The Instigator
blackhawk1331
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kkjnay
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should hunting remain legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
kkjnay
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,323 times Debate No: 18660
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

blackhawk1331

Pro

This is a debate on whether or not hunting should remain legal. I say it should.

R1 is for acceptance - all definitions will be made here. Any definitions not made in R1 have to be agreed upon to become valid. My R1 definitions are accepted just by accepting the debate.

R2 is for opening arguments - Arguments will be posted here. Con cannot make any refutations to arguments that I make.

R3 is for rebuttals - I will refute con's opening arguments, and ask him/her any questions that I have about his/her arguments. Con will do the same with my argument.

R4 is for closing statements - All questions will be answered. There will be no other refutations, and no new information. We will summarize what we think we've proven.

**NOTE: Please do not accept this debate unless you are genuinely against hunting.**

DEFINITIONS:
Hunt - to pursue for food or in sport [1]

Pursue - to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat [2]

Game - 1.1 - animals under pursuit or taken in hunting [3]
1.2 -wild animals hunted for sport or food [3]

This should suffice for now. We will discuss any other definitions if need be.

[1] - http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[2] - http://i.word.com...

[3]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
kkjnay

Con

Accepted. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
blackhawk1331

Pro

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. .


**NOTE: CON, REMEMBER THAT YOU CAN"T MAKE ANY REFUTATIONS THIS ROUND**

kkjnay

Con

I know, no "refutations" this round. It is actually vital to my argument to know what I'm arguing against. "Hunt - to pursue for food or in sport" by your own definition, you have made no actual argument as of now. The only argument you have brought up is that it is effective to kill animals for population control. "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", "States are enlisting sharpshooters to shoot, or cull, a certain number of deer"

Neither of these examples are for the purpose of obtaining food, or for 'sport'.

This is also difficult to put all of these topics into one debate.

You are debating that deer hunting in the United States should remain legal. You are also debating that elephant hunting in Africa should be legal. In your supporting facts/evidence, you only have information regarding deer hunting.

I look forward to debating, when I know what to debate.
Debate Round No. 2
blackhawk1331

Pro

You are arguing that hunting should become illegal. I know what my arguments were about. I established definitions for hunting, pursue, and game so that there would be an established definition for those words should they come up. I know that I didn't use those words in my original argument. I don't know what I'll use in future arguments. As for the deer hunting in the US vs elephant hunting in Africa, I never specified where hunting should remain legal. That being said, I am focused on it remaining legal in the US, but I will still draw on positive benefits from elsewhere.

In short, you are arguing that hunting should be illegal. Good luck.

Here is an updated format to account for this error.

R3 - Con posts opening arguments and refutes my arguments. Con is welcome to ask any questions they want.

R4 - I will refute con's points. I will then ask any questions that I have. I will answer any and all of con's questions. I will then finish with a summary of what I've proven. Since con gets his refutal and question asking in R3 still, he is not allowed to ask questions or make any refutations in R4. He cannot add any new info. He will answer my questions and summarize what he's proven.
kkjnay

Con

In this round I will refute Pro's arguments and state my opening arguments.

As I had stated in Round 2, Pro has made no viable argument currently.
Pro defined hunting as "to pursue for food or in sport". His arguments were both stating that killing animals for the purpose of population control is effective in reducing the amount of damage to people and property.(with state assigned sharpshooters)

Neither of these are "to pursue for food or in sport". So, dismissing these, I will now start with my first argument of why Hunting(killing animals for food or in sport) should be illegal.

Hunting for food is no longer a valid reason. Factory farms now mass produce meat, and animal products. It would have been permissible in hunting/gathering days, but now all of our 'hunting' can simply be to go to the store and buy whichever animal meat you like. I assume my opponent will debate that deer meat(venison) is not something you can typically find in a grocery store. While this may be true, unless you are in a region where that is a specialty, you can still find stores that specifically sell these types of wild game meat(manufactured in a slaughterhouse type of environment). Now of course hunting may be a staple source of food for many tribes in third world countries, and I reserve their right to it, but we are in fact, talking about the United States.

