The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Should hunting remain legal?

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 14298
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




I am asserting that hunting SHOULD remain legal, the person that accepts this debate will be arguing against hunting. Here's how the debate will go.
R1 I will enter my opening arguments; my opponent enters opening arguments and rebuttals.
R2 We both enter rebuttals.
R3 We both enter rebuttals.
R4 We enter closing statements. There is no more arguing.

Now, I am asserting that hunting should remain legal because it controls populations, it is great for conservation, and it is statistically one of the safest sports.

Hunting should remain legal because it controls populations. I will defer to 2 animals on this argument. Deer and elephants. Now, there are several plans in action currently to get deer hunting under control right now. States are enlisting sharpshooters to shoot, or cull, a certain number of deer. This usually occurs when the deer population gets so high that the deer are destroying the natural habitat, literally. In some areas, buck hunting is restricted since it's more effective to shoot a doe in terms of population control. There are special antler-less deer seasons as well. This combined with restrictions on buck hunting is meant to bring down the doe population and re-establish a healthy buck to doe population. There are also special bow hunts to drop numbers down. The state of Maryland reports that lethal car-deer accidents have dropped more than 50% in Montgomery County since they started the special managed hunts. These hunts are the culling, and the special seasons. The reduction in accidents is due to a population that is closer to the lands carrying capacity. This is the point we would like to reach everywhere for two reasons. 1, it will mean less damage to people and property. 2, the deer will live safer and easier lives thanks to more food per deer. Now, elephants. South Africa reintroduced elephant hunting in order to cut numbers down. It was said that this is the "last option" to lower he environmental degradation, and the conflicts between elephants and people. Conservationists have stated that killing some elephants will actually help conserve the environment. The problem is, elephants, once on the verge of extinction, are now rising 5% a year in population, and their numbers as of 2008 are expected to double by 2020. These elephants are starting to become a risk to landscape, other species, and humans. There won't even be 2,000 elephants killed, but it will be enough. The plan in which to execute the killings is flying sharpshooters up in helicopters, and putting one bullet through the brain for a quick and painless death.

Now, hunting supports conservation greatly. First of all, every state has WMU's or wildlife management areas. These areas are designed do wildlife can be managed individually from location to location. It increases the conservation. Now, Pheasant's Forever, an organization of hunters, have completed 5,021 habitat projects and created/improved 60,647 acres of land for all species of animals. Now, I will also debunk the myth that everyone has to pay taxes for hunting. The taxes paid in hunting are special excise taxes placed specifically on hunting equipment. Since 1939, $5.6 billion has been generated from this tax. This money goes to buying new land for conservation, and improving the already conserved land. In 2009 alone, $336 million dollars was generated from the excise tax. All this excise tax money goes to conservation. It would be significantly worse for the environment from a conservation standpoint if hunting were banned rather than remaining legal.

Now, hunting is statistically one of the safest sports. Statistics show that you are 8 times more likely to get injured playing soccer, and seven times more likely to get injured cheerleading. Now, 100 hunters die accidentally per year on average. Now, you may be thinking 100 HUNTERS! Oh my Lord! But, what you've failed to take into account is that there are over 20 million hunters in the country. Let me give you this in a percent of hunter who die hunting to hunter. 0.0005% of hunters actually die hunting. There can be no more than 1,590 players in the professional football league, and an average of 12-15 deaths per year. This averages out to a 0.75% chance you will die playing football. This number still isn't 1%, but the odds of dying playing football are significantly higher than the odds of dying while hunting.

I hope someone accepts this debate. By the way, I am arguing this for a school project, and arguments of mine may get new information added to them seeing as how this is the end of the first week, and the project is over a month long.

Dickson, Tom. "Hunting myths." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. N.p.,
2011. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <

"How many players are allowed on an NFL team?" N.p., n.d. Web. 6
Jan. 2011. <

"How Many Pro Football Teams are There?" Ask. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2011.

Miniter, Frank. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting. Google Books. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <

"On average how many people die of football injuries yearly?" ChaCha. N.p., 26
June 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2011. <

Roos, Dave. "Does deer hunting reduce car accidents?" How Stuff Works. N.p., 16
Dec. 2008. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <

Good luck to whomever accepts.


Pretty tough to debate making the act of hunting illegal but i will give it a try.

Lets take the famous whooping crane. A very well know bird, very interesting and a wonderful beauty of nature.
Until 10 years ago the whooping crane was in danger of ultimate extinction. The reason for this? Hunting.

