The Instigator
Shotime
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
JacobAnderson
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

Should animal hunting be illegal?

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...
Shotime
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 505 times Debate No: 41027
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Shotime

Con

Even though I say CON, It honestly depends on the situation. Here, I am not trying to convey an argument that is neither FOR OR AGAINST animal hunting, but to make an agreement that we can all come too.
First of all, I agree entirely that hunting for leisure and sport is inhumane and the practice should be halted. However, there are certain tribes such as the Inuit which REQUIRE hunting for survival purposes. These tribes, live in cold harsh conditions where food is hard to come by. If we were to get rid of their hunting privileges entirely, then what source of food will they consume? How will they survive?
Second of all, there are pests or foreign animals that upset the balance of the eco-system, and damage human property. Farmers need to drive out certain animals because they wreck havoc upon their crops and sometimes even invade our property. They ARE PESTS. Pests can range from foreign animals imported from other countries that upset the natural balance of the eco-system since they are not native to the soil.
Finally, as I have stated before, I am not trying to argue for the abolishment of hunting as a sport, but why it should not be banned entirely.
JacobAnderson

Pro

In your argument, you stated that animal hunting should be illegal when practiced legally, but not when it is based on survival. I, personally, agree with your views, but since my side is pros in this debate, I will do my best to inform you on why animal hunting should be illegal.
As most topics, there is no definite answer, and there are usually special situations which allow us to take another side we may not normally take. This appears to be one of those cases as you have mentioned that the Inuits base their survival on the hunting of animals. This example, however, is one of the more extremes as this group of people is located mainly in the Canadian Arctic, a climate that does not allow farming or agriculture. These people hunt for seals, whales, any food source they can find, but it is a necessity for their survival.
I will continue on after you reply because I would like to hear what you have to say, and I would love to gather more information on this topic to have a more meaningful debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Shotime

Con

Well as you stated, this debate is whether animal hunting should be illegal entirely.
Excluding the inuit tribes which need hunting for survival purposes, pest control is necessary. Wether it be that killing that annoying mosquito that's buzzing in your ear, or that animal which comes along and just molesters your farms and crops.
Agriculture, as we know is the basis of food. If we were, to ban hunting entirely how would we exactly deal with all these pests? Alternative methods have already been employed, but pointing a gun and shooting it at the animal is the most effective way. "Although it may not be that ethical." And I don't feel the need to explain why shooting an animal is effective, maybe of common sense. If I do, I apologise in advance and I shall do so in the next round.
Also, the rodents. IF YOU LEAVE A PIECE OF FOOD OUT??? Rodents, cockroaches, and other disgusting animals come out of nowhere and torment your kitchen. And it's very hard to resist the temptation to drive that black rat out when you have someone screaming and the overwhelming fear of the animal carrying diseases. (If I saw a rat coming out of a hole in the house I would assume it's dirty.)
So these are the reasons of why I think hunting should not be banned entirely.
Now, I would like to hear your side of the argument. Please, go ahead.
JacobAnderson

Pro

Before I begin my rebuttals, I shall point out that you, the Con and creator of this debate, have failed to set the definition of terms. Without definitions, the viewers, including ourselves, may be confused as to what we are actually debating.
We are debating the legality of hunting. With this, I will properly give a definition of hunting. Hunting- the activity of hunting wild animals or game, esp. for food or sport. Included in this definition of hunting, it mentions that hunting only pertains to wild animals (Wildlife traditionally refers to non-domesticated animal species... which grow or live wild in an area without being introduced by humans) and game (any animal hunted for food).
With these definitions, I believe that your second round argument has been negated as pests, rats, roaches, and other animals that you have mentioned do not qualify as wildlife and therefore, when killed, cannot be considered hunting.
You also mentioned that people need to "hunt" to eat. With this, it may be to a point true, but there are other ways that people can feed on animals without hunting them. Farmers send animals to slaughterhouses, and because these animals were consistently with farmers, this cannot be considered hunting. Just because you kill an animal, it does not mean that you hunted the animal.
And because this is possible, I believe that hunting should be illegal.
Your go!
Debate Round No. 2
Shotime

Con

Shotime forfeited this round.
JacobAnderson

Pro

Well, as my opponent has not argued any points, I would say it if safe to assume that he accepts my arguments. (Although I'm sure he was busy as he would not have created the debate if he didn't disagree.)
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Shotime 3 years ago
Shotime
guys this debate is unfinished i have done another complete debate
with the same person and same topic. Can you please check the other one out thanks :D
Posted by Shotime 3 years ago
Shotime
ok.
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
If you are suggesting starting another debate, I would be fine with that. I will invite you to a debate under the same title if you are willing to accept.
Posted by Shotime 3 years ago
Shotime
yes i do accept your arguments, it makes sense. But there's more i want to say. if it doesn't bother you, i can have another argument
Posted by JacobAnderson 3 years ago
JacobAnderson
I said "when practiced legally" but I meant, "when practiced LEISURELY." My bad,
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
ShotimeJacobAndersonTied
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: Con wins this well. It is pretty cut and dry. He makes a claim that hunting should remain legal because tribes and people rely on the meat for food and production in a lot of cases. Con also brings up a stupid point about killing insects. Pro offers a rebuttal saying his idea is wrong and that killing insects is not hunting. Pro wins this easily on that point, but leaves the entire essential case dropped. He never contested the point that con made about people needing the meat for foot and clothing. Pro just says we can eat meat because farmers raise animals. This is not addressing at all, the point con raised about people who need to hunt to survive and do not rely on products from farmers. Basically he is using tribes or people who live of the wild as a source for it remaining legal. Pro dropped this , so arguments to con. Conduct to pro due to ff.