Now onto my second argument, hunting for 'sport' should be illegal. Hunting purely for the entertainment of killing animals is disgusting. The United States has laws against animal cruelty. The punishment for animal abuse in the United States varies from state to state, where it is either a felony or misdemeanor charge. Of course this is not considering euthanasia, but this doesn't apply as people do not euthanize deer. If a person were to shoot a dog, this would be classified as animal cruelty, and the criminal could face upto 10 years in jail. Shooting deer however, is not classified as anything but hunting for sport. In case my opponent attempts to bring up the argument that dogs are domestic and deer are not, these laws do not only apply to domestic animals. They apply to other wild animals as well. In most states, the minimum age to qualify for a hunting permit is 10 years old. In missouri, the minimum age is 6 years old.
How can we view this as acceptable? kids from 6-10 years old being taught that it's okay to kill animals, and not only is it okay, but it's fun? This is absolutely ridiculous. How would one expect them to know the difference between killing a deer and killing a dog? (There really is no difference) For the record, I am not a vegan or a vegetarian. I fully support the manufacturing of animal products, manufactured humanely. However, it is appalling that anyone would kill an animal because it is fun. Further, I refuse to believe that teaching kids to use guns to kill does anything other than promote violence.
"The FBI has found that a history of cruelty to animals is one of the traits that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers"
"Investigation's behavioral sciences unit, studied serial killers and noted,"Murderers like this (Jeffrey Dahmer) very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids."
Knowing this, why do we let children, or anyone for that matter, kill animals for the purpose of entertainment.

Now, I'm guessing Pro will further run with the "population control" argument.
Most hunting seasons are in the fall or winter months.
These hunting seasons allow females to complete gestation periods and successfully birth healthy offspring.
The seasons are purposely made so the number of deer will increase, thus more deer to hunt.
You are right about hunting being profit driven.
To attract more hunters (and their money), federal and state agencies implement programs—often called "wildlife management" or "conservation" programs—that are designed to boost the numbers of "game" species. These programs help to ensure that there are plenty of animals for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.

To Pro: I'm sorry to disregard most of your first argument. It was a good essay(with the exception of the division of topic), but holds no basis in this debate. Having said that, I actually did address your argument for population control, and disproved it. I would also suggest that you only debate on the deer hunting topic, as I believe it would strengthen your argument, and make this debate more coherent. If you choose to include the elephant hunting, I will still address it, though it seems that the ONLY possible argument for that is population control. Which, again, does not apply in this debate.
I look forward to the rest of this debate, good luck Pro!

sources-----------------
http://www.the-deer-hunting-guide.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.pet-abuse.com...
Debate Round No. 3
blackhawk1331

Pro

First of all, I will provide some new definitions based on how the debate has gone.You can contest these definitions by posting your own in your next round.

Cruelty - disposed to inflict pain or suffering: devoid of humane feelings
Sport - to amuse oneself
Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy

As easy as it is, you cannot simply call my argument invalid because it doesn't contain a defined word. I already stated that I put those definitions in just in case there was a use for them in the future of the debate.

Factory farms now mass produce meat

This argument can be used much more effectively for hunting rather than against it.The problem in this argument is that the quality of life for a factory farmed animal is terrible.They spend their lives in a cage being stuffed with hormones.Once they are fat enough, they are slaughtered.An animal taken while hunting has a significantly higher quality of life.They spend their entire life in a seemingly endless amount of land.If they should get shot hunting, then that's just the hand that life dealt them.

our 'hunting' can simply be to go to the store and buy whichever animal meat you like

This directly conflicts with the definitions that you accepted when you accepted this debate.Hunting is 'to pursue for food or in sport' and pursue is to 'to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat'.You cannot overtake a packaged animal as it cannot flee.You cannot capture it because it was never free to be captured.You cannot kill it as it is already dead.You cannot defeat it as it cannot put up a fight.Therefore, you cannot hunt by going to the store.

my opponent will debate that deer meat is not something you can typically find in a grocery store.While this may be true, you can still find stores that specifically sell these types of wild game meat(manufactured in a slaughterhouse type of environment).

I know that venison can be found rarely.The problem still comes down to the quality of life of the animal.A deer sold in the store was raised in a pen of some sort.

hunting may be a staple source of food for tribes in third world countries, and I reserve their right to it, but we are in fact, talking about the United States.

