The Instigator
HellKat
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
andre
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The Newfoundland seal hunt should not be abolished.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,027 times Debate No: 3811
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (93)
Votes (14)

 

HellKat

Pro

I don't think I'll have a hard time finding somebody who is against this topic, unless everybody here actually understands the significance of the Newfoundland seal hunt, which I would be thoroughly surprised if somebody did.

To begin I would like to clarify why the seal hunt still exists after 300 or more years:

1. It is one of the main incomes of the province of Newfoundland, next to oil.
Newfoundland I'll have you know is one of, if not the poorest province in the country of Canada and we have high instances of unemployment, which has affected this province for a long time, especially since we gave most of our money to the first World War and have been pretty much poor ever since. The seal hunt provides jobs where there otherwise were none and allows many people to live and make livings in this province where they grew up.

2. It is a food source for us. Yes, that's right, it's not just for fur imports like some people ignorantly believe. We also sell it to Europe I believe, though i'm not entirely sure of that.

3. Finally, the seal population is ever rising and even the hunt isn't keeping it down, this rising population is causing the seals food source, which also happens to be one of our food sources, is going down rapidly. The hunt is somewhat of an attempt at preserving the supply of fish for us and the seals. Yes I'm saying killing some seals is good for the surviving seals. At the rate it is going it doesn't seem like there is going to be a niche recovery when the seals really don't have enough food for the millions of them there are, if that happens neither species will survive, at least that's my prediction.

With that said, I await my opponent and in advance would like to thank and wish good luck to whomever they may be.

Sincerely, Kat
andre

Con

Recently I saw a video clip of a man in the seal hunt. He jumped from his boat, ran towards a baby seal, raised a pick axe, and clubbed it to death brutally and bloodily. The seal cowered as the man came closer and it tried desperately to move for a few seconds as he ran towards it, but of course it was hopeless. A nearby seal watched the whole thing. A member of the same herd watched a family member die. Now, just because they're seals, it certainly doesn't mean that they don't have feelings especially for their own family. And this man was enjoying murdering this seal cub with all his force, in the most brutal way imaginable. GaryBacon was right. It's just a sport for them.

Now, every time a dog mauls a baby child, sometimes killing him/her, we feel the need to destroy the dog. It's almost like the death penalty, which we don't even have (i.e. for humans) in Australia. But still many places in the world are overcrowded, wouldn't you agree? So, I wonder, do you expect that when the world population grows to the estimated 9.2 billion in 2050, if someone commits murder he'll get off because he was trying to help reduce the population because there is so much hunger? So, what is it, that the humans control the animals, "worry" about them, and of course its justifiable easily when killing them. But when an animal attacks a human it's big news and that animal should be destroyed because it killed one of us? It's don't bite the hand that "feeds" you for the animals, I guess. I suppose humans just love killing other animals because they can and they can get away with it. And because they don't communicate with us, we "can't prove" they have feelings. Studies show that animals do have emotions. Since when is it acceptable to club an animal to death because we "care" about them not having enough food?

In truth, maybe it's because we don't THINK we have enough food. In the US, about 50% of the population is obese/overweight. In Canada, it's almost 60%, at least to the point that increases the chance of health problems. Choke on that for a second, just like I hope seal eaters choke on their meals.

Do you eat seals by any chance?
Debate Round No. 1
HellKat

Pro

"It's just a sport for them."

Maybe he enjoyed maybe not, that doesn't make it any less of a job for him. It is not merely a sport, I said this previously, it provides for families and that's far more than a sport to me.

"So, I wonder, do you expect that when the world population grows to the estimated 9.2 billion in 2050, if someone commits murder he'll get off because he was trying to help reduce the population because there is so much hunger?"

No, because it's not the same thing at all. It might seem like stretch, but it is in fact the truth that the hunt will keep the population down and in turn help it, whether you want to believe that or not.

"I suppose humans just love killing other animals because they can and they can get away with it. And because they don't communicate with us, we "can't prove" they have feelings. Studies show that animals do have emotions. Since when is it acceptable to club an animal to death because we "care" about them not having enough food?"

I can assure you that the hunt is not because we enjoy killing animals simply because we can. I think you misunderstood what I said. The hunt is not entirely because we care about them having enough food, it's because of the effects it will have on three species, the seals, the fish, and us. the hunting of the seals in turn is probably, not defiantly, helping to preserve both species here within Newfoundland.

"In truth, maybe it's because we don't THINK we have enough food. In the US, about 50% of the population is obese/overweight. In Canada, it's almost 60%, at least to the point that increases the chance of health problems."

I know we have enough food, I never said we didn't, it's not about us having enough food. The point is, the seal hunt does many good things for many people here, whether you see that or not.

