The Instigator
Kicker_Swag
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
JuliusMaximus
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Should more hunting oppurtunities in the Suburbs be Allowed.

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 3 votes the winner is...
JuliusMaximus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2013 Category: Sports
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 813 times Debate No: 32915
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

Kicker_Swag

Pro

It Should be allowed, it has several bennifits that help society.
JuliusMaximus

Con

First off, I'd like to get some definitions out of the way, for the convenience of our voters.

Suburbs

1
a : an outlying part of a city or town
b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city
c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town [1]

Now according to this definition, by the Merriam-Webster dictionary the suburbs would be a populated, residential area.

[1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Kicker_Swag

Pro

Your dumb dude.... a suburb is obviously a neighborhood type thing. Someone this ignorant is not deserving of debating me, but i shall let u go anyways. Betta get yo facts straight cuz im bout to win this won 63-0

Deer hunting in the suburbs would help end car related crashes, and the destruction of crops. Many states right now donts allow hunting in the city limits, but this is where most deer related car collisions occur. Bow hunting would be used which would be much safer than gun hunting.
http://www.biggamehunt.net...
http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.sportsmansguide.com...
http://www.huntingtheoutdoors.com...
http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...
http://suite101.com...
http://www.wickedlocal.com...
http://www.jstor.org...
http://www.city-data.com...
http://www.backyardwhitetails.com...
http://www.dnr.state.md.us...
http://www.chron.com...
JuliusMaximus

Con

Firstly, I'll forgive you for that insult , and beg you to look to the bottom of my beginning argument where I cited the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as my source for that definition. If you have any problem with my definition, find another well reputed dictionary and give that definition.

Secondly, for the convince of myself and our voters, I would request that you at the least provide a list of basic arguments instead of forcing or voters to visit every on of your links, and spend hours reading.

Now, from what I can gather, your only argument is that deer hunting in the suburbs would lower the number of car accidents involving a deer, this is not true as we see deer-car collisions increase during hunting seasons.

Another common belief among proponents of suburban gun hunting is lime disease, however hunting deer would not solve the problem of lime disease, which is spread by mice.

Another argument is that it would reduce populations of deer in Suburbia, this is not true either. As deer are killed, it provides more food for each deer. When this happens the chance of giving birth to triplets increases for the deer.
Debate Round No. 2
Kicker_Swag

Pro

You betta not ever tell me what to do again or there will be a proble. We got that straight?

Deer do carry lime disease fool..... so this would help end infection if we get more hunting oppurtunities
http://mdc.mo.gov...

You killing deer would add food for others which is right, but if you kill a doe, that mean you kill the doe and it future babies which would help limit the population.

Deer crashes only increase during hunting season because it is the rut... which is when the deer go whaco in the head chasing the ladies.

If we allow hunting in the suburbs we could help crack down on the population and save lives, bills, and time.

As you can see this guy is clueless and has no basic knowledge so vote for me
JuliusMaximus

Con

That last line was rather amusing, as this guy has no basic knowledge of grammar.


"there has never been a documented case of a human contracting Lyme disease through the handling or consumption of venison. The disease actually is caused by bacteria and is spread through certain species of ticks. Deer, other wildlife and domestic animals often are hosts for the ticks that carry Lyme disease and may expand its range."

-A quote from his source http://mdc.mo.gov...;


So, no this would not stop a diesease which is "actually is caused by bacteria and is spread threough certain species of ticks."

Food for others, there are large areas payed for by government funds that are for hunting, there are giant tracts of land devoted to farming.Thus food from hunting animals is not needed.


Don't get me wrong, i am a gun and hunting rights respecter/activist.

This may contribute to the increase , however the frightening of deer by shooting at them[yes, when you shoot at a deer, it runs]

Now imagine this, you are sitting on your front porch, maybe your young children are playing in the yard. Suddenly shots ring out, and a wounded deer bounds out into the street, limps down the road a bit and stops infront of your house. At that point the deer stops infront of your house, and your young, impressionable children. And as they watch, this deer stops, and dies. Next, a hunter walks up, picks the deer up , and walks away with it, leaving your children there freaked out and crying.


Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ProudBlackVoter 4 years ago
ProudBlackVoter
Kicker_SwagJuliusMaximusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: i agree with medv, giving con the sources because of the definition
Vote Placed by Cowboy0108 4 years ago
Cowboy0108
Kicker_SwagJuliusMaximusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Both debates had good and bad points. Both had inaccuracies.
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
Kicker_SwagJuliusMaximusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros argument had too many threats, and poorly worded insults. Con should have sourced claims like "When this happens the chance of giving birth to triplets increases for the deer" is in desperate need for a source. Cons point about where the Suburbs are by definition highlights the concern raised in the closing.