The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Cliff.Stamp
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Should hunting remain legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
blackhawk1331
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/22/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,776 times Debate No: 14367
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

blackhawk1331

Pro

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. .

"How many players are allowed on an NFL team?" Answers.com. 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.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

Burden of Proof
===============

As Pro initialized the debate and formed the question into a resolution, I would assert that he has the burden of proof, it thus remains for Con to simply refute the arguments made, however I will go further and both question the foundational principles and propose alternatives.

Contentions Pro and Rebuttals
===================

1) Hunting should remain legal because it controls populations.

It is conceded that hunting can and does control populations through general practice and animal specific culls.

R1.a
----

Do we as one species have the right to decide the limits of another species, this is never established, simply asserted. Consider the simple fact that not only is now conceded that animals feel pain and have emotion, recent developments are supporting the assertion that animals in fact have a sense of morality.

"Biologists have also observed a female Rodrigues fruit-eating bat in Gainesville, Florida, helping another female to give birth by showing the pregnant female the correct birthing position – with head up and feed down." [1]

Think about the full meaning of that and then casually decide to exterminate a significant number of such animals or similar ones for reasons which will in that light look rather trivial.

Specific to elephants,

"In one case, a Matriarch known as Eleanor fell ill and a female in the herd gently tried to help Eleanor back to her feet, staying with her before she died.

In 2003, a herd of 11 elephants rescued antelope who were being held inside an enclosure in KwaZula-Natal, South Africa.

The matriarch unfastened all of the metal latches holding the gates closed and swung the entrance open allowing the antelope to escape.

This is thought to be a rare example of animals showing empathy for members of another species – a trait previously thought to be the exclusive preserve of mankind" [1]

and as the underlying science

"Recent neurology work has also revealed that distantly related mammals such as whales and dolphins have the same structures in their brains that are thought to be responsible for empathy in humans. " [1]

In light of the above, can we so trivially assert a position of dominance, that we have the right to control the limit of another species and where and how it can live when we know that it also feels pain, has empathy and science is even starting to produce research the idea that they even have morality? Would it not be a better idea, for both them, and especially us, to develop a framework of co-operation and not subjugation?

R1.b
----

Are amateur hunters really the optimal solution, we have a recreational populace with limited experience but significant power. I would assert that a skilled and trained professional culling organization would have significantly less accidents and have a much more effective culling ability, and properly trained could also report back on animal monitoring and participate in tagging and other forms of wildlife non-lethal control.

2) "Now, hunting supports conservation greatly. "

R2.a
----

I would assert that this argument is completely and trivially invalid. Yes I would concede that hunting organizations can donate or directly create/maintain conservation areas, and hunting taxes can do so as well. However would the logic be accepted that for example if a Mafia Don choose to give a significant amount of money to Children's Wish Foundation than his activities be made legal - obviously not, thus this is simply a case of special pleading as in general practice this argument would not hold.

3) "Now, hunting is statistically one of the safest sports."

"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."

R3.a
----

This comparison is not valid for the following reason, what should be compared at the number of deaths per hunting trip vs the number of deaths per football (practice, game, tryout, etc.).

R3.b
----

The comparison is also invalid because the base activities are not close to equal. What is gained by both? Football can put young people through college, provide fruitful careers, provide significant secondary careers which rely on the football season. Note "... 23,157 football scholarships available in the NCAA alone." [2] Can hunting proclaim to add similar primary and secondary benefits to the individuals as does football?

R3.c
----

Hunting does not simply place the risk on the participants "Although some other forms of recreation cause more fatalities, hunting is one of the few activities that endangers the entire community, and not just the willing participants. " [3]

As an extremely unfortunate case "Edward J. Taibi was shooting at a deer with a high-powered rifle when one of his bullets pierced the wall of the mobile home, 400 feet away, and struck 16-month-old Charly Skala in the neck and shoulder. " [4]

Are there similar risks in football, where a woman with a child in a stroller, about half a kilometer away from a football game is at risk of instant death from the activities on the field, and, this is the critical part has absolutely no way to know and no way to protect herself or her child?

1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

2] http://www.collegesportsscholarships.com...

3] http://animalrights.about.com...

4] http://animalrights.about.com...
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Pro

I wanted you to know that this debate doesn't have a burden of proof. In order for you to win, you have to prove why hunting SHOULDN'T remain legal, not just disprove me.

