The Instigator
tess9950
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SJM
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

animals should have the right to bear arms

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 2 votes the winner is...
SJM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 412 times Debate No: 101257
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

tess9950

Pro

Animals should have the right to bear arms because they are otherwise left defenseless against hunters. Animals cannot at this moment defend themselves against poachers and hunters. With this civil right, animal will be given weapons donated to them and allowed to shoot or stab each other, and all hunters and poachers. The main rule of nature is survival of the fittest, and we are just leveling the playing field. If needed, the animals will be given a long sword and duct tape, WITH their consent.
SJM

Con

We can't control animals, and we know from observation that animals that are hunted by poachers and hunters are wild. Therefore this would be giving more effective methods of brutality to these animals. And we also know that animals don't just attack their attackers, but also attack innocent people and animals for the sake of their desire. This will ultimately lead to more human and animal deaths than the status quo. This is a bad idea.

Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by SJM 1 year ago
SJM
@tess9950 For a school project?
Posted by tess9950 1 year ago
tess9950
I did this for a school project and am glad I put this out. I now can see the opponents point of view before I present during class. This was just supposed to be a joke, but thank you for your opinions.
Posted by What50 1 year ago
What50
The AMOC is against the mistreatment of chimps however arming chimps will make the problem worse.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by JimShady 1 year ago
JimShady
tess9950SJMTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Technically, I side with tess9950 on this because I think if animals have the right, it won't really matter because they won' use it. It's like humans having the right to fly, we won't use it so it doesn't matter. Conduct, S/G, and sources all get a tie, and as for convincing arguments, well, SJM wins. Pro could've got this, but he uses foolish arguments in that they need it for defense, when obviously they can's use arms (guns) at all. SJM brings up a viable point in that they would make wild animals more dangerous. So, 3 points for SJM, congrats.
Vote Placed by paintballvet18 1 year ago
paintballvet18
tess9950SJMTied
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: The Pro's entire case is through an assumption that animals can consent. They can't. Therefore Con wins argument points because he points out we can't control animals and then wins offense by pointing out animals already attack innocent people and don't need extra help. I vote Con.