"Do you eat seals by any chance?"

No I don't.
andre

Con

I would first like to say that I understood GaryBacon's comment and I understood all of what you said and the fact I am arguing something you don't believe in doesn't make my arguments any less valid.

Furthermore, choking doesn't mean death, however, I do sort-of believe in equal punishment (what you do wrong is what you get back at you). Does that just make me descend to their level? No, it balances us all out, thereby making us even.

I also don't like the fact that your province is apparently using a seal hunt to help themselves. That's much like a gold-digger wife murdering her husband for his money. (No offence intended).

""So, I wonder, do you expect that when the world population grows to the estimated 9.2 billion in 2050, if someone commits murder he'll get off because he was trying to help reduce the population because there is so much hunger?"
No, because it's not the same thing at all. It might seem like stretch, but it is in fact the truth that the hunt will keep the population down and in turn help it, whether you want to believe that or not."
-
And I suppose it's not the same thing because they're animals, naturally? I also believe that the seals can take care of themselves and we didn't need to intervene just to reap the benefits. Leave nature to sort itself out.

The idea is that the massacre is cruel and a dirty way to get financial and other etc. help. Try a different investment. As for "helping" the seal population, they can help themselves. No-one would want to "save" them if there wasn't something in it for them.
Debate Round No. 2
HellKat

Pro

"I also don't like the fact that your province is apparently using a seal hunt to help themselves. That's much like a gold-digger wife murdering her husband for his money. (No offence intended)."

Where do you get these analogies? Since when do people not use animals as natural resources, or better yet, since when is it wrong? Doesn't Australia use Kangaroo as a resource? Kangaroo leather, and meat? But I digress. Natural resources are meant to be used aren't they? Whether we sell them or use them for ourselves.

"And I suppose it's not the same thing because they're animals, naturally? I also believe that the seals can take care of themselves and we didn't need to intervene just to reap the benefits. Leave nature to sort itself out."

Again you've misunderstood me. The purpose of the seal hunt is not an intervention to reap the benefits, the seal hunt is just about 300 years old, it was our food source since the Irish and whomever else came here, it was probably the Native's food source as well. I realize that I said:

"The hunt is somewhat of an attempt at preserving the supply of fish for us and the seals"

But what I meant by that was, that by furthering the hunt we not only have many jobs for people, we are also helping to preserve the fish. I didn't mean to call it an attempt at anything and apologize for saying it was, I didn't review it thoroughly enough it appears.

The idea is that the massacre is cruel and a dirty way to get financial and other etc. help. Try a different investment. As for "helping" the seal population, they can help themselves. No-one would want to "save" them if there wasn't something in it for them.

It's hardly a massacre. We have oil, like I said. Did you even read the argument I made in the beginning. If they could help themselves they wouldn't be running out of food would they? The purpose of the hunt was not simply to say we were trying to help while getting a profit out of it. I'm saying that besides it already being for financial gain as well as a food source, the hunt is somewhat helping to keep the population at bay so that it isn't wiped out in a few years time and doesn't take the fish with it.

To end my argument I will say this: Most of what you will see is images of baby seals that aren't going to be killed, and a sealer that's hitting a seal with a bit too much enthusiasm and doing a bit of overkill, but what you won't see is the people benefitting from it. The family that doesn't have to live in poverty, the money our province gets to help with funding things as I'm sure it does.

Appearances can be deceiving, especially in the hands of somebody who is ignorant of what they are presenting, innocently enough they see a good cause, but realize not what the cause of the action is in the first place.

We aren't doing this for sport, blood lust, or simple greed, we are doing this because we need to, it's what's keeping people living here. Jobs. if there were no major jobs like the seal hunt there probably wouldn't be many people living here.

What protestors, and boycotters don't realize is the importance the seal hunt has to us. We were offered money to stop the hunt a while back, and when we declined they said we were blood thirsty and greedy, but that money only lasts so long for the province and I highly doubt that that money would provide jobs for the people who would lose their livelihood. If there was any other way, I'm sure that would be the way we would go, but for now this is what's keeping us alive as a province, and nothing any protestor can say will change that.

You may not agree with it as a livelihood, but frankly, you don't live here, you haven't got to worry about it all crumbling around you and you being forced to leave the only place you've ever known. It might sound like a horrible little sob story, but it's also the truth, and that's something you can't just skim around. But again, I digress, this is not the point at hand, the point is that the seal hunt is of great significance to us and is very much needed.