====================================

You concede that hunting controls population, and then you proceed to refute it? Whatever.
Do we have the right to decide the limits of the other species population? No, we don't, but we do have a right to enforce the numbers naturally set. We, as hunters, aim to keep the population within the areas carrying capacity(the number of animals that can be supported). I can't argue morality in animals because I've always found it hard to believe they couldn't have morals. This being said, animals capability of morality, feeling pain, and emotions aren't reasons to not hunt them. The same arguments can be used to object to war, and to object to the euthanasia of pets. Also, morals don't keep a species from becoming overpopulated. "Think about the full meaning of that and then casually decide to exterminate a significant number of such animals or similar ones for reasons which will in that light look rather trivial." Really? An entire species being saved from extinction via hunting is trivial compared to one bat helping another give birth? As for elephants, most people know about their human like capabilities. Once again, that doesn't control their population. As for asserting dominance, clearly we can since did thousands of years ago. Co-operation? Yes, I'd like to see that. We won't hunt deer or drive cars, and they'll promise to stop eating our plants and killing off woods since they're overpopulated. We'll also give land back to them and help them survive better. Now seriously, cooperation and morality are completely different. I mean really, we can have trouble co-operating with our own species and you want to throw more in the mix? You speak of accidents while hunting. It would probably interest you to know that most deaths while hunting are due to heart attacks and tree stand failures. It has nothing to do with the experience of a hunter. Please provide some of these non-lethal animal control options.

I have shown how it is fact that hunters contribute to conservation. You haven't. It may interest you to know that the actions displayed in you Mafia Don example are the same actions that turned Robin Hood into a hero. Take from the rich and give to the poor.

The number of deaths per hunting trip would be an even lower percentage. This is because people take more than one trip a year. This would mean that you're dividing 100 by significantly over 40 million. I myself have been hunting 5 or six times this season, and I skipped deer and fall turkey. I still don't know if I'm going for spring gobbler, but if I do you can add another 1-3 trips for me. Yes, as a matter of fact, hunting can. How many people do you think manufacture the gear for hunting? There're guns, vests, hats, sweaters, scopes, snow pants, ammo, knives, and gutting equipment. Now add the people who work at the ranges were people practice. Now add the people who work in the stores selling the gear. Now add the people who make all the equipment for practicing. Clay birds, targets, spotting scopes, etc. As for fruitful careers in football, yes there are careers. Careers for rapists, animal abusers, and retards. To name a few, Michael Vick engaged in dog fighting, Lawrence Taylor raped a 16 year old girl, and Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg.

Hunting rarely endangers the community. Many precautions are taken to insure this. I would like more sources for this article because I find it hard to believe. I have read the articles at the link you provided, and I find it hard to believe that this happened. It doesn't make sense. A man shoots down from a tree stand. The bullet wounds the deer. Therefore, the bullet didn't travel 400 feet. If it hit the deer it didn't go much farther. Also, if the shot was taken from a stand, it went down and I can guarantee that a 400 foot shot wasn't taken in New York. Now, I inferred from the article that he tracked the animal and shot at it again. This is supposedly the shot that hit the girl in the shoulder then neck. If he shot at a wounded deer, the deer would be lying down. SO, once again the bullet went down, and once again it wasn't a long shot. To hit the shoulder then neck, it would have to come up from a short distance away. Now, 400 feet is hardly half a kilometer. Shots in hunting are relatively short. Less than 200 feet. Now, considering a football field is 300 feet, an injury can occur to a non-willing participant. An injury could even occur from over a kilometer away from the willing participants. Imagine this. The players left the park for the day, and are at their homes a few miles away. I am walking my dog, and trip over a cleat or kicking tee that was left behind because I couldn't see it in the dark. Now, I position my hands wrong to brace myself and end up with two broken wrists. Even worse, when I fall my dogs leash comes to rest around my neck, and I roll down a hill and get my neck broken. I had no way of knowing this was going to happen, or protecting myself.

Thank you for accepting and good luck.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

As no new arguments were introduced, and the rebuttals were not sufficiently countered, additional counter arguments will not be introduced at this time.

Response to Rebuttal
====================

1) "You concede that hunting controls population, and then you proceed to refute it?"

I concede that hunting can reduce a population to a set limit yes, that is obvious, my rebuttals R1.a and R1.b did not contest this fact but its nature and underlying assertions.

