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

Should animal hunting be banned?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,037 times Debate No: 80340
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)




This debate is about whether or not animal hunting should be banned. I am "Con" where I believe animal hunting shouldn't be banned, while "Pro" will argue for the banning of animal hunting.


No forfeits, unless both sides forfeit the same amount of rounds; then it is fair game.
No foul language of any kind, both sides must respect each other.
No Trolls please!
If you use a source, post its link in a "Source Category".
Any rules broken is an automatic disqualification for the individual who broke the rules.

Round 1: Acceptance and any questions for clarification (Please post in the comment section).
Round 2: Opening Argument (Please Keep it Short) for both Pro and Con, except Pro can Rebuttal this round if they choose.
Round 3: Both sides Rebuttal
Round 4: Con Rebuttals and states his or her Conclusion and can Rebuttal if they choose to do so, while Pro will just have to state his or her Conclusion only.

Any breakage of the structure is either a penalty or automatic disqualification. Depends on how serious the breaking of the structure was.

Animal: Any such living thing other than a human being or plant. Examples, in this case, would be deer, wolves, ducks, etc.

Hunting: The activity of hunting wild animals or game, especially for food or sport.

Banned: Officially, or legally, prohibited.

Good luck to whoever accepts!


I accept.

The animals in question should be constraint to those who are actually hunted, such as deer, ducks et cetera or those relevantly similar.

A practice ought to be illegal if it violates some generally agreed upon moral principle or implication thereof.
Since the vast majority of hunts in developed countries are not actually conducted for survival, I will be arguing that, at least in countries relevantly similar to the United States and other developed nations, hunting does violate at least one such moral principle or an implication of one.
Debate Round No. 1


SnaxAttack forfeited this round.


Since my opponent asked to keep the opening argument short, I am going to restrict myself to only one argument. However, since I now do not get to rebut my opponent's opening argument I suggest a revision of the structure in that I, too, am allowed to post a rebuttal, as opposed to merely stating my conclusion, in the last round, to keep the number of rebuttals equal.

The Argument from Marginal Cases

1.If we are justified in denying direct moral status to animals then we are justified in denying direct moral status to the marginal cases.

2.We are not justified in denying direct moral status to the marginal cases.
3.Therefore we are not justified denying direct moral status to animals. (1)

What and what does not constitute direct moral status is of course not a settled issue. However, something along the lines of

"deserving to be treated with at least some respect and not deserving to suffer unless there is a good reason"
should work.

Marginal cases refers to infants, comatose patients, the elderly, mentally handicapped children and the like.

It follows then that premise two is uncontroversially true, we are not justified in denying them direct moral status.

My opponent may of course contest this, although I suggest doing that would prima facie count against his side.

Now, on what basis could we deny the moral status of animals (or give it as little weight as to justify hunting)? We would have to identify some property humans do and non-human animals do not posses.

Of course, several properties possessed only by humans come to mind. Rationality, language, the ability to debate over the internet and so on. However, for any such property, there are quite a few humans not in possession of that property. For example, a severely mentally disabled child will never be in possession of any of those properties.

Therefore, if we wanted to say "it is permissible to hunt and kill animals, because they are not rational", then we could not object to the claim that "it is permissible to hunt and kill severely mentally disabled children, because they are not rational". Which is unacceptable.

Likewise, by denying the consequent of this implication, it is not permissible to hunt and kill animals, just because they are not rational (you can of course plug in any property only humans have).

Alternatively, to avoid such a conclusion, we might appeal to properties all humans possess. Which are not many.

Infants are conscious, the elderly are conscious and even comatose patients posses at least the ability to regain consciousness.

So we can say consciousness is, in some form or another, a property all humans have.
However, for any property possessed by all humans, there are many animals that also possess this property.

Therefore, if we want to say that "it is impermissible to hunt and kill severely mentally disabled children, because they are conscious beings", then we cannot object to the claim that "it is impermissible to hunt and kill deer and ducks, because they are conscious beings".

I conclude that hunting cannot be rationally justified and violates unequivocally agreed upon moral principles and should therefore be outlawed.