Hunting is a staple source of food for me.My mentality and moral standings strongly discourage me from eating factory farmed animal products.Organic, free-range animal product is a hard thing to come by.It's expensive when you do.Now, here's a question for you.Wasn't it the founding fathers of our country that stated all men are created equal?Why, then, should I not have the same right to provide the food for myself off of what God has provided as someone in a third world country?

hunting for 'sport' should be illegal

Sport is defined as 'to amuse'.That does sound fairly dark at first.Here's why it's not.I have talked with many hunters in everyday settings, and in the field.They always say that they don't enjoy killing.The fun part is being with friends and family out in the field tying to beat an animal at its own game.The kill is a necessary part of the event.It is necessary through the definition.The sport of the hunt is not in the kill, it is the chase. If you have never hunted, you can't possibly hope to imagine how hunters feel in this matter.

Hunting purely for the entertainment of killing animals is disgusting.

The first flaw with this statement is addressed above.The second flaw is that this statement is based on your personal, subjective, moral standings and thus holds no strength in a debate.

The United States has laws against animal cruelty.

The key part in cruelty is the lack of humanity in the action.Beating a dog into submission is considered cruel because the dog is meant to suffer and learn to fear you.Hunters aim to make a clean kill.The less injured the animal is after the shot, the more it suffers and the greater the danger the hunter is in.If a hunter wants to make an animal suffer when they shoot it, then there is something wrong with that person, not with the activity.

Of course this is not considering euthanasia

One of the key parts in the definition of euthanasia is that it is meant to be merciful.It is much more merciful to kill the old buck than let it starve to death in winter because it grew too weak to beat out the young deer for food.Since this debate isn't specific to deer, I will draw your attention to Snow Geese.In a natural environment, they'd have to travel thousands of miles without stop, or a small stop at best.Due to farming in Texas, the Snow Geese can now have a nice stop in the middle of their migration.This means that more old geese survive.This may sound good at first, but it really isn't.The wintering areas of the geese get decimated as a result of the increased numbers.More old geese are surviving to eat the food.This means that more young geese don't survive to their first migration because there isn't enough food.Wouldn't it be merciful to the geese all around to bring their numbers down so none of the geese starve?

I agree that the hunting age of some states is too young.That doesn't warrant making it illegal it, just raise the age. Once again, the kill itself isn't the fun part.It's the chase.

There really is no difference

No difference between killing a dog and a deer?!Really?!Just stop and think, for a minute, of what it would be like to kill an animal that has been a loyal companion and loved you unconditionally for its entire life.Now think about what it would be like to kill an animal you have only seen once.There is a clear difference.

manufactured humanely

That is not possible by the nature of factory farming.An act that you have shown support for.Learning gun safety and how to properly handle a gun would discourage violence.Hunting would discourage murder.I believe that you have never been hunting.You can't imagine what it is like to know that you killed something.I do know what it's like.I still can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to kill a human.

The FBI quotes are interesting.I have already addressed that the kill is not the entertaining part.Those quotes are mute in this debate as the argument they support is filled with fallacies.

I don't think you're aware of why hunting seasons are when they are.The hunting season is in a time when all offspring can survive on their own.If deer season were in spring, there would be many fawns dying a week after birth.The deer population would take a major hit.This is true with all animals. Turkey has a season after the eggs have hatched.The thing is, only male turkey can be harvested.The females can guard the young.Birds that fly off will abandon their young.Plus, with the new vegetation, no one could get through anything or recover game.The conservation programs do not provide animals to kill.They buy land for animals to live in and prosper.There is a vast amount of government land bought through hunting revenue that can't legally be hunted on.

Every argument I made holds weight here.It cannot be ignored because it didn't refer to a specific definition or you said it's no good.The bottom line is that every argument is relevant in the issue of hunting remaining legal.

CONCLUSION
I made three arguments going into this debate.Con only addressed one, which I still had pull through.Con's only reason against my other arguments was a lack of the use of specific definitions.Therefore, all of my arguments stand.I have used fact and logic to show why con's arguments are not valid.I have shown that hunting should remain legal for many good reasons.Con hasn't provided one good reason why it should be illegal.Good luck to Con and thank you for participating.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

**You can re-support your arguments and make a conclusion at this point, but you can't attack my original arguments or my re-support of them. No new information is allowed.**
kkjnay

Con

In a last attempt to win this debate, Pro has resulted to a 'Straw man' argument. A Straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponents arguments. Which is a logical fallacy. Pro then states that I am not allowed to refute any of his arguments, or make any new arguments. If you look in Round 4, this is exactly what Pro does.

Now, I will start with resupporting my arguments.

