The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
victoria56
Con (against)
Losing
0 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...
blackhawk1331
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,502 times Debate No: 14362
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

blackhawk1331

Pro

I would like whomever accepts this debate to actually be against hunting. The last two times I debated this, my opponent wasn't against hunting. So, if you are going to accept, please be against hunting.

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.

Citations---
Dickson, Tom. "Hunting myths." Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. N.p.,
2011. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us......
myths.html>.

"How many players are allowed on an NFL team?" Answers.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 6
Jan. 2011. <http://wiki.answers.com......
How_many_players_are_allowed_on_an_NFL_team>.

"How Many Pro Football Teams are There?" Ask. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Jan. 2011.
<http://answers.ask.com......
how_many_pro_football_teams_are_there>.

Miniter, Frank. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting. Google Books. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <http://books.google.com......
books?id=19fHPtD3TNgC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=sports+more+dangerous+than+huting&source=bl&ots=bt4GO5gpe9&sig=-lKS9MTZtEOlp3QW1aW4MlxK8A8&hl=en&ei=tb3dTM2zLcOclgea-On3DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sports%20more%20dangerous%20than%20hunting&f=false>.

"On average how many people die of football injuries yearly?" ChaCha. N.p., 26
June 2010. Web. 6 Jan. 2011. <http://www.chacha.com......
on-average-how-many-people-die-of-football-injuries-yearly>.

Roos, Dave. "Does deer hunting reduce car accidents?" How Stuff Works. N.p., 16
Dec. 2008. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <http://adventure.howstuffworks.com......
outdoor-activities/hunting/principles/deer-hunting-car-accidents3.htm#>.

Good luck to whomever accepts.
victoria56

Con

i dont believe their should be hunting because now that their alowwed to hunt deer as an example people go and, hunt and kill as many as they want not thinking of what will happen later on.
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Pro

I should have clarified further. I wanted the person who accepts to also know what they're talking about. Oh well.
I'm not even sure what my opponent is trying to say actually. So, here's my interpretation, and what I'll rebut against.
I think my opponent is using deer hunting as an example. They are asserting that since deer hunting is legal, people go out and shoot all the deer they want without any concern for the future.
There are two fatal flaws with this argument. The factual one, and the logical one.
First of all, when a hunting listener is bought, they hunter gets a buck tag. This means they can take UP TO one buck. The hunter can also submit for a doe listened, but they're few and far between. Now here's were I'm not totally sure on the rules. I don't know if having both tags means you can take two deer. It used to mean one or the other, but anymore I'm not sure. Regardless, a hunter could still only take two deer at a max. There is no killing of however many you want. All game animals have bag limits, or the amount you can take. Don't try to use this point again.
Now the logical fallacy. I already explained how hunting is great for population control and conservation. What you are asserting is a complete contradiction of this. Hunting animals without restriction would not control the population, but rather destroy it. Also, it wouldn't conserve the wilderness. It would eliminate a trademark animal. Hunters ALWAYS think about the future. They want to conserve the land for their continuation of hunting, and for hunting by future generations. Ghettoes, they don't kill without a care for the future.

------Dropped Arguments------
Hunting helps with population control.
Hunting is great for conservation.
Hunting is one of the safest sports statistically.

Well, thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, and good luck.

*If anyone would like to debate this topic with me, leave a comment. I will debate this with two people at the same time, so you may not get challenged right away.
victoria56

Con

I will agree with my oppenet on one thing yes it is one of the safest sports but, with what i was trying to say on the first time was that i know several people who go hunting but, kill more then they are expose to. Thats just people i know think about it how many others do that, that we do not know about. With that several get killed. I believe that with such things it can cause our ecosystem to either drop the population so far they are almost dead in one area. I also think my oppenet needs to find out about the lisences if you have a buck and a dow one then can you kill two.
Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Pro