Back to Con.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for both accepting the debate and accepting my apology for not arguing last round. I lost track of time and failed to post an argument, and I once more wish to apologize to my opponent for not posting my first argument. Because of this, the structure will change so it is fair for both me and my opponent.

The new structure will be as followed:
Round 2: Opening argument for Pro only because of Con forfeiting.
Round 3: Opening argument for Con only and Rebuttals to both sides.
Round 4. Final Rebuttals and conclusion for Con and Pro.

If my opponent does not like the new structure, we can discuss it in the comment section and fix it as needed; otherwise, I will begin my short opening argument and me Rebuttaling to my opponents opening argument.

To begin, I wish to provide my opening argument of why animal hunting should not be banned. Animal hunting is a way of achieving food when needed, and without it people couldn't survive. Especially individuals within the tribes of Africa. As we can see from the topic "Should animal hunting be banned", it does not specify a certain country or group; its more of a generalization topic. In which can include anyone around the world. In my argument, I wish to bring up a few African tribes who still hunt for food nowadays and heavily rely on it. Examples of tribes that still hunt nowadays include: The Kalahari, Setinelese, and Piraha (1). Now imagine if they were restrained from hunting. How is this fair for them, when this is one of their ways of obtaining meat from animals? In reality, a human is far greater than the life of an animal.

Secondly, for my quick opening argument, is that with hunting; there is a clearance of wild animals roaming the streets of cities, and on highways. I will say that tamed animals (Dogs, Cats, etc.) are fine because they are trained, but these wild animals (Deer, Coyotes, etc.) are not. And it is proven for wild animals to be coming into the city because stated from the article "These Wild Animals are Taking New York City" (2), it states: "But the urban world around you is also with other wildlife". Why is this bad? Because of the damage that is being implemented because of trying to keep these animals alive. One main example is property damage where the animal can rummage through the garbage, or accidentally destroy an owners grass. Stated from "The Cst of Invasive Species" (3), the amount of money done yearly for animals doing property damage is a billion dollars. Thats a lot and is lowering the value of property because of the animal invasion.

Also, like mentioned previously, the amount of road damage comes into play to. Stated from "Driving Animals to their Grave" (4), it states: "Everyday in the U.S., 190 million motor vehicles hit the road, and one million animals get hit by motor vehicles". Thats a lot, once more, and has resulted in 6.3 automobile accidents yearly (5). Add that to the property damage, and the risk of a human getting injured and what do you get? Nothing, but pain and suffering when the solution stands with us. The solution being that we are allowed to hunt animals in order to gain control, otherwise there is more chaos than needed.

Now to Rebuttal my opponents main argument about why animals should not be hunted. My opponents main argument, which I wish that he can clarify, is that animals have morals to, similar to infants; and hence should not be killed. First off, following the definition given in the first round, animals are not infants or even human. They are just a being that live in a wild, while a human lives in a more domestic type of lifestyle. There are no similarities like stated from "How Animal and Human Emotions Are Different" (6), where it states: that emotion is not truly displayed in animals, but to humans. Animals have more survival like skills, but a human has more wisdom in knowing what is right and wrong. Following my opponents argument about an animal having morals as well, I ask does an animal know what do humans say? Most don't, unless trained by a superior intelligence, a human of course, and cannot be trained unless with a human. Dogs can learn tricks from a human, but a fawn learns from its mother who fails to know what is right or wrong.

Using my opponents example of an infant, an infants can be trained to do what is right or wrong; having morals, while an animal cannot because unless trained by a human, which a majority of wild animals are not, they don't know what is right or wrong. This faults my opponents argument, and makes wild animals just be an animal. Does an animal care? No, they typically do not.

For this reason, animals should be hunted because its the survivability to some tribes, and helps prevent possible property damages.



Thanks Con.
I agree to the revised structure of this debate.

Negative Case - Con's Argument

Con argues hunting should not be banned as some humans, particularly from Africa, still depend on hunting as a way to get food.

He justifies this in appealing to the way the resolution is phrased. Which is of course a perfectly fine thing to do.

It is correct that "hunting should be banned" does not specify some particular place.

However, it also does not justify some particular time.
I suggest, therefore, we as citizens of developed nations ought to help third world countries in sustaining a reliable supply of food.
And then we apply, say, the argument form marginal cases to justify a ban on hunting.

