Should animal hunting be illegal?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shotime forfeited this round.
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.)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.