The Instigator
LDdebaterCG
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Xer
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

The Japanese Whalers are immoral and deserve the Sea Shepherds' actions.

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 5 votes the winner is...
Xer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,048 times Debate No: 9143
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)

 

LDdebaterCG

Pro

I stand in the strictest Proposition of this resolution. I would like to define the following terms. Sea Shepherds an organization led by Paul Watson to stop the whaling in Antarctica. Immoral the action or quality of being unjust. Actions: actions taking place at the current time.
Now My value for this round will be Harmonious Nature. Harmonious nature is the paramount value because without it our world where we are all ocnnected ceases to exist and we all die. The Affirmation is the only side that can achieve this because stating that the Japanese whalers are moral is stating that whaling itself is moral and this would not lead to Harmonious nature. My Value Criterion is Just action. Just action is the paramount Value Criterions because without just action we cannot achieve morality and without having morality nothing separates us from the animals.

Contention one is that the Japanese whalers do not take Moral action.
(a) The Sea Shepherds target the deck and simply make it more uncomfortable while the Japanese whalers have been known to target people and have shot Paul Watson and thrown flash grenades at the Sea Shepherds.
(b) Whales are the gentle giants of the sea the Japanese whalers are destroying innocence which is no way moral. They are also cowards when the Sea Shepherds show up they run away but they obviously don't have a problem killing innocent defenseless whales.
(c) They are taking advantage on a Law stating that they can only whale in the name of science and no more than 1000 whales can die a year. They kill about 950 to avoid legal issues. However the Law also states that none of the whale may be wasted. Thus they ship and pack the extra meat to sell to the market without using it for science.

For all these reasons and more you must realize that the Japanese whalers are immoral and deserve what they are getting.
Xer

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and wish him good luck.

==========

For those of you who do not know what my opponent is talking about... He is talking about the TV show on Animal Planet entitled Whale Wars.

Official Website:
http://animal.discovery.com...

Wikipedia Page:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

==========

"Now My value for this round will be Harmonious Nature. Harmonious nature is the paramount value because without it our world where we are all ocnnected ceases to exist and we all die. The Affirmation is the only side that can achieve this because stating that the Japanese whalers are moral is stating that whaling itself is moral and this would not lead to Harmonious nature. My Value Criterion is Just action. Just action is the paramount Value Criterions because without just action we cannot achieve morality and without having morality nothing separates us from the animals."

---I googled "Harmonious Nature" and found nothing useful about it. Nonetheless, I believe you overstated the significance of Harmonious Nature by saying "...without it our world where we are all ocnnected ceases to exist and we all die." We clearly wouldn't die and I'm not sure what you meant by the first part. Also, further explain "...and without having morality nothing separates us from the animals." I'm not sure what you mean. I don't really get the whole above quoted paragraph. Further explanation is necesarry.

==========

REBUTTALS:

"The Sea Shepherds target the deck and simply make it more uncomfortable while the Japanese whalers have been known to target people and have shot Paul Watson and thrown flash grenades at the Sea Shepherds."

>This is self-defense. The Whalers are getting attacked and simply defending themselves.
>Take into account this analogy: If an intruder comes into your home with a knife, you will obviously want to defend yourself. A weapon the homeowner may choose is a gun. A gun is clearly more powerful than a knife, but the action is just.
>If anything, the Sea Shepherds are acting immorally here.

"Whales are the gentle giants of the sea the Japanese whalers are destroying innocence which is no way moral."

>This contention is void. It is backed up in no way whatsoever.

"They are taking advantage on a Law stating that they can only whale in the name of science and no more than 1000 whales can die a year. They kill about 950 to avoid legal issues."

>Since when is acting within the law immoral? I applaud the whalers for acting legally and morally.

"However the Law also states that none of the whale may be wasted. Thus they ship and pack the extra meat to sell to the market without using it for science."