1.a "This being said, animals capability of morality, feeling pain, and emotions aren't reasons to not hunt them. The same arguments can be used to object to war, and to object to the euthanasia of pets. Also, morals don't keep a species from becoming overpopulated."

R1.a I would assert that knowing an animal has a moral system, can feel pain and empathy blurs the line between humanity and that animal and would make a decision to kill said animal no longer trivial yes. In regards to war, you can not seriously be contending that hunting is analogous to war, this would be a true disservice, no insult, to the men and women who have fought and died in service for their country.

R1.b Pets are killed, to use the direct term, by their owners directly because of issues of morality and suffering, again this is a non-trivial issue and it comes down to the owner making a decision on quality of life. Note there is a critical issue here which is not analogous to hunting because for example one would not make this decision on a pet of another person.

R1.c Morals do actually control animal population, though indirectly as evolved behaviors which are integrated into the ecosystem as a whole. If a species was for example amoral, and killed at will, it would quickly kill off its food supply and as a result it would itself die. This is simply an example of natural selection at work.

1.b "An entire species being saved from extinction via hunting is trivial compared to one bat helping another give birth? As for elephants, most people know about their human like capabilities. Once again, that doesn't control their population."

R1.d First, the example was of a behavior, it obvious is not present in that one animal alone. Second, we are not effectively stopping extinction rates, they are increasing :

"Not only do the five case histories demonstrate recent rates of extinction that are tens to hundreds of times higher than the natural rate, but they also portend even higher rates for the future. " [1]

This is simply because that we do not have an attitude of co-operation but one of dominance and assertion.

R1.e As for your comment on co-operation, cultures such as Hinduism can not, and will not, kill living animals. There are vegetarian cultures, and it is also obvious that man itself has not been an eternal animal protector of earth who is needed to keep animal populations in balance, they have done so (with lower extinction rates) without us.

2) "I have shown how it is fact that hunters contribute to conservation. You haven't."

Again, I conceded this is a fact, the rebuttal did not contest this fact, but the logic behind using it as an argument.

2.a "It may interest you to know that the actions displayed in you Mafia Don example are the same actions that turned Robin Hood into a hero. Take from the rich and give to the poor."

R2.a And thus organized crime should be legal? If you do not assert this you are clearly committing special pleading.

3) "Yes, as a matter of fact, hunting can."

3.a" How many people do you think manufacture the gear for hunting? There're guns, vests, hats, sweaters, scopes, snow pants, ammo, knives, and gutting equipment. Now add the people who work at the ranges were people practice. Now add the people who work in the stores selling the gear. Now add the people who make all the equipment for practicing. Clay birds, targets, spotting scopes, etc."

R3.a All of these can remain without hunting through target and competition/range shooting, etc. as noted.

3.b "As for fruitful careers in football, yes there are careers. Careers for rapists, animal abusers, and retards. To name a few, Michael Vick engaged in dog fighting, Lawrence Taylor raped a 16 year old girl, and Plaxico Burress shot himself in the leg."

R3.b It is hard to classify the nature of the logical fallacy here though there are several and it is difficult to note the exact point, however unless you are actually asserting that football causes people to become rapists, etc., it seems a Non sequitur at best.

4) "Hunting rarely endangers the community."

How many children would you find acceptable to die before you would admit that hunting should be illegal. You are fine with that one, would two be a concern it would it have to be a dozen?

"Douglas Bartlett, 50, of Jacksonville, was out picking berries Sept. 4 when he was fatally shot by a hunter." [2]

It is not difficult to find such cases, the question remains, you admit they happen, your entire rebuttal comes down to not enough innocent (and completely innocent and uninvolved) people die for it to be illegal.

5) "Now, considering a football field is 300 feet, an injury can occur to a non-willing participant. An injury could even occur from over a kilometer away from the willing participants. Imagine this. The players left the park for the day, and are at their homes a few miles away. I am walking my dog, and trip over a cleat or kicking tee that was left behind because I couldn't see it in the dark. Now, I position my hands wrong to brace myself and end up with two broken wrists. Even worse, when I fall my dogs leash comes to rest around my neck, and I roll down a hill and get my neck broken. I had no way of knowing this was going to happen, or protecting myself."

I concede that this senario, though unlikely could happen. Is it your serious assertion that this is actually directly analogous to the deaths in hunting such as cited, ex. the above case of Douglas Bartlett where the hunter, by the way, was charged for second degree murder?

[1] http://www.britannica.com...