Before I start, I would greatly appreciate better grammar.
Now, I would like to know how many deer these people are taking, how many they are legally allowed to, and how many people are taking more than they should. I also want to know what state or country you live in (no town or city names are necessary), and the economic position of the community.
I hate to tell you, but most people do NOT take over the bag limit. Think about it for a second. If they do that, they are engaging in illegal actions, and they are going to reduce the deer more than they should. If they break the law, they lose their license, and if they reduce the deer to much, they have nothing to hunt. Poaching, or killing more than you legally can, is not very common. Your argument is highly flawed.
With people getting killed, that's going to happen no matter what you do. People will die. It's inevitable, and, therefore, cannot be blamed on the sport.
Now, you say you believe that hunting can cause a drop in population. I don't care about your beliefs, and neither should anyone else. Especially since I have facts that directly contradict that statement. I will provide a list of animal conservation groups that are hunter controlled.
Archery Shooters Association
Buckmasters
Christian Sportsmen's Fellowship
Ducks Unlimited
Foundation for North American Wild Sheep
Hunting & Shooting Sports Heritage Fund
International Archery Federation
International Bowhunting Organization
Mule Deer Foundation
National Archery Association
National Hunters Association
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
National Wild Turkey Federation
North American Bowhunters
Pheasants Forever
Professional Bowhunters Society
Quail Unlimited
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Safari Club International
The Ruffed Grouse Society
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Whitetails Unlimited
[1]
These are all hunting conservation organizations. Now think how many more organizations there are for conservation in America alone. Next I'll give you Pheasants Forever's upcoming schedule directly from their website.
January 11, 2011: Make Reservations for the Wild Game Cooking Corner at Pheasant Fest
January 11, 2011: Groton, SD Man Wins PF Life Membership Through Million Dollar Bird Promo
January 06, 2011: Wisconsin Pheasants Forever State Convention at Wilderness Resort
January 06, 2011: National Pheasant Fest Offers Free Wildlife Habitat Management Plan
January 04, 2011: Stabenow Helping Pheasants Forever Kick Off Michigan Pheasant Recovery Initiative
January 04, 2011: Iowa Pheasants Forever State Habitat Meeting Coming to Des Moines
December 30, 2010: New Pheasants Forever Chapter in Jamestown, North Dakota
[2]
Now can you honestly say that hunters don't care for conservation?
They are the reason that many animals are still around today, and if you want a list of species, ask. I'll give you some of the species.
I just checked, and in Pennsylvania, you are allowed only one antlered deer (or buck) a year, and one antlerless deer (doe or button buck (buck without visible antlers)) per doe tag (or license). [3] Therefore, if you have your license and three doe tags, you can take four deer. 1 buck and three does or button bucks. So, if those people you know have multiple doe tags, they can take multiple does, at least if you live in Pennsylvania. if you live elsewhere, tell me and I'll find the law.

I await a response.

[1] http://www.myoan.net...
[2] http://www.pheasantsforever.org...
[3] http://www.portal.state.pa.us...
victoria56

Con

victoria56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
blackhawk1331

Pro

In conclusion, I say that hunting should remain legal for three reasons.
First of all, it's great for population control. I have shown this with the examples of deer and elephants.
Second, hunting is great for conservation. I have shown how wildlife is monitored closely from not only state to state, but also from one part of state to another part. Also, there is an excise tax for tons of conservation purposes.
Finally, I have shown that hunting is statistically safe, and my opponent has even agreed with that.
My opponent's arguments were all flawed, and have all been torn apart.

Here is my recommended point breakdown.
agree before and after - doesn't matter, but would be interesting to see.
conduct - me because my opponent forfeited a round.
spelling and grammar - me because you can clearly see that my opponent has tons of errors. They couldn't even capitalize "I" more than half of the time.
Convincing arguments - This is your opinion, but I would recommend a vote in my favor since my opponents arguments were highly flawed.
Reliable sources - me because my opponent didn't even site one source.

Thank you all for reading this debate, and I hope you vote for me.

*To my opponent: If you forfeit the last round I will be voting, and if you make one of those half paragraph entries, I will also vote.
victoria56

Con

victoria56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by losedotexe 5 years ago
losedotexe
Do I really have to justify my vote? :/
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
I just wanted to clear up a few errors I noticed. My iPod isn't very good with spell checking it seems.

1. First of all, when a hunting LISTENER is bought, they hunter gets a buck tag.
Listener is supposed to be license.
2. The hunter can also submit for a doe LISTENED
Listened is supposed to be license.
3. GHETTOES, they don't kill without a care for the future.
Ghettoes is supposed to therefore.

I have no idea how my iPod came up with these words especially ghettoes in place of therefore.
Posted by adealornodeal 5 years ago
adealornodeal
Hahahaha bluesteel!
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
@ bluesteel, I am definitely NOT arguing about hunting humans. I am asserting that hunting of other species by humans should remain legal.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
I will accept if the topic is hunting should BE legal. I intend to argue that humans should not be hunted.
Posted by annhasle 5 years ago
annhasle
@ Cody

You have a good argument *against* hunting? That I would love to see, Mr. I've-got-weapons-and-they're-useful. :P
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
@ joshuaXlawyer, no that wouldn't work because you don't hunt sickly animals.

@TUF, the links are the sources I used. As I said, these arguments originated as a school assessment, so everything needs to be mega cited.

@Cody_Franklin, you can accept. I'll just post the debate again. I love this topic.

@1stLord, owls don't work. They aren't really a game bird. :)
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 5 years ago
1stLordofTheVenerability
I'm against hunting... ... ... ... ... owls. :P
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I'm not against hunting, but I have a good case.
Posted by TUF 5 years ago
TUF
whats up with the links about random irrelevant topics at the bottom?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SimonN 5 years ago
SimonN
blackhawk1331victoria56Tied
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 
Vote Placed by losedotexe 5 years ago
losedotexe
blackhawk1331victoria56Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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