The Instigator
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
MistyBlue
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The Hunting of Gray and Harbor Seals

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 1 vote the winner is...
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,249 times Debate No: 37474
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

Resolved: The U.S.F.G should permit the hunting of gray and harbor seals.

Rules: The first round is for acceptance, Wikipedia is not a credible source, and polite debating is always expected.
MistyBlue

Con

I accept, and look forward to debating this with you.
Debate Round No. 1
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

First of all I would like to thank my opponent and to say: I wish you best of luck and let the best man win. :)

Harm: Too many seals
Too many seals are breeding in the wild, therefore eating all the fish, and if seals eat all the fish it impacts the fishing businesses which eventually impact our economy.

Plan: Change the current system
In our plan we will have the United States Federal government allow the public to catch some of the gray/harbor seals, trade them with other countries, and make new about the ways people can hunt and catch the seals. We should be allowed to reduce the population of seals because seals are eating a lot of the fish, reducing the amount that we humans can eat.

Advantage 1: Less seals eating less fish.
When we reduce the amount of seals, less seals can eat less fish, allowing the fishing companies to have more fish. Because of the amounts of seals it will eventually hurt the fishing businesses.

Advantage 2: We will be allowed to trade and eat seals.
Because of the change in laws, men and woman will be allowed to hunt and trade seals and eat them.

Advantage 3: More food overall.
Because of our law changes there will be more food overall, eventually helping our economy in different ways.

As seen above the changes of laws will help everyone. It will help fishermen, fishing businesses, and everyday citizens.

1.http://www.underwatertimes.com...
MistyBlue

Con

MistyBlue forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro

Okay then.

since my opponent never responded I'll just restate my plan.

Harm: Too many seals
Too many seals are breeding in the wild, therefore eating all the fish, and if seals eat all the fish it impacts the fishing businesses which eventually impact our economy.

Plan: Change the current system
In our plan we will have the United States Federal government allow the public to catch some of the gray/harbor seals, trade them with other countries, and make new about the ways people can hunt and catch the seals. We should be allowed to reduce the population of seals because seals are eating a lot of the fish, reducing the amount that we humans can eat.

Advantage 1: Less seals eating less fish.
When we reduce the amount of seals, less seals can eat less fish, allowing the fishing companies to have more fish. Because of the amounts of seals it will eventually hurt the fishing businesses.

Advantage 2: We will be allowed to trade and eat seals.
Because of the change in laws, men and woman will be allowed to hunt and trade seals and eat them.

Advantage 3: More food overall.
Because of our law changes there will be more food overall, eventually helping our economy in different ways.

As seen above the changes of laws will help everyone. It will help fishermen, fishing businesses, and everyday citizens.
MistyBlue

Con

Again, sooo sorry for the forfeit. :'(

Fishermen aren't the only 'predators' in the wild.
Humans cannot massacre everything that they deem is in their way. Period.

The gray seal is a protected species under Annex ll and Annex V of the EC (European Community) habitat directive. Increasing levels of pollution, including oil spills are causing acute respiratory problems and general sickness amoung the gray seal population. Also, seals are getting killed off a lot already. It is estimated that more seals get caught in England's monkfish nets than the amount of seals born there each year.

The fishing industry is not sustainable at this point in time. Too many fish are being fished, depleting the 'supply' of fish in the ocean and causing many other organisms to starve because of lack of food. Unless the current situation improves, stocks of all species currently fished for food are predicted to collapse by 2048.
Lastly, and I know this is a purely emotional point, they're pretty cute. Seal populations may attract more tourists, there are seal observation beaches all over the world, and people love to see these cute little seals. It is also popular for artists, so they can paint the seals. This increases touristing, and thus helps the economy.
Gray Seals
Now, I am not drastically opposing hunting, I think it must be HEAVILY regulated. People should not be allowed to go out and shoot seals to vent anger whenever they want. Some population control may be necessary in the future, but we don't want it to go in the opposite direction of near-extinction for the seals, do we?

Another point, fish is not a necessary part of a human diet. Every vitamin, mineral, and nutrient found in fish can be gotten eat from an alternative food.

http://ec.europa.eu...;
http://savesandiegoseals.com...;
http://wwf.panda.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
SPENCERJOYAGE14

Pro


No problem here. ;)

I agree with you fishermen are not the only predators in the wild, but it is common knowledge that U.S fishermen have laws against how much fishing they can do, and what we are doing is acceptable; we are limiting how many fish seals can eat by shooting off a few seals.

This argument does not stand first off all because the resolution is for the United States and does not take place in Europe, and second because your evidence is faulty, it is expired and there is no proof that it agrees with what you are saying, it could agree with my points.


The fishing industry is not sustainable at this this time, but taking this step can help it get on its way.

I agree seals are cute, but they are pests and nuisances. Mice are cute but they are also pests.

We won’t be shooting all the seals. So there will still be seals for tourists to see.

Also more fish, and seal trades will help our economy, and everyone wants our economy to boost, right?


Even if fish is not the most necessary part of human diet, it is still important for humans.

Population control is necessary now! This is the future.

Voting issues:

1) Boost in economy. Vote pro, so that there will be a boost in economy.

2) Lack of evidence.

My opponent lacks all forms of evidence, all her evidence does not exist. Con, may be using evidence that is made up, or that agrees with my plan. All the evidence she uploaded was from just a few hours before my response, it doesn't just expire like that. One may, but not all three peices.

For all these reasons I urge you for your affirmative ballot.



Evd 1. http://ec.europa.eu......;
Evd 2. http://savesandiegoseals.com......;
Evd 3. http://wwf.panda.org......;

MistyBlue

Con

The seal hunting will go down the same road as oyster fishing. In Maryland, way back when, there was a surplus of oysters. Then, the industries came in, started fishing them, and now there are very few oysters at the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay.
If shooting seals is legalized, people will go out and kill them plentifully. I can assure you that if people are allowed to just go and shoot them, they will shoot too many.

An example of a good hunting policy is deer hunting. There are specific numbers of deer hunted each year, so not too many are killed off. This is an example of heavy regulation, but you have given no indication that you want hunting to be regulated. The idea I get is that you just want somebody to be able to go kill seals, a new seal hunting industry to be started, etc. History shows this doesn't work. Why do we have to keep making the same mistakes over and over again?

Also, you have not expressed any interest in conservation or protected areas for the seals. Don't you think it would disrupt the 'ambience' of a beach if people have guns to shoot seals with them?

Humans should not interfere with the world and its species. Our economy could be helped a lot more by certain lawmakers being less idiotic on capitol hill, but I won't go there.

Lastly, fish is not of that big of dietary importance to humans, many people don't eat fish and they survive.

Sources:
http://www.dnr.state.md.us...
http://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov...
Thanks for reading the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 4 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
MistyBlue, you know ALL your evidence is expired right?
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 4 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
No prob Bob.
Posted by MistyBlue 4 years ago
MistyBlue
Thanks. :)
Posted by SPENCERJOYAGE14 4 years ago
SPENCERJOYAGE14
Yeah that's okay! There's still time right? :) You can still have a turn. :)
Posted by MistyBlue 4 years ago
MistyBlue
I am SOOOO sorry for forfeiting, a lot of things suddenly cropped up, they have a tendency of doing that, don't they?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
SPENCERJOYAGE14MistyBlueTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Plain to vote. FF. I will give Con for better spelling and grammar. I leave the sources at a tie because both sources were good. I give Pro conduct because she was nice about her response to Con FF. I gave pro convincing argument, because she did convince me, I was at a tie to begin with this debate and ended up on the pros side.