The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,453 times Debate No: 14374
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




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.

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.


Thanks for this debate topic.

Whiten this round, i will be asserting that Should remain legal but given to only certain people thus regulating the amount of people who could actually hunt.

==My Case==
When looking into certain conflicts, we often forget the fact that these conflicts not only affect us but our environment as well.

Contention one: ecological harm
Many people tend to benefit themselves without actual comprehension of the environment and ecological effects. Hunting belongs to this family as it was meant for mortal pleasure and in many cases not for the economic benefits. Not only is this a major effect to the environment as it soils the atmosphere by adding to the deforestation of trees but it also affect the prey as well. How? you may ask, The excessive hunting of animals forces these creature to extinction as well as creating a chain link of destruction to the energy pyramid. This situation was has been seen in places such as Africa, Asia, and in South America where many creatures have been hunted to almost extinction. We must learn from there mistakes and keep the famous deer and many other animals within North America alive as well as helping them repopulate.
A list of many of these endangered species was listed in ( in which the list went from the letter A-Z.

Contention Two: Economy and Statistics
There is approximately 344,124,450 people in north America, know if every one family in North America goes hunting, it is estimated to take less than five years for many organisms whiten its sector to become extinct. ( We must also look into the fact that with the continuous hunt of many animals, there would be a shortage for animals used for domestic economic activities thus creating an economic instability. we can not continue to hunt simply for the fun of hunting or else there will be a meat inflation that could create a huge conflict between the government and the citizens.

"The President of the U.S. had a bright idea. He told his press conference that he thought it might be a good idea for the U.S. to have one meatless day a week. He and New Zealand's visiting Prime Minister, Peter Fraser, had figured out that 30 or 40 ships would be set free for other uses if the U.S., instead of far-off New Zealand, Australia and Argentina, sent meat to Britain." (

Contention Three: safety
Many might consider hunting a safe and fun sport, however they also fail to consider the fact that many hunters are armature thus increasing the chances of an accident occurrence.
1. Failure to Properly Identify a Target. There is an extremely exciting moment during hunting when you first see some movement in the distance. You think to yourself 'this is it!' Unfortunately some folks get over-excited and start shooting before they recognize what exactly they are shooting at. Sometimes a rustle in the woods is actually a fellow hunter who has chosen not to wear the blaze orange hunting gear. Remember, as stated above, that there are 20 million annual hunters out there all tracking the same kind of animal for each season." (

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Thank you again
Debate Round No. 1


First of all, only certain people can hunt. These would be the people who have passed the government issued hunter safety course.
You mention that hunting was meant for mortal pleasure. To clarify, are you saying that hunting has never been a necessity? If you are, I suggest you give up now. Now, how is hunting not economically beneficial? Think of all the millions of people world wide who buy hunting gear every year. If hunting became illegal, there would be tons of businesses going bankrupt, and even more people becoming unemployed. You mention that hunting adds to deforestation. Are you even debating the same topic anymore? How do you figure that hunting adds to deforestation? Hunters want the forests to provide a place to live to animals such as Ruffed Grouse, deer, elk, and bears. Hunting adds to deforestation in no way shape or form. If you want to argue that, why don't you look towards high end furniture made from trees that grow in the rainforest, or look at the 3rd world farmers who are destroying acres of rainforest yearly to get ground they can plant? You mention excessive hunting of animals. As I've said, hunting is closely regulated to keep animals from extinction. This unregulated hunting you speak of ended roughly 65 years ago. If the energy pyramid were on the path of destruction, don't you think we would have died long ago? All animals world wide are regulated now, so it's not only North America that's learning. I'd also like to point out that Americans were responsible for the destruction of the Passenger Pigeon, and the endangerment of the American Bison. Europeans killed of things such as the Dodo bird. We have all learned. One last note on your argument here. You mention the famous deer. Tell me why it's famous. It couldn't possibly be due to the massive overpopulation and hundreds of car accidents could it?

You start off your next argument by saying that if every family in North America hunted, there would be mass extinction in less than five years. I'd like to point out that the number of people hunting is around 20 million, and they hunt different animals. I'd also like to point out that the number of each species that can be killed yearly is closely regulated. Finally, Hunting doesn't guarantee success, if it did it wouldn't be hunting, it would be killing. How is there going to be a shortage of domestic animals? They aren't what's being hunted. Once again, there would be a bigger economic instability if there were no hunting because many companies would go bankrupt, and even more people would be jobless. How many people do you think actually survive solely off hunting? As for meat inflation, so what. If there is excess meat the government won't care as long as no one is complaining. In fact, a meat excess would be better because then we can either send meat to starving people in our country, breed less animals to be grown in cramped cages and stuffed with hormones, or send it to other countries to hep them. (those options are in order of preference.) Are you aware that the article you quoted is from Monday September 7, 1942? That meatless day was meant to gather food to send to the soldiers fighting the war. It happened, and it had nothing to do with hunting.

The key word in your first sentence is accident. The death or injury is not intentional, and accidents happen in every sport. I already showed that the odds of dying hunting are significantly lower than the odds of dying playing professional football. I'd also like to point out that most deaths hunting are not the fault of guns or another hunter. Most hunting deaths are from falling out of a tree stand, or heart attacks. Don't go blaming new hunters. Now, accidentally misidentifying a target is occasionally a problem, but not that often. If you're bird hunting, you can easily see the bird. When deer hunting, you see the entire deer, it's not wearing fluorescent orange, and hunters don't move around during deer season. You sit and wait. Same with all large game. In this quote, you have it mention "as stated above, that there are 20 million annual hunters out there all tracking the same kind of animal for each season." You probably should have eliminated this part seeing as how you never gave a number of hunters, and it isn't 20 million hunting the ame species , it's 20 million hunters total.