Further, he claims "In reality, a human is far greater than the life of an animal". It seems he is suggesting that all human lives are of superior moral worth than all animal lives. A claim I would like him to justify, as my argument is a pretty clear objection to this.

Afterwards he talks about about wild animals coming to our cities and causing damage. To prevent this, he says, we need to hunt them.

Now, why do animals visit urban areas?

One reason is that we destroy their natural habitats (1). In hunting them down, we won't stop it. It's a very crude and symptomatic approach.
If we want to be able to live on this planet for more than just the next couple of years we ought to stay away from such solutions and prefer lasting ones, such as reducing the destruction of natural habitats.

He continues to suggest that we should hunt animals because of the car accidents they induce.
To which I have to ask how killing them to begin with is a sensible solution in some way superior, to, say, introducing speed limits and again refraining from destroying their natural habitats, which is the reason they travel and cross roads in the first place.

Positive Case - The Argument from Marginal Cases

My opponent takes the point of my argument to be that marginal cases as well as animals have "morals" which I take to mean they act in accordance with certain moral rules.

That is not my point. As such my opponents rebuttal does not affect my argument.

He asks me to give some clarification. With which I am going to conclude this round.

The Argument from Marginal Cases starts from the very basic claim that we are not justified to hunt and kill humans, particularly infants, comatose patients, etc. A claim my opponent seemingly agrees with.

We can then ask, if we want to conclude that we are not justified in hunting and killing marginal cases, but are justified in hunting and killing animals, how we can demarcate these two groups, such that we can arrive at the desired conclusion.

Various attributes are considered, for all of which we either had to concede that it would be permissible to kill infants, comatose patients, etc., which is unacceptable or that it is impermissible to kill animals.

Therefore, we cannot rationally defend the permissibility of hunting.


Debate Round No. 3


I thank my opponent for responding back, and will Rebuttal then state my conclusion for this round.

To begin, I wish to Rebuttal a few of my opponents statements that he used during the last round, and prove why hunting is necessary for society. In the previous round, I said that animal hunting shouldn't be banned because African Tribes still are "Hunting Societies", and banning it will hinder their society. My opponent argues back, with the quote: "I suggest, therefore, we as citizens of developed nations ought to help third world countries in sustaining a reliable supply of food". I agree with my opponent with this idea, but if we did implement it; where would the meat come from? From hunting, and in human's diet, it is necessary to have both meat and vegetables in the system. Stated from the article "All-Meat vs. Vegeterian Diets" (1) it basically sums up the benefits and doubts of an all meat or all vegeterian diet. They put two individuals to do both diets for a month, and the results showed that both sides have their nutrients that is necessary for survival. Quoted from the article: "I don't see any pluses for either of these diets. Your body needs a balance of protein, carbohydrates, and fats. Any diet with less calories would result in weight loss, and later possible heatlh impacts". As we can see, if we only gave vegetables to these African Tribes, or anyone is general, there would be less consequences for having a balanced diet. And I do agree with my opponent that we should provide for them in some form of way, not get rid of the hunting meat though.

Then my opponent argues that I stated "In reality, a human is far greater than the life of an animal". I agree I stated this, and follow through with this because an animal doesn't give back to a human. In my opponents opening argument, he argued that we annot deny the morals of animals; however, an animal doesn't have its morals. In my previous argument, I brought up a fact that animals don't have morals because they don't help humans, unless humans train them. If animals could train themselves to know right or wrong, they would have morals; but they don't. Most of the time, they only know to eat, drink, and sleep; that is it. (2 & 3).

Then my opponent tries to Rebuttal that the reason animals keep moving into cities is because of the United States taking down forests. Does it happen? Yes, it does but the actual data on how much forest is destroyed is very low. In fact, it states that the U.S has only lost 10% of forests, and the main cause was because of traveling to the West back then and putting new cooperations (4). Thats pretty low, when in reality the reason why animals keep coming into urban areas is because of high birthrates. With the amount of rain done within 2014, less hunters hunted and more animlas gave birth and populated more areas (5).