Most of the time hunting is regulated, but this poor bird had been hunted SO MUCH that in 1950 there were only 6 of these birds left. This is one example of how hunting can end any group of animal if it isnt properly regulated.

Hunting is also very very dangerous. Numerous injuries and even deaths have resulted from hunting. An 8 year old boy named Tucker was hunting with his father in 2004. They were hunting geese when Tuckers father told him to stay put while he snuck up on some geese. Tucker had moved and his father shoot him right in the chest mistaking him for a goose. Its a very sad story but not the only one that is similar to this one. Tucker's shotgun wound was fatal..

Although hunting is a popular hobby of many Americans, it has its cons and reasons for being banned which i have stated.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting, and the best of luck to you. Before I refute, I wan to say scratch the directions for R4, I forgot to add that round. Sorry. We will just argue till the end, no closer is required.
Now, I'm not going to research the whooping crane hunting thing yet because you may want to get your facts straight. If the bird only had 6 left, it's legally extinct, and not coming back. I may be slightly off on this, but I believe that once an animal has less than 49 individuals alive, the gene pool is too close and the animal is classified as extinct. Like I said, I could be off. It could be higher and it could be lower.

Now, all of the time hunting is regulated in the US. At least hunting of game animals. Now, if the Crane story is true, that bird would be a game bird, and, from my research, regulated by that time. Finally, the argument on regulation is useless. Anymore, target species are regulated, and there won't be this unregulated hunting.

Now, safety. With your story, there is an irresponsible hunter involved, and they are a rare breed. First, you don't stalk geese, you sit in a blind and call them in. Next, you keep track of party members so you don't shoot their direction. Finally, you ALWAYS identify your target, and this clearly didn't happen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the kid deserved to die. I want a source for this though because this seems like an unlikely story. There is too much irresponibilty I think. So I would like a source. Also, I never said you can't die hunting, and I never guaranteed no injuries. I said hunting is statistically one of the safest sports, and you failed to disprove that. Crap happens. People can die doing anything. Fishing, hunting, playing football, cheerleading, sleeping on the living room couch etc. It doesn't matter what you're doing, you could die.

Now, everything has its cons. Are you going to ban everything? So now we get to live forever because death has cons, and we can't go to school or work or be sick or have kids because they all have cons? You can't ban for two easily unstrung cons.

--------dropped argument--------
You completely ignored hunters help with conservation.

I await a response.


that's the story of the poor boy who was killed. I used fake names to protect identity in my argument out of respect.

To the whooping cranes, that is a fact. when there were only 6 left, scientists and other naturalists tried to keep the species from extinction, go ahead and look it up. wasn't until 10 years ago that an amazing process happened where a group of people found a better plan to bred and help the cranes migrate south. now the species of whooping crane is at over 400. truly amazing what these people did after hunters practically destroyed this bird.

Debate Round No. 2


With your story of the child, you offered a site for it, so I will accept it as true. Even so, that doesn't help you much. I already said that you can die doing anything. People will die hunting, it's just not that many people compared to how many people hunt. A higher percentage of players die play football. The actual number of deaths may differ, but the odds that you'll die favor football. I'd have to be stupid to try and assert that no one would die hunting. It's impossible.

Now, as for the Whooping Crane, I still don't believe that. I don't think, after further research, that there is number that classifies a species as extinct if it's that low. Even so, with only 6 birds left the gene pool would be too close. They would mutate and/or die out with disease. You keep asserting that the story is true, but you offer no location for it yet.

You have failed to undo my arguments, so they all flow through. Your arguments were flawed and easily undone, and therefore, none of them flow through. Finally, you STILL haven't said anything about my conservation argument.

Thank you for the debate.


TheMasterDebator forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
Yea, but they are fairly isolated events, and getting less and less common over the years.
Posted by TheMasterDebator 7 years ago
its hard to argue making hunting illegal. I thought I brought up some interesting consequences to hunting.
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
I figured you weren't by your response. Of the two people I've debated this topic on, both just wanted a challenge. You're one of them.
Posted by TheMasterDebator 7 years ago
im not against hunting in any way, just simply up for the challenge sir
Posted by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
FYI, without hunters none of that money would be generated. Outdoors people (which includes hunters) do more for conservation than any other group in the world. This is because either they have deep respect for nature, like me, or they just want the land in the bes possible shape for true animals so there is better hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, bird watching etc. So, my second contention makes perfect sense.
Posted by adealornodeal 7 years ago
Your second contention makes no sense. Simply because hunters may do things for conservation doesn't make the sport of hunting good for conservation.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ollie342 7 years ago
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 blackhawk1331 7 years ago
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:70