Thank you for accepting, and good luck to you.


flamebreath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend all arguments.

Thank you.


flamebreath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend all Argument. Thank you.


flamebreath forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
@theorusso, I don't know whether I'd call it sport or hobby. I think of a hobby as coin collecting or building models, and a sport as anything in the olympics. I think hunting is more of a recreational activity. Like fishing for trout in a small creek. It's not competative or organized. It's more to be out there, relax, and enjoy yourself. As for the compassion, I understand that. My mom won't even look at a cooked pheasant or squirrel because "she can't get the face out of her head". A squirrel I can understand, but she's never seen a live pheasant. She's seen live chickens, cows, turkey, and fish, but she can eat all of that. It's frustrating. Especially because I know that if I go spring gobbler hunting, and get a bird she won't eat it. If I were to claim that same exact bird came fresh from the market, however, it would he eaten without hesitation.

On a side note, how hard is it to get someone to accept? This debate is normally accepted in a few hours.
Posted by theorusso 5 years ago
@ lovelife
Personally I wouldn't call it a sport but a hobby. In archaic terms, sport was just a word meaning "something that derives pleasure or entertainment." And I just mean pre modern era, where sports tend to be similar to your definition.
I do agree that the meat section has killed people's compassion and thinking towards animals found in our grocery stores. People don't think of the animal, and "farms," although now they are essentially factories made to kill many animals quickly, tend to be hidden from the public eye so we don't see the terrible conditions they are put in.

I am a compassionate person and I do wish for every shot I take to kill immediately, so that the animal is not tortured in any way. A responsible hunter can grant animals relatively quick deaths, and the majority of hunters do go for the kill shot as a challenge.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
@belle, that is a very interesting story, thanks for sharing.

@lovelife, I understand all of your points, I just want to comment on one thing. You address fawns starving due to a shot parent. The problem with that thought is that hunting seasons are designated to come before mating season, and after any new borns are old enough to care for themselves.

@brian_eggleston, of course it's not safe for the animals. The need to point that out is lost to me. If it were safe for the animals, it couldn't exist. If you think that's an argument, then by all means accept this debate please. I would love to rip that apart.
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
"…(hunting) is statistically one of the safest sports…"

Not for the animals it isn't!
Posted by lovelife 5 years ago
I don't agree that killing is a sport "A sport is an **organized**, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and **fair play**, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. It is governed by a set of rules or customs. Activities such as card games and board games, are classified as "mind sports" and some are recognized as Olympic sports, requiring primarily mental skills and mental physical involvement. **Non-competitive activities, for example as jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation.**"

Anyway now that I've said that....I think the over-reliance on the grocery section is killing our compassion. Sure I can't eat anything that I see die, or kill, or eve look like an animal. I can't eat fish anymore because of that

I'm going to try a vegetarian diet as soon as I'm out of this house, however, if there is meat from an ethically killed chicken I will eat it. I can't eat dear meat because of an experience I had.

So I agree with pro, I just don't have the heart to hunt. (and I' hoping this stuff is alright I was told that stuff is really good, and not anymore expensive /end rant)
Hunting should be legal and systematic and cruel "farming" should be much more regulated with less meat coming from tortured cows, and more from ethically killed dear.

I actually think its only moral to kill something that has a chance at life. But you might want to make sure they don't have a family first. Just a image of starving fawns is sad enough lol.
Posted by belle 5 years ago
of course hunting should be legal, the animals can always shoot back :P
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
@tornshoe92, I fully agree. :)
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
@SusanBrei, I agree with some of your points. I am all against hunting without control, but anymore that doesn't happen. As for fishing, that too is regulated. You need not worry about your occasional wild salmon dinners for any reason other than high mercury. The overfished thing is a long gone thing. All overfishing at this point is overseas, and is not generally approved of. One species that has been overfished to the point at which it's hard to come back even with regulations is Chilean Sea Bass. I personally avoid all restaurants that serve it.

@theorusso, I fully agree with everything you said.

Finally, in response to the meat section comments, I have one thing to say. Sure, there is meat in the market but hen the crap hits the fan, I'll live and all vegetarians and people who rely solely on markets will be dead. This is because I can hunt, fish, camp, and find my way outdoors. Now, this comment isn't targeted at anyone who's commented so far, it's meant for those people who comment in the future, or look at this debate.
Posted by tornshoe92 5 years ago
"Venison is probably the most disgusting meat I've ever eaten..."

You take that back!
Posted by theorusso 5 years ago
The reason they have names for the kill shot and kill zones on an animal is because you want to go for the quickest, cleanest kill. Its about the experience of being out there, tracking the animal along, and waiting for the perfect shot. There is a meat section at the stores yes, but its processed and farmed animals who are treated terribly, so I think animal activists who know the issues would be for the humane killing, or should I say the more compassionate form of killing the animal, in the form of hunting.
I am all for certain restrictions on hunting, to protect species from being over-hunted. But with this comes the other extreme, animals being hunted too little, causing overpopulation. Overpopulation causes animals to either starve, or branch out and cause harm to our agriculture industries. Pigs and other animals are quite invasive species, and tend to cause problems for many farmers.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 5 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