>Another unwarranted claim.
>The Japanese use the whales for research and science. (1)

==========

CONTENTIONS:

1) Humans have always eaten and exploited animals.
-Ever since humans (homo sapiens) have walked the Earth, we have been exploiting animals for personal gain. Hunting and farming both involve exploitations of animals and we have been doing these things forever. Since exploitation of animals is in our DNA, whaling is morally acceptable.

2) Animals have no rights.
-Rights are something created by humans, not animals. Reason and free will is essential to rights. Animals do not have reason and free will. Therefore, they have no rights.

3) Animals harm each other anyway. Thus, whaling is just nature playing its course.
-Humans are essentially animal. So, for an animal such as a human to do harm to another animal is simply nature.

4) Whaling reduces overpopulation.
-The whalers mainly go after minke whales. Minke whales are overpopulated (2). The whalers are doing a favor by making the oceans more wide open for other organisms.

5) Whaling is fun for the whalers.
-Fun is morally acceptable.

==========

SOURCES:

(1) http://www.icrwhale.org...
(2) http://animal.discovery.com...
Debate Round No. 1
LDdebaterCG

Pro

>(This is self-defense. The Whalers are getting attacked and simply defending themselves) Ok then why do they result to such violent tactics. the sea shepherds use tactics that do not harm the whalers. If i came up to mug someone with nothing but fists the right thing to do would be to fight me off not neccisarily kill thats illegal self defense is different then unnecessary violence.

>(Take into account this analogy: If an intruder comes into your home with a knife, you will obviously want to defend yourself. A weapon the homeowner may choose is a gun. A gun is clearly more powerful than a knife, but the action is just.)This analogy is void because knifes can cause harm to people the sea shepherds tactics do not which is why the act is unjust when they respond to that with flash grenades and violence that's something a frustrated kid does.

>(If anything, the Sea Shepherds are acting immorally here.)no warrant or impact so thus this argument cannot be looked at.

>(This contention is void. It is backed up in no way whatsoever.) ok well let me explain have you ever seen a whale massacre anything no. They are harmless to us yet we still kill them. Babies are harmless yet people consider it immoral if we kill babies. Thus the Whalers are immoral.

>(Since when is acting within the law immoral? I applaud the whalers for acting legally and morally.) Ok while i admit that following the law is not immoral taking advantage of it is if i program a robot to kill someone then it is technically not "Homicide" which is defined a as man killing a man so thus taking advantage of a law is not moral I'm guessing that you are a democrat and or on welfare.

>(Another unwarranted claim.
>The Japanese use the whales for research and science. (1)) Ok so we see absolutely no evidence of the Whalers using the parts for science they kill the minimum amount allowed under the law and they process the whale from there. on the same ship to which the whales are transferred coincidence I think not.

Cont 1 of my opponents case is flawed t the extreme. We eat beef and pork because we specifically raise those animals for htose purposes its called Domestication. We don't domesticate whales some species are already extinct this puts us on a slippery slope where will it stop when all species are extinct except us.

Conts 2 and 3 are contradictory in cont 2 he says "Rights are created by humans not animals" then in cont 3 "Humans are essentially animals". Proving this you cannot look to cont 2 or 3. I'll refute to avoid dropping this argument. Ok 2 humans are simply evolved animals what is the distinct line between us and animals we both have self preservation systems in our bodies so humans are animals this was stated by my opponent in cont 3 so it is accepted as true now. cont 3 animals harm each other anyway. so do humans lets speed up that process.In different light we can see that this concept is not moral.

cont 4 china is over populated lets lay waste to them. since humans are essentially animals. obivously this would not be tolerated so why exterminate a species on the brink of extinction

cont 5 ok lets say i think killing people is fun fun is in the eye of the beholder and changes for everyone thus this cannot be looked to as morally acceptable

OK to restate my first paragraph and elaborate this is how it links. We depend on the ocean when whales and sharks and fish are extinct we run out of food on water then we run out on land thus without this value we would all die. Just action is what started our country and population without it we descend into anarchy. This is why we set up laws.

I refuted all points on my arguments so they still stand while my opponents arguments crumble.
To restate it the whalers are too violent the shot someone in an attempt to kill while the sea shepherds do not even cause injury to begin with. the slaughter of innocence must stop in order to remain moral.