Then my opponent argues that we shouldn't kill animals because of other ways of hleping with animal hits on the road. Personally, we shouldn't have to put up for animals that can damage our cars because the pricing for pulling out signs and replacing them is much to high. Imagine if you hit an animal, while driving down the road and ended up in a coma. How is that fair, when it can easily be done with a gun shot. Its either our lives or theirs, and I personally prefer my own.

To conclude, animal hunting should not be banned because of the drastic effects that can occur. In many societies, we have used animal hunting as a means for food, and now we can't because it is wrong? Ever heard of survival of the fittest? We, as humans, are the fittest and deserve higher rights than animals. Also, animal hunting is a billion dollar industry, and we need it to gain that revenue (6). On that note, I thank my opponent for this debate and hope he had fun.



My Opponent agrees with my suggestion of aiding third world countries, but he then asks where the meat is supposed to come from and argues a balanced diet is easier applicable than a vegetarian.

The article suggests several possible downsides downsides of a vegetarian diet.

However, the article by no means concludes a successful vegetarian diet to be impossible, as "people clearly do it"(1).

I could explain how a vegetarian can easily account for these supposed sufficiencies, but since we agree that time is not a relevant factor, we can simply aid them until they are capable to sustain a healthy, plant-based diet.

Afterwards, he justifies his claim that all human lives are of superior moral worth than all animal lives with the claim "an animal doesn't give back to a human".

I think it really comes down to how we understand "giving back", because pets, for instance, clearly give back something to their owners, otherwise, if only they were benefiting, people would hardly get pets to begin with.
But why should
'giving back'be the morally important factor?

To invoke an example from my original argument, severely mentally disabled children cannot and will never be able to give back to anyone.
However, hunting them would be unacceptable.
Therefore, "giving back" cannot be the criteria for moral worth.

He explains again that animals have no morals and states my argument concludes that we cannot deny the morals of animals.
But that is not what my argument tries to show.

As such, my argument remains uncontested even now.

Concerning the issue of animals moving to cities, Con contests destruction of natural habitats is not the biggest factor at play.

Now, I object that deforestation does not exhaust destruction of natural habitats, but let's suppose my opponent is right.

Is pulling the trigger the best option to control the animal population?

It appears to me that contraceptives and sterilization are very live options. And since animals deserve direct moral status, we ought to practice non-lethal methods.

Pro states he prefers his own life to that of an animal. Which is perfectly reasonable, I, too, prefer my own life to that of most other single beings on this planet.

But it is a false dichotomy to think this is a reasonably expendable event.

Of course I wouldn't like to end up in a coma, because of some animal.

However I also would not like to get mugged on the street by a poor person in need of money.

I have no reason to expect either thing to happen, but should we therefore imprison poor people for crimes they have not committed, but for which there is defeasible reason to expect they might commit them at some unspecified point in the future?

Any legal system punishing people for what crimes they have not committed is not a system of justice.

He appeals to the survival of the fittest. But this is a description of what we see in nature. It is not prescriptive and by no means justifies any act whatsoever.

Since, again, one could argue

"we should terminate the weak and the disabled, have you not heard of the survival of the fittest before?"

To conclude, hunting should be banned, as non-human animals enjoy direct moral status.


Thanks a lot for the debate!

Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Dookieman// Mod action: NOT Removed<

4 points to Pro (Arguments, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does examine enough of the debate to show that they read and understood it. Admittedly, the explanation for conduct came late, but in this case it will be accepted. For future reference, all points awarded should be explained at the time the vote is posted and no later, otherwise you risk removal.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Part 3:

Con forfeited a round so conduct goes to Pro.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Also you forgot to give reasoning for conduct :p
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
There's no weight attached to inconsistency. No real-world impacts like economic ones so I can't really consider it.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago

"where exactly? The hypocricy argument, even at its entire weight, cannot outweigh economic or livelihood."

It's not really an argument from hypocrisy, but rather from inconsistency. Also, it is absurd to think economic or livelihood outweigh moral considerations. We don't think, for example, that the economic benefits white people made from enslaving african americans justified slavery.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Part 2:

Finally Pro responds to Con"s claim that because animals lack knowledge of right and wrong they therefore have no rights, by again appealing to the margins of humanity. Pro points out that a severely disabled child will never know right from wrong, but nevertheless it is absurd to claim that such an individual has no moral status. As regards to the issue Con raised of overpopulation of animals, Pro claims that sterilization of animals can solve this problem. Pro tries to downplay Con"s claim that we need to eat meat, by pointing out how people live healthy lives without meat.