[2] http://www.all-creatures.org...
Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Pro

I would like to point out that you have not posted any arguments of your own. I already said that there is no burdenof proof, and in order for you to win you must provide some aarguments of your own.
============

I must clarify, I am not comparing hunting itself to war. I respect all soldiers, and would never insult them. I was stating that the argument of not killing something because it has emotions, morality, and can feel pain can be used to object to war seeing as how people have all thos too.

I would like to point out that someone does decide when another persons pet should be put down. The vet. Your vet will tell you when the pet should be put down, and generally speaking, that's when the pet isput down. I would never take my dog to the vet and tell them to kill her, but if the vet told me she was suffereing, that's aa different story.

First of all, I think you mean if a species killed for the sake of killing. Predators do kill at will. They decide when they are going to go out and kill a species of prey. Next, they don't killat will because of their morals. If it were a matter of morals then the reason they didn't kill would be because they thought killing was wrong. If that were the case, they wouldn't kill at all. They don't kill every target species they see because it's unnecessary. If they don't need the food, there's no point in killing the animal. It's a waste of energy, and that will lead to their death.

Could you re-enter the cite for [1] please? I can't open it.

I would really like to read this because I find it hard to beleive that this is happening due to modern hunting. Hunting is regulated so animal populations are at ideal levels. Due to this, they aren't overhunted to extinction. Poaching, on the other hand, could lead to extinctions, and that won't stop if hunting is outlawed. If anything, it could increase. I would also like to point out that throughout history, there have been mass extinctions. And we have that attitude of dominance and assertion because we are the top species. I'm not saying that it's a good thing. It has lead to massive environmental destruction, and a gross overpopulation of the human species.

I am not Hindu, so I don't care what they do. According to my religion they are all sinners for beleiving in whatever god(s) they believe in. As for man protecting animals, I never said they were an animal protector. I also concede that animals used to keep their own populations in check. That being said, man is still needed to keep populations in check. The deer population used to be fine. Then we came and exterminated the Mountain Lions and Timber Wolves that ate them. So, unless you want to have wolves and lions running through your yard and killing little kidsand pets, you don't have much of a choice when it comes to controlling deer. If you want to go to religion, here it is.

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, �€œBe fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
I will not say organized crime should be legal, but not because of special pleading. I am saying this because if it were legal, it would no longer be crime, and it wouldn't be the same thing that turned Robin Hood into a hero. I'd also like to point out that the Mafia Don isn't donating large amounts of money. Therefor, your argument is void. If the Don wanted to donate, he would. That would defeat the purpose of stealing for personal gain, though.
Genesis 9:1-7

Not all of those things can remain without hunting. I will list the ones that would disappear with hunting, plus provide some more examples. Vests, hatsm sweaters, snow pants, knives, gutting equipment. They would all dissapear. Now here are some more. Hunting guides, breeders of hunting dogs, trainers of hunting dogs, hunting preserves, those who hunt on TV. I don't think a longer list is necessary.

I am not suggesting that it turns them to rapists, I am saying that it protects them. Do you think that Michael Vick would still be looked at as a hero if he weren't a good football player? No, he would be looked at as the worst scum in the world by everyone.

First of all, a human death isn't good. One child's death is too many deaths, but it wouldn't be enough to stop hunting until it hit obnoxiously high numbers. Since you have asked me this question, how many people would have to die playing football until it could be outlawed? As for Mr.Bartlett, if he was out berry picking during hunting season, he should have been wearing fluorescent orange. What kind of berries was he picking? Before you ask if it's necessary, yes it is. I will reveal why later.

Once again, an obnoxiously high amount of people would have to die. Once again, how many people would have to die due to football? Oh, and it is also easy to find cases of people dying due to football.

If this scenario happened, the owner of the equipment could be sued(broken bone(s)) or charged with manslaughter(death). I read your article, and the hunter wasn't charged with 2nd degree murder because he accidentally shot someone. If that were the case it would have been manslaughter. He was charged with 2nd degree murder because he left the man there bleeding and asking for help.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

At this point it has become hard to track assertions and rebuttals, the argument has fragmented and it is no longer clear exactly how the assertions are being used to argue for the primary resolution. I will therefore simply comment on them in some relation to the topic at hand and summarize at the end.

"I must clarify, I am not comparing hunting itself to war. I respect all soldiers, and would never insult them. I was stating that the argument of not killing something because it has emotions, morality, and can feel pain can be used to object to war seeing as how people have all thos too."