Also the Con didnt provide a V o
Xer

Con

"Ok then why do they result to such violent tactics. the sea shepherds use tactics that do not harm the whalers. If i came up to mug someone with nothing but fists the right thing to do would be to fight me off not neccisarily kill thats illegal self defense is different then unnecessary violence."

>The Whalers have only used non-lethal force so far.

"This analogy is void because knifes can cause harm to people the sea shepherds tactics do not which is why the act is unjust when they respond to that with flash grenades and violence that's something a frustrated kid does."

>Ok, then. Substitute knife for baseball bat.

"Ok while i admit that following the law is not immoral taking advantage of it is"

>So, you concede the point.

"i program a robot to kill someone then it is technically not "Homicide" which is defined a as man killing a man so thus taking advantage of a law is not moral I'm guessing that you are a democrat and or on welfare."

>It is still a crime. The same as killing someone with your car is called vehicular HOMICIDE. Bad analogy, bad rebuttal.

"Ok so we see absolutely no evidence of the Whalers using the parts for science they kill the minimum amount allowed under the law and they process the whale from there. on the same ship to which the whales are transferred coincidence I think not."

>My link shows the whales being used for scientific research. Everything your just said is hearsay.

"We eat beef and pork because we specifically raise those animals for htose purposes its called Domestication. We don't domesticate whales some species are already extinct..."

>Well, you conceded that exploitation of animals is in our DNA. And you conceded that my point makes sense for beef and pork. I argue that it counts for whales too. Just because we can't OFFICIALLY domesticate them, so what? Humans have always exploited animals, it is in our DNA, and is simply normal. Normality is morally acceptable.

"...this puts us on a slippery slope where will it stop when all species are extinct except us."

>The slippery slope fallacy is considered invalid. My point stands.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
http://www.nizkor.org...

>>My opponent is clearly trying to avoid a rebuttal of Contentions 2 and 3.

"Ok 2 humans are simply evolved animals what is the distinct line between us and animals we both have self preservation systems in our bodies so humans are animals this was stated by my opponent in cont 3 so it is accepted as true now."

>So what? Humans created rights. Humans have free will and reason. Non-human animals do not. Thus, they do not have rights.

"cont 3 animals harm each other anyway. so do humans lets speed up that process.In different light we can see that this concept is not moral."

>My opponent concedes this point. Harming each other is simply part of nature. Thus, morally acceptable.

"cont 4 china is over populated lets lay waste to them. since humans are essentially animals. obivously this would not be tolerated so why exterminate a species on the brink of extinction"

>This point is void. I have already proved why humans have rights, and animals do not.

"cont 5 ok lets say i think killing people is fun fun is in the eye of the beholder and changes for everyone thus this cannot be looked to as morally acceptable"

>This point is again void. My opponent is trying to show immorality by comparing killing of humans with killings of whales. I have already proved why humans have rights, and animals do not.

"We depend on the ocean when whales and sharks and fish are extinct we run out of food on water then we run out on land thus without this value we would all die. Just action is what started our country and population without it we descend into anarchy."

>Completely fallacious.

==========

CONTENTION:

6) Survival of the fittest and natural selection agree with me.
-Only the strongest shall prevail.
Debate Round No. 2
LDdebaterCG

Pro

>(The Whalers have only used non-lethal force so far.) They have used lethal force and it is on camera. They have thrown steel bolts golf balls they have even shot at Paul Watson as shown in the episode "Boiling point." You cannot deny that shooting someone is "Non lethat force."

>(Ok, then. Substitute knife for baseball bat.) No this will still cause harm the tactics used by the sea shepherds are only comparable to those of spider man who never harms the criminal but leaves them in spider webs in his wake. The sea shpeherds have never thrown anything that COULD cause harm to the whalers cellulose powder is about as dangerous as orange juice.