"I know that I didn't use those words in my original argument. I don't know what I'll use in future arguments"
In Round3 Pro admits that his argument does not apply, and withdraws his argument. Those were his only arguments. He was not successful in disproving my arguments, therefore I conclude that I have won this debate.

"Every argument I made holds weight here.It cannot be ignored because it didn't refer to a specific definition or you said it's no good.The bottom line is that every argument is relevant in the issue of hunting remaining legal."

Yes, it is relevant. We are debating whether hunting should be legal. You are trying to say that any killing of animals is hunting.

This wasn't a semantics argument. I wasn't dismissing your argument due to wordplay. The debate is "should hunting remain legal?"
(Your own definition)Hunting: to pursue for food or in sport
The only argument you brought up is that it is okay to kill animals for population control.(This is not hunting)
This is also illegal to kill animals simply because you claim it's "population control". Therefore it doesn't apply.

"States are enlisting sharpshooters to shoot, or cull, a certain number of deer."
None of these arguments actually pertain to this debate.

Please remember, I did actually argue the point that hunting is effective population control. I argued it assuming that Pro would change it to hunting is effective population control.(He didn't) I still disproved it, and Pro never addressed it, nor did Pro refute it. Therefore, Pro accepts that hunting is not population control.

"No difference between killing a dog and a deer?!Really?!Just stop and think, for a minute, of what it would be like to kill an animal that has been a loyal companion and loved you unconditionally for its entire life.Now think about what it would be like to kill an animal you have only seen once.There is a clear difference."

No argument, accept 'appeal to emotion'. Which is a logical fallacy. Thus proving, killing a dog and a deer is no different.

"Sport is defined as 'to amuse'.That does sound fairly dark at first.Here's why it's not.I have talked with many hunters in everyday settings, and in the field.They always say that they don't enjoy killing.The fun part is being with friends and family out in the field tying to beat an animal at its own game.The kill is a necessary part of the event.It is necessary through the definition.The sport of the hunt is not in the kill, it is the chase. If you have never hunted, you can't possibly hope to imagine how hunters feel in this matter."

This is not an argument. What you are basically saying is, "You're wrong because a hunter told me so".
The animal's own game is trying to survive. The fun part is trying to kill it. That is what this statement says.
This is a great example of 'Argument from authority', again, a logical fallacy. It also uses 'Appeal to emotion', another fallacy.

(STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS START HERE)

"This argument can be used much more effectively for hunting rather than against it.The problem in this argument is that the quality of life for a factory farmed animal is terrible.They spend their lives in a cage being stuffed with hormones.Once they are fat enough, they are slaughtered.An animal taken while hunting has a significantly higher quality of life.They spend their entire life in a seemingly endless amount of land.If they should get shot hunting, then that's just the hand that life dealt them."

This was not actually my argument. I said that hunting is no longer reasonable as "killing animals for food". I never said you should buy factory farm animal meat. I simply said that people do not hunt as a source of food.
This is getting redundant. This is a straw man fallacy, and appeal to emotion fallacy.

("our 'hunting' can simply be to go to the store and buy whichever animal meat you like"

"This directly conflicts with the definitions that you accepted when you accepted this debate.Hunting is 'to pursue for food or in sport' and pursue is to 'to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat'.You cannot overtake a packaged animal as it cannot flee.You cannot capture it because it was never free to be captured.You cannot kill it as it is already dead.You cannot defeat it as it cannot put up a fight.Therefore, you cannot hunt by going to the store.")

Again, a straw man fallacy. Notice I used quotations for hunting, it was meant to be a pun, or kind of ironic. I'm not actually arguing that's what hunting is.

"my opponent will debate that deer meat is not something you can typically find in a grocery store.While this may be true, you can still find stores that specifically sell these types of wild game meat(manufactured in a slaughterhouse type of environment).
I know that venison can be found rarely.The problem still comes down to the quality of life of the animal.A deer sold in the store was raised in a pen of some sort."

Again, straw man fallacy. That wasn't my argument. I meant if this topic came up(which it did) it wouldn't be valid. Below is where it does come up.