I would concede this is an argument against war, and there are those who advocate and will refuse violence for this exact reason, one of the more famous would be Gandhi [1].

Those that do prescribe to violence in war do so on the basis that it minimizes violence in the long term, and is necessary for the immediate protection of suffering. But again, it can not seriously be in any way contended that arguments for or against hunting are valid or invalid because of a comparison to war unless it is seriously asserted that both hunting and war are analogous (in the manner being compared) and it is clear this is not the case.

"I would like to point out that someone does decide when another persons pet should be put down. The vet. Your vet will tell you when the pet should be put down, and generally speaking, that's when the pet isput down. "

A vet will indeed, if asked, give advice saying that a pet is beyond the capacity to treat and/or is past the point where treatment will provide quality of life, they have of course no legal capacity to make the decision, that is the right of the owner.

"If they don't need the food, there's no point in killing the animal. It's a waste of energy, and that will lead to their death."

First it is a very outdated mode of thought to think animals simply kill for food, the same evolutionary drives which have forged our behavior have also played through on the other animals and it has been cited many times in the above how animals have a very intricate moral code.

"The imbalance of power hypothesis states, in other words, that evolution favored humans and chimps who warred when and because they could get away with it. "This makes grisly sense in terms of natural selection," said Richard Wrangham, a professor of anthropology at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., and the author of the hypothesis." [2]

Animals kill for other than food reasons, however evolutionary adaptation keeps those behaviors to a level which keeps the animals alive (when it doesn't, they don't obviously).

"And we have that attitude of dominance and assertion because we are the top species."

This is true, but what is the assertion that we can and so we should? No, clearly not.

"I am not Hindu, so I don't care what they do."

It is not about caring about them, nor is it about your feelings towards their religion, it is about your contention that hunting is necessary for population control when clearly these societies show that it is not.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything."

Are you now seriously contending that because God said it we should continue to hunt animals? You do realize that a non-Christian God can easily be cited which says the exact opposite, in fact one was sited already. You are also making a very serious jump which is that you are actually contending that a particular scripture should actually influence the law? This is a fairly radical assertion and it is illegal in a lot of areas (United States for one).

"I'd also like to point out that the Mafia Don isn't donating large amounts of money. Therefor, your argument is void. If the Don wanted to donate, he would. That would defeat the purpose of stealing for personal gain, though."

They spend the money, this money goes back into the community. Are you seriously asserting that these criminals life in low-rent shacks, get their clothes from the salvation army and eat out of soup kitchens? Of course not, the spend excessively and this money has a direct impact on all those who supply such goods and services. But again, the argument that this "goodness" should make organized crime legal is clearly nonsensical, and thus by the exact same logic, it can not be used to argue for hunting - unless you wanted to argue that the benefit out weighted the negative. But in this argument it is implicit that the negative is a necessary event.

"I will list the ones that would disappear with hunting, plus provide some more examples. Vests, hatsm sweaters, snow pants, knives, gutting equipment. They would all dissapear. Now here are some more. Hunting guides, breeders of hunting dogs, trainers of hunting dogs, hunting preserves, those who hunt on TV. I don't think a longer list is necessary."

Why would you think any of these would disappear, they have no ability to adapt and focus on sport shooting?

"I am not suggesting that it turns them to rapists, I am saying that it protects them. Do you think that Michael Vick would still be looked at as a hero if he weren't a good football player? No, he would be looked at as the worst scum in the world by everyone."

I would agree, many activities can make a person famous enough that they can circumvent the law, or at the very least drastically minimize the consequences. However what is the argument here really, again what are you making as an analogous example to support your argument?

"One child's death is too many deaths, but it wouldn't be enough to stop hunting until it hit obnoxiously high numbers."

Really, you have now committed yourself to the position that hunting should be kept legal until innocent children are killed in "obnoxiously high numbers". That is more of a counter argument than ever I could make to the position.

In closing, none of the above address the original rebuttals to the primary arguments nor address the counter proposals which show it is not necessary and the final defense of the legality is that it is perfectly fine until innocent children are killed in "obnoxiously high numbers".

There are other arguments which could be so utilized, however they are not necessary at this point.

[1] http://www.socialchangenow.ca...

[2] http://www.world-science.net...
Debate Round No. 3
blackhawk1331

Pro

All I've ever been doing is responding to what you say. Remember, as defined at the beginning, this round is for closing only. No new arguments can be made, and no rebuttals.