>(So what? Humans created rights. Humans have free will and reason. Non-human animals do not. Thus, they do not have rights.) My opponent conceded that Humans are animals thus why should some animals have rights over others. That is prejudice thats like saying "Only whites should be president because they are superior." this is immoral because obviously prejudice is not moral and is immoral.

>(This point is void. I have already proved why humans have rights, and animals do not.) Again humans are animals my opponent fails to distinguish that he dropped this argument if he should further fail to distinguish this i will.

>(This point is again void. My opponent is trying to show immorality by comparing killing of humans with killings of whales. I have already proved why humans have rights, and animals do not.) He needs to diversify his arguments because I have taken one down i have basically taken down all arguments that argue humans differ from animals.

>(Completely fallacious.) No warrant or impact not a complete argument thus htis cannot be looked at.

Cont 6 ok well then the Japanese whalers are not the strongest we dropped the A bomb on em before so lets resume with that. All of my opponents arguments are one sided flawed ideas if only the strongest truly prevail then we should take over japan.

Contention 2 Since my opponent has accepted the people are animals whales ought to be treated with the same rights.
If whales had to option to kill us would we want them too? no, which is why we need to stop killing innocent beings.

Contention 3 We will wipe a species off the face of the earth should this continue. My opponent says well because we haven't officially domesticated them what should matter. we domesticate beings to keep them from becoming extinct. Whales are on the extinction list. Our generations will not be able to see whales should this continue and to see that species wiped off the face of the planet because a couple of people could not comply with the risks being taken. Its like a child playing with his dads gun then he becomes an orphan and cannot survive because he cannot raise himself.

My opponent is not taking responsibility so i shall add a burden. Since murder is unjust why should we allow another member of the mammalian family to die.

the sea shpeherd's have never harmed a single japanese whaler. Yet they have sustained casualties such as haing a gash beneath the eye, bruises and had paul watson not been wearing his bullet proof vest he would have died. Surely the Whalers are unjust in thier violence. Ok whale blood aside all of my human killing scenarios are completely relevant to this case. The whalers are spilling human blood while the sea shepherds do not surely this is not appropriate even by the oppositions case.

This round was won by me from stage 1. My opponent failed to provide a Value or a Value Criterion. This round is based on 1. Whose value was better in terms of gain. which i have since there is nothing to compare to. 2. Who upheld their value best which i did because the opponent had no value to uphold. 3. whose value criterion best achieved the value. Mine since my opponent had no value criterion in which to uphold the value. Thus you must vote affirmative
Xer

Con

In reply to the first two paragraphs:

>The shot was proven to be a fake (1). And steel bolts and golf balls are non-lethal. And I will say it again. The Sea Shepherds initiated the attack, therefore, the Whalers have a right to morally defend themselves. The Whalers are in the right, the Sea Shepherds are in the wrong.

"My opponent conceded that Humans are animals thus why should some animals have rights over others. That is prejudice thats like saying "Only whites should be president because they are superior." this is immoral because obviously prejudice is not moral and is immoral."

>I clearly said non-human animals. You quoted my words, so you should have read that. I have proven why Humans have rights and why (non-human) animals (such as whales) do not. My opponent failed to refute that.

"He needs to diversify his arguments because I have taken one down i have basically taken down all arguments that argue humans differ from animals."

>You have said that humans are animals, thus animals = animals. But, that is a straw man. I made the contention that humans have rights over non-human animals, which you failed to refute.

"No warrant or impact not a complete argument thus htis cannot be looked at."

>But, it is a complete argument. You made a completely fallacious statement, and I just stated that.

"Cont 6 ok well then the Japanese whalers are not the strongest we dropped the A bomb on em before so lets resume with that. All of my opponents arguments are one sided flawed ideas if only the strongest truly prevail then we should take over japan."

>Umm, what? Survival of the fittest pertains to differing species (2). Japanese and Americans are both homo sapiens, I don't know what my opponent is trying to get at. So, contention 6 stands.

"Contention 2 Since my opponent has accepted the people are animals whales ought to be treated with the same rights."

>You are making the same accusation over and over again, which dooms your whole argument. I said non-human animals.

