Should hunting of wild animals be allowed in Serengati or Loliondo?
Debate Rounds (3)
I'd like to start with my opponent's opening argument. "I believe hunting should never have started because it does nothing. it just takes away the environment and makes the world a worse place to live in." The most basic attack for the reasoning that hunting does nothing is to say that hunting provides a food source for the hunter, being animal or human. Now to refute the second sentence, I'd like to offer a definition of the word "environment." Merriam-Webster defines it as "the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (as climate, soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival." If hunting takes away the complex factors that act upon every living organism, I have yet to see it.
My opponent goes on to discuss the endangered species in the Savanna areas. And due to the title of this debate, I'd like to focus in on the Serengeti and Loliondo. I will agree with the fact that any endangered species should not be hunted. In areas such as the Serengeti, they are protected in wildlife parks and sanctuaries. However there are many species of animals that are not endangered and therefore should be open to the population to hunt. With regulations of course. For example, Elk are being introduced back into an area by my home. And while it is illegal to hunt them at this time, the deer population is getting out of hand and therefore hunting is allowed with the deer. But only in the winter so as not to decrease the population too much. It's the same scenario in Africa. Some species are overpopulated and need hunted before they kill themselves off.
Con offers to great arguments that are essentially the same, just different scenarios. First, he..or she?.. says if we hunt all the animals eating the plants, the plants will overgrow. Well as of right now, due to overpopulation of humans, vegetation overall has decreased significantly. I'm sure we've all seen the "plant a tree" commercials. Right now, the world could use more plants. Also, Con mentions the Savanna, which is mostly dessert. Therefore a little more plant life couldn't hurt an area like that. The other scenario my opponent offers is if we kill off all the carnivores, that leaves too many herbivores to eat all the plants. Well I did some research and found that 54 percent of all hunted game in our world is strictly herbivore and 32 percent are omnivores. That leaves only 14 percent of all hunted game to be carnivores. I don't think we need to worry about killing off carnivores.
To conclude, hunting is necessary for many reasons. We need a food source. Hunting also stops disease. If a species overpopulates disease spreads very quickly from animal to animal and the animals can very easily invade rural areas if it becomes too overpopulated and is sickly and dazed and confused. Hunting started as a necessary food source before the glorious grocery store came to be. Now it's a tool used to balance the sensitive ecosystem. It has never been, and will never be a threat to anything or anybody. This is why there are rules and regulations when it comes to hunting. To simply say "no hunting" is preposterous and will not fix any problems.
zeehoody forfeited this round.
zeehoody forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.