So, at this point I have made three arguments. I have argued that hunting should remain legal because it controls populations, it's great for conservation, and it is one of the safest sports statistically. I will now repeat my original arguments.
======Start Recap======
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.
======End Recap======

Now, my opponent hasn't made any arguments even though I told him he was supposed to so I guess there're no flaws to point out there.

Here's my opinion on a point breakdown.

Agree Before - It would be interesting to see.
Agree After - It would be interesting to see.
Better Conduct - If my opponent makes arguments or rebuttals next round, me. This is because at the beginning of the debate, I specified that this round would contain no arguing. "R4 We enter closing statements. There is no more arguing." Now, if my opponent follows the rules(posts no arguments/rebuttals), then this should be tied.
Spelling and Grammar - I spell checked using Microsoft Word, and my opponent has 14 mistakes while I have 12. Since the numbers are so close, I'd vote tied.
Convincing Arguments - Me because my opponent didn't make any arguments of their own, they just made rebuttals despite the fact that I said he needed arguments of his own. Besides, he even said he agreed with my arguments. "It is conceded that hunting can and does control populations..." "Yes I would concede that hunting organizations can donate or directly create/maintain conservation areas...".
Reliable Sources - Me because I have significantly more sources, and they're all cited properly. I also didn't use any poor sources. I know my opponent didn't use any poor sources, but he only used web links while I completely cited everything.

I want to thank my opponent for this debate. It was fun. I also want to thank everyone who reads this for taking the time.

*Remember, no arguments or rebuttals are to be made this round.
Cliff.Stamp

Con

In closing, I would affirm the rebuttals as originally stated stand unchallenged. In regards to :

"Now, my opponent hasn't made any arguments even though I told him he was supposed to so I guess there're no flaws to point out there."

Arguments were made, specifically :

1) Animals even the ones specifically cited are known to both exhibit extreme social and pair bonding, show high level emotions, and are even understood to have concepts of morality. It is not so trivial to say we should kill them and certainly not for the reasons noted which were plainly and directly refuted.

2) Hunting poses a significant threat to innocent individuals, people not involved in hunting but simply in the adjacent areas, and "adjacent" has quite a wide definition given the range of the lethality of hunting tools. It is very difficult to contend that there should be a legal right to entertainment which has a known and uncontested risk of killing innocent children, the elderly (and everyone else of course).

These were part of the original rebuttals and the contentions to such were extremely weak noting such arguments as we have the Biblical right, "obnoxiously high numbers" of innocent people are not being killed, and so forth.

It is unfortunate that these points were not sufficiently addressed and it conceded that the main contentions are simply a smokescreen, the real question is simple - and let us be frank and use plain language - do we have the right to kill creatures which feel love, show respect and have a moral code simply for our pleasure. As it was shown that the primary utilitarian arguments do not hold water and when everything is stripped away that is all that is left. Ironically these animals do not exhibit the same behavior towards us. What is the answer to this - well we have always done so, we have the power to do so, the Bible says we can etc. . If these arguments were used to set law then we would be traveling some very dangerous roads indeed.

In short, the main contentions in defense of hunting have been plainly and directly countered and no sufficient argument has been made to over come the points raised against it so Con would rest with the resolution not only negated but the counter affirmed, even if it was so taken that the burden of proof is to be shared which quite frankly is an especially weak move in a debate if one is making a resolution, either as Pro or Con.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
@RoyLatham, I would have added more examples, but I didn't think it was necessary. As for a food source, I didn't think that was one of the better arguments.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Con made the question one of the right to kill feeling creatures. Pro's argument was that there is such a right if there are compelling reasons. I thought the exam humans killing each other in wars made the point. However, self-defense, as from too many elephants is equally valid.

I think Pro could have piled on more examples of animal population control. Boa constrictors are b hunted in south Florida to prevent them from overrunning the place. Alaska does a lot of game management stabilize populations -- too many wolves wipe out the caribou, then the wolves starve and that leads too many caribou.

Pro should also pressed hunting as a food source.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
Ok, tell me if you ever regain interest.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Meh. I was thinking about this, and I sort of lost interest.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
blackhawk1331Cliff.StampTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 SimonN 5 years ago
SimonN
blackhawk1331Cliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Vote Placed by BillBonJovi 5 years ago
BillBonJovi
blackhawk1331Cliff.StampTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02