The Instigator
zeehoody
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lil_bit
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should hunting of wild animals be allowed in Serengati or Loliondo?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 570 times Debate No: 35982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

zeehoody

Con

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. Especially in the savanna areas where there are not many animals there left. Over there, there are also many animals facing extinction so if anyone is going to hunt the animals, it will lead to the trees overgrowing with all the herbivores gone as there is nothing to eat it, it will also unbalance the environment. Also if all the carnivores are gone, the herbivores will stay and the trees will lead to over grazing, which yet again will unbalance the ecosystem
Lil_bit

Pro

First of all, thank you to anyone who takes the time to offer some insight into this debate and vote. And thank you to my opponent for offering a great topic of debate. I chose to accept this because I feel very strongly about hunting and I wanted to educate the Con side on, well, how society works and the basics of a food chain.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
zeehoody

Con

zeehoody forfeited this round.
Lil_bit

Pro

Well... Due to the fact that my opponent has forfeited the round, I'm assuming he agrees with all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
zeehoody

Con

zeehoody forfeited this round.
Lil_bit

Pro

This has turned into quite an interesting debate...
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.