The reason it looks so cruel as because of the haqa' pik used, but the reason it's used is because the high powered rifles that some hunters use is dangerous to everybody. The bullets could very well ricochet and hit a hunter or another seal. That seal could wander off, no one knowing it was even hurt, and die frightened after hours of torturous pain. The haqa' pik might look cruel, but it's probably the quickest thing, though the prime minister of Newfoundland is trying to abolish it and have only rifles used. Until we can find something better.

Finally I'd like to make perfectly clear that only adults are killed, no white coats. This is a common misconception due to the frequent pictures in anti-seal hunt slide shows of cute little baby seals covered in white fur. They used to be killed for fur trade purposes but that was made illeagal long ago.
andre

Con

It is indeed true that Australia kills, eats and exports kangaroo in an even worse way than the seal hunt, but I don't support it anymore than I do the seal hunt. I also object to your calling animals "natural resources". Humans are technically animals too but it's illegal to use humans in any similar way. Other animals are not there for us to use as resources. They are here for the same reason we are (no philosophical debate intends to be started with this) instead of to be used for our benefit. I misunderstand you not so I would plead one last time that you stop saying that. Just because the seal hunt is 300 years old doesn't make it any less wrong. Not to mention that this is not 300 years ago, this the year 2008 and things have changed. As for being the natives' food source, that is slightly more acceptable because it would have been one of the only sources of food.

As a source of jobs for the locals however, I think anyone cruel enough to take a job killing seals deserves to be out of work.

And if the seals really are running out of food, how about trying a different tactic, say, relocation of the seals. (As I rightly don't live there I'm not sure that would necessarily work but I am sure there must be a better way).

The baby seal I was referring to was the one that was killed.

Furthermore, your province can find a different investment. There are more important things than money unless you happen to be a very heartless person. I can see the importance of the seal hunt but I don't see why you don't regret having to murder living things and try to find any possible alternative.

A rifle would look just as cruel to me anyway so I guess that haqa' pik is the best way but... "The bullets could very well ricochet and hit a hunter or another seal" - and of course that would be a terrible tragedy for the hunters, right?

"This is a common misconception due to the frequent pictures in anti-seal hunt slide shows of cute little baby seals covered in white fur." - while I understand this and agree and do indeed mistrust such things, I do believe they do sometimes at least kill the cubs as well.

The point is, murdering a seal is no less cruel than murdering a human. While the need for jobs/money etc. is clear, the seal hunt should not be the way to go. And although human nature seems to dictate such a thing, it doesn't mean we have to stick to it.
Debate Round No. 3
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamadragon 7 years ago
iamadragon
Ah, I amuse myself.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I win.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
You're a moron, I'm sorry, but you are. I refuse to continue this conversation.
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Why should I trust a map? You're assuming the mapmakers are correct. You think that just because the mapmakers say so, it is so.

PatSox WOULD be getting on you for this, but I think he wants to get on you for something else.
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
...What the flip are you getting on with?
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Maps? Appeal to authority much? Appeal to common practice? [insert overly cited logical fallacy here]?
Posted by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
It's on every effing map of Canada ever made, what more proof do you need?

Haha, go ahead, as long as I get some credit.

Precisely, what would the world be comming to without unnecessary violence?

My memory is perfect when it comes to uselss information haha.

Wow, short message...
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
<"Prove that it is called Newfoundland.">

Hahahaha, that's even better than the time when you asked for proof of Honus Wagner's existence. It was even funnier that people took such an argument seriously.

P.S: me > you < tigerssux < OG.
Posted by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
There are no maybes about it.. Heh.

Haha, heaven is a glass... I'm probably going to steal that line. Coke, eh? Coke is definitely good stuff -- I drink it way too often. I'm quite obviously addicted... My favorite has to be root beer, though. That stuff is the nectar of the gods.

Heh... You know, you're probably right on the money. It might make the problem worse, but still, it's clearly the most amusing solution. Ahh, unnecessary violence... Where would we all be without it? Hell. That's where.

Hahaha, I like how you can recall times where your memory has been bad so specifically. Hmm, only I would be amused by such an odd thing...
Posted by iamadragon 8 years ago
iamadragon
Prove that it is called Newfoundland.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by stina2bina 7 years ago
stina2bina
HellKatandreTied
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 Checkmark1 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 bacon 8 years ago
bacon
HellKatandreTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
HellKatandreTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by thomas1 8 years ago
thomas1
HellKatandreTied
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 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
HellKatandreTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by HellKat 9 years ago
HellKat
HellKatandreTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by tigersandgreenweather 9 years ago
tigersandgreenweather
HellKatandreTied
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 
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
HellKatandreTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by kykrebs 9 years ago
kykrebs
HellKatandreTied
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 
Vote Placed by Theomega 9 years ago
Theomega
HellKatandreTied
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