my family they hunt even though im not a fan at least the animal goes though less pain then getting it's head beat it. so thanks again. im sure the seals respect you!
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
And you're a cheater. :)
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by homieq 4 years ago
homieq
RockylightningKinesisTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
RockylightningKinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by cult-logic 4 years ago
cult-logic
RockylightningKinesisTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 4 years ago
J.Kenyon
RockylightningKinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by deadguyon2streets 4 years ago
deadguyon2streets
RockylightningKinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 4 years ago
Rockylightning
RockylightningKinesisTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by haxandrew 4 years ago
haxandrew
RockylightningKinesisTied
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 
Vote Placed by cactusbin 4 years ago
cactusbin
RockylightningKinesisTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
RockylightningKinesisTied
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:06