The Instigator
Georgia
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
ptc
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points

Should animal hunting be legal?

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/21/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,594 times Debate No: 4466
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (14)

 

Georgia

Con

As you may know animal hunting is a big topic the royal family hunts but where is the ethics of hunting why is it right? As you may see i am totally against hunting as it is Unjust Unfair and unhamane!
ptc

Pro

As a contender of this debate topic, I am going to argue that "Animal hunting should be considered legal in some circumstances"; in other words, it would mean "Animal hunting should not be considered illegal in all circumstances".

There are different reasons behind animal hunting --

1. Animals are hunted in case of danger/trouble to human lives.
2. Animals are hunted for their meat which is considered as one of the proteins-fats rich food sources for human beings.
3. Animals are hunted for their body parts which are considered valuable e.g. ivory.

Now, looking at the various reasons, it is unwise to claim that animal hunting is illegal for all reasons. Yes, there are people who hunt animals just for fun (as an adventurous activity) which could be considered as unethical and banned but in some other circumstances, it is necessary and should be allowed.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
Georgia

Con

1. Animals are hunted for there body parts.
2. Hunting is usual done for food

Ladies and gentlemen, from these two premises, which my opponent offered and I concede to the fullest extent, we should indeed make hunting illegal. My opponent attempts to appeal to you by telling you that hunting animals are used for food, but this is not true as foxs and many other species that are hunted but not eaten.

Hunting is unsual done for there body parts that is why now there is farms ie Bear farms have been set up as an alternative to killing bears in the wild. Thousands of bears were trapped and are now kept on farms where their bile is removed either through permanent catheters or during operations. Bear farming is most common in China, Vietnam and Korea.

Also, Animals do not have rights in many animals that assuming it is not the property of another moral agent. I totally disagrre with this they definetly have rights! under animal law/ rights like every human has rights animals do too.

Every year hundreds of thousands of animals are clubbed, killed, and used for their skins and fur. And, even though its illegal to hunt endangered animals, if we don`t stop soon, they will be endangered. Just look at how easily the human species drove the mammoth to extinction!! Animals are a very important part of our lives, believe it or not, and help the world go round. If animars are gone one day, chaos will arrise.

Your move.
ptc

Pro

My opponent has skipped one important reason for hunting that I had mentioned -- when there is danger/trouble from some animal to human beings. She was unable to defend this specific point which indicates that under such circumstances, it's right to hunt animals.

Alright, moving forward with the two reasons that she has taken into account. Again, she fails to refute the reason of -- hunting animals for food. As goldspurs has rightly mentioned in the comments here, there is no reason to consider animal hunting illegal when they are hunted for food. Even animals hunt other animals for their food and so it's a natural food cycle. Going against the law of nature due to a blind emotion will never be a wise thing to do.

Now about the another reason -- hunting animals for their body parts. Yes, it could be a reason which doesn't have sufficient logical grounds to allow. Again, if people hunt animals without a good logical reason, then that specific activity could be considered illegal. But as we see there are some rational reasons behind animal hunting as well. We should not blindly ask to ban animal hunting without thinking about it's consequences. We, human beings, too are a species on this planet ultimately; and if we ban animal hunting based on a logically groundless appeal, then we will be responsible to disturb natural food cycle and further harm our own future generations.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
Georgia

Con

How about animal cruelty ? Hunting is animal cruelty ? Do you not have compassion for animals ?It is not right to kill animals how would you like that to happen to you ?
ptc

Pro

My opponent has again failed to defend the points I mentioned in my last argument. Instead her argument is based on how would I feel if someone hunted me :) Well, it's not the question of how I feel about something, it's more about lack of logical grounds to ban animal hunting completely.

If someone "feel" that animal hunting is cruel then he/she can restrain himself/herself from hunting or involving into actions that can cause hunting (like eating meat) but that doesn't mean he/she should claim that animal hunting should be banned completely without providing sufficient logical basis for the same.

Someone could go further and say that even plants have life so it's cruel to use those as food ... or even bacteria in air have life in them so it's cruel to breathe as it'd kill those.

As an intelligent species, we human beings, should make our decisions based on logical premises. In some circumstances, it is necessary to hunt animals and so it should not be banned. As I mentioned in my previous arguments, banning hunting completely have dangerous consequences --

i. if we don't hunt animal which is creating trouble to people, we're putting our life at stake.
ii. if we don't hunt animals for food, certain types of animals would outgrow and they will eat up other food resources, and so we'd be starving ourselves.

Under given circumstances, hunting animals is a necessity. It's the way the world around has been built; it's called the law of nature.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
Brian,

I am amazed at your blatant bias.

The Con made such a poor argument. Most of her argument was incoherent at best.

Do some research on the subject. You would be amazed at how LEGAL hunting does positive things for conservation.

Not to mention it is a right for me to be able to hunt animals for sustinence. It really sickens me to see people that wish to take that right away from me.

Food for thought: Do you know there is many animals killed in the process of farming fruits and vegetables? Think of all of the land that has to be cleared for growing produce. Also all of the plowing and tilling can kill many other animals such as mice who burrow under the ground.
Posted by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
"we should indeed make hunting illegal"

This is a automatic PRO ballot. Why say that? Equivalent of plainly saying I concede.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Georgia: conceding a point is agreeing with it.

You aren't 'conceding' that animals are hunted for food, you're arguing against it.

Don't copy words from people if you don't know what they mean.

Also, here's me crying plagiarism: [ http://www.debate.org... ]. Take a look at PRO R1 in that debate and the beginning of CON R2 in this one.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Well done Georgia, keep up the good work...a very well argued debate...I voted for you, but not just because I happen to agree with you. You had a worthy opponent who argued well also, mind you.
Posted by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
I fail to see what is wrong with hunting aslong as you are going to eat what you hunt. Even in the animal kingdom many animals "hunt" for their food.

Many animals would be overpopulated and starve if it wasn't for controlled, legal hunting.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NoahMuns 2 years ago
NoahMuns
GeorgiaptcTied
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 jazz_2_17 8 years ago
jazz_2_17
GeorgiaptcTied
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 dura_to_the_max 8 years ago
dura_to_the_max
GeorgiaptcTied
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 Mattowander 8 years ago
Mattowander
GeorgiaptcTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by fdg 8 years ago
fdg
GeorgiaptcTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Hellas 8 years ago
Hellas
GeorgiaptcTied
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 
Vote Placed by Christiana 8 years ago
Christiana
GeorgiaptcTied
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 
Vote Placed by Georgia 8 years ago
Georgia
GeorgiaptcTied
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 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 8 years ago
goldspurs
GeorgiaptcTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by ILoveCheese 8 years ago
ILoveCheese
GeorgiaptcTied
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:03