{"hunting may be a staple source of food for tribes in third world countries, and I reserve their right to it, but we are in fact, talking about the United States."
"Hunting is a staple source of food for me.My mentality and moral standings strongly discourage me from eating factory farmed animal products.Organic, free-range animal product is a hard thing to come by.It's expensive when you do.Now, here's a question for you.Wasn't it the founding fathers of our country that stated all men are created equal?Why, then, should I not have the same right to provide the food for myself off of what God has provided as someone in a third world country"}

Killing an animal for food, is not better than eating an animal that was killed for food. It is exactly the same. Again, straw man. Pro misrepresents that I argue people should either eat factory farm meat, or hunt for food. This argument also uses circular reasoning and appeal to authority.

{"Hunting purely for the entertainment of killing animals is disgusting.

The first flaw with this statement is addressed above.The second flaw is that this statement is based on your personal, subjective, moral standings and thus holds no strength in a debate"}

Straw man fallacy, again. This wasn't an argument. I didn't expect anyone to agree with me because I provided my opinion. I was stating my personal opinion. Note that this is necessary in a debate. Which is why each side is arguing from a different position. i.e. "hunting should remain legal" is a personal opinion.

"That is not possible by the nature of factory farming.An act that you have shown support for.Learning gun safety and how to properly handle a gun would discourage violence.Hunting would discourage murder.I believe that you have never been hunting.You can't imagine what it is like to know that you killed something.I do know what it's like.I still can't even begin to imagine what it would be like to kill a human."

I never said it was the nature of factory farming. This is again, a straw man argument. I stated that I support the manufacturing of animal products, manufactured humanely. However, you still fail to reason as why learning to use a gun to kill animals would discourage murder.

Hunting seasons are made so the population does not decrease due to hunting.

I have clearly won this debate. I have disproved every argument Pro presented. Pro has not disproved any of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
Lordknukle thats a your opinion. In my lifestyle, I couldn't survive without hunting.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
In the world today, hunting is not a necessity to survive.
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Sorry, forgot to add that the term for Pro's first argument is "Ignoratio elenchi".
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
First, sorry I took so long to get my argument up. I was just being too lazy. Also, sorry for the lack of flow in some areas and the lack of spacing between a period and the start of the next sentence, and the short conclusion. I had to conserve characters. I ended with like 14 characters or something small like that.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
@seraine, use for food and clothing. necessities for survival.
Posted by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
If I stick a dog in a fire for fun, does that qualify as use? After all, it can be a sport.
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
Man was designed to eat everything. That can be shown through tooth design. Plus, we began as scavengers. We ate everything we came across. Hunting for sport is not sinful. The Bible says that plants and animals are here for our use.
Posted by DP8184 5 years ago
DP8184
When did mankind, as enlightened as he is supposed to be, decide to murder and devour the flesh of other creatures he shares this earth with? I dont know when this happened, but I believe at least one priest teaches the 'apple' in he Garden of Eden was actually an animal heart, the first flesh ever eaten. Regardless, it goes against the olde order of the world for one creature to eat another. No creature was designed to ingest the flesh of another, however, natural selection produced creatures capable of this over thousands of years as a mechanism for pure survival. Killing for 'sport' is monstrous, sinful even! But man was not designed to eat flesh, nor was he 'evolved' to do so. Here is a link that supports my opinion: Just giving my two cens again, peace.
Posted by DanT 5 years ago
DanT
Oh I thought the title was "hunting should remain Illegal"
Posted by blackhawk1331 5 years ago
blackhawk1331
@jim_notguilty, I defined pursue when I went in and edited the challenge because of OreEle's comment.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
blackhawk1331kkjnayTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con shows why hunting for sport should be illigal while Pro uses hi personal experience to show why not. The strongest argument for con was refuting the overpopulation argument by showing how hunting doesn't necessarily lead to population control.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
blackhawk1331kkjnayTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt Pros best argument was in comparing the lifestyles of animals in the wild vs. animals in farms. Con tries to reframe his rebuttal to this as though it is not a choice between the two, but I find that unrealistic in today’s society. Everything else was heavily in Cons favor. Pro uses fallacies and appeals throughout the debate which Con addressed. Arguments were also better stated by Con.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
blackhawk1331kkjnayTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Close. All aspects were a draw save argument, which swayed me to Con's side. I think Pro could have won this by making an argument for keeping the (human) population trained in the art of hunting in the event of famine, war, or societal collapse. No such argument was made, however, and Con met Pro's population control and amusement arguments. As Pro had the burden of proof (that ever pernicious yet important argumentative concept), Con wins the debate in my opinion, though just barely.