"If whales had to option to kill us would we want them too? no, which is why we need to stop killing innocent beings."

>No, of course we would not want them to. But, they could if they would because of Survival of the Fittest. Just like how lions hunt for zebras, or humans kill pigs for pork, whaling is just humans killing whales for their meat. It is simply nature.

"Contention 3 We will wipe a species off the face of the earth should this continue."

>I have already provided a source on how the main whales that the Whalers are hunting, minke whales, are overpopulated. And because of the restriction of 950 kills per year, which you pointed out, extinction is near impossible.

"My opponent says well because we haven't officially domesticated them what should matter. we domesticate beings to keep them from becoming extinct."

>No, we domesticate things for our pleasure. Like cows for milk and steaks. And dogs for love.

"Our generations will not be able to see whales should this continue and to see that species wiped off the face of the planet because a couple of people could not comply with the risks being taken."

>Our generations will not be able to dinosaurs or wooly mammoths either.

"Its like a child playing with his dads gun then he becomes an orphan and cannot survive because he cannot raise himself."

>Huh?

"Since murder is unjust why should we allow another member of the mammalian family to die."

>Because of survival of the fittest.

In reply to the 2nd to last paragraph:
>I have covered and refuted those issue in deep detail above.

In reply to the last paragraph:
>I don't understand what you are talking about.

==========

CONCLUSION:
- Whaling is simply part of nature.

* My opponent provided one contention through the whole debate. And that was in round one. I have successfully refuted the contention.

* I provided six contentions. My opponent failed utterly to refute any of them.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tofuham 6 years ago
tofuham
"Since when is acting within the law immoral?"

Maybe you don't imply that the "law is always moral" but you do imply that acting within the law makes it moral. Which implies that you think that laws are moral.
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
Xer
Where in that statement do you see that I imply that the "law is always moral"?
Posted by tofuham 6 years ago
tofuham
"They are taking advantage on a Law stating that they can only whale in the name of science and no more than 1000 whales can die a year. They kill about 950 to avoid legal issues."

>Since when is acting within the law immoral? I applaud the whalers for acting legally and morally.
Posted by Xer 6 years ago
Xer
"Nags, you seem to think that the law is always moral. Just because something is legal does not always mean that it is right."

When did I ever make such a claim?

"It was once against the law for African American's and Caucasians to share a room in a restaurant. Hopefully you do not think that this is moral."

Indeed. However, I think it is perfectly fine for a restaurant owner to not allow a certain race into his or her restaurant.
Posted by tofuham 6 years ago
tofuham
Nags, you seem to think that the law is always moral. Just because something is legal does not always mean that it is right. It was once against the law for African American's and Caucasians to share a room in a restaurant. Hopefully you do not think that this is moral.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
Lolololol yeah, right. Sorry I don't do LD debate, or any formal debate for that matter. The only one who voted for you is yourself. Well done.
Posted by LDdebaterCG 7 years ago
LDdebaterCG
You didnt address the burden your arguments were one sided and had no warrants or impacts i question the fact if you know what a complete argument is. If you see a Value and a Value criterion always assume it is lincoln douglas debate. everything i had on my side was loads better so just ignore the fact that you won get your head out of dream world and face the real world.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
So, why'd you give yourself 7 points? Do you seriously believe you won Conduct and S&G. Conduct was clearly tied and you clearly misspelled many words and had terrible grammar.

"...to be fair in a real round you would have lost because you dint have a V or VC."
>Except this isn't L-D debate. This is DDO debate.
Posted by LDdebaterCG 7 years ago
LDdebaterCG
NAGS good debate man You had some really good points although to be fair in a real round you would have lost because you dint have a V or VC. No prob your pretty good tho.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
My RFD is the same as Nags.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by LDdebaterCG 7 years ago
LDdebaterCG
LDdebaterCGXerTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
LDdebaterCGXerTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by VictorTango 7 years ago
VictorTango
LDdebaterCGXerTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
LDdebaterCGXerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
LDdebaterCGXerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06