Once I consider the arguments made by Pro and Con, I believe that Pro"s argument comes across as more plausible. The reason is because of his argument from marginal cases. Con"s only objection to this argument was the claim that animals lack moral knowledge. But as Pro pointed out this response is extremely unsatisfactory. Pro also demonstrated how hunting is unnecessary because developed nations can provide vegetarian food to other parts of the world. Indeed, Con himself even agreed this alternative is possible. Lastly, Pro pointed out how hunting was not needed in order to prevent overpopulation like Con claimed since sterilization and contraceptives can do this without harming the animals.

The resolution is upheld.

Let"s assume my RDF is mistaken. Even if my assessment of the arguments presented is mistaken, it looks like Con loses this debate given the rules he laid out in the beginning of the debate.
Posted by Dookieman 1 year ago
Part 1:

Pro argued against hunting on grounds that animals have moral status, and therefore should not be killed for human benefit. In order to justify the claim that animals have moral status, Pro appeals to the margins of humanity.

The basic idea behind this argument is that if one appeals to some characteristic e.g. rationality in defense of the claim that animals have no moral status, then by that same line of reasoning one will also have to conclude that human beings who lack rationality like infants must have no moral status either.

Since virtually no one thinks infants and the severely disabled may be killed in the ways we kill animals, this argument provides support for the claim that animals have moral standing.

Con argued in defense of hunting on grounds that it provides sustenance to tribes who do not have access to vegetarian alternatives, and that it is necessary to prevent possible property damage.

Con objected to Pro"s argument by claiming that animals don"t know right from wrong like human beings. Because of this, we are justified in rejecting Pro"s claim that animals have moral status.

Pro responded to Con"s opening statements by claiming that developed nations could start providing vegetarian alternatives to these tribes so they would no longer have to hunt animals. In regards to possible property damage, Pro maintains this problem is mostly due to humans destroying the natural habitats of animals and can be fixed without hunting them.

Con agrees with Pro"s idea that developed nations should provide food to the tribes, but disagrees that this food should only be vegetarian. Con claims human beings must eat a diet with meat and vegetables, otherwise one would not be eating a balanced diet. Con claimed that animals showing up in our society has nothing to do with our destruction of their habitat, but rather with the fact that people hunted less because of rain, which lead to more animals producing offspring and populating t
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Lexus// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Comment RFD

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote appears to be sufficient, covering enough of the debate to show that the voter read through it and considered the arguments carefully. This appears to mainly be a difference of opinion with regards to what constituted consideration.

Note: After reading through the RFD and subsequent comments, it's pretty clear that this is a difference of opinion in terms of which impacts matter most. There's also a concern that the voter didn't cover all arguments. However, sussing out these issues is not something moderators are supposed to do. We remove votes that don't meet the standards, nothing more.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
What I took away from the debate was what my RFD said. I'm just one person and I might not be right. You can ask someone else to provide an RFD if you think that mine was incomplete, or you can report mine if you think it isn't sufficient.
Posted by Fkkize 1 year ago
"Con is saying that there is something that is inherently different from animals and humans that makes one of the deserving of moral status and the other not so much; emotions."

That still misses the point of the argument. To use just one example from my argument:
severely mentally handicapped children for example lack the ability to feel and express emotions in a way humans do. In this sense they are closer to animals than humans.
If you want to say it is "emotions" that animals lack and humans don't and therefore it's Ok to hunt the former, then you are committed to say it is ok to hunt these handicapped children.
That's the whole point of the argument.

You are seriously of the opinion that the violation of the right to life of thousands is less important than economic impact that can be fully compensated over time?
How is death not a real life impact?
He never objected to my observation that time is not relevant to this debate, so even if you believe life to be less important than money, you should be able to acknowledge that, since time plays no factor, all possible economic issues can be compensated.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Dookieman 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Lexus 1 year ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Comment RFD