hunting is bad
Debate Rounds (3)
You can get profit from a lot of things that are criminal. For example if you successfully rob a bank. Also if what you're saying is that hunting is good because you can get food from it, then why don't we kill humans by that logic?
"Carnivores would kill them anyway."
Not necessarily true since you're assuming that no animals die of natural causes which we know is not true.
"I think regulated hunting would ensure survival of the sport as well as help the forest"
You're arguing that hunting should be banned by saying that it would help the sport survive, so you assume that the sport is good, but you still have yet to provide why it is. So you're essentially begging the question. Also you didn't provide how it would help the forest.
Hunting should be banned because it promotes the type of attitude to kill things for your own entertainment. With this attitude spreading people will get the idea to do the same to other humans. Also, animals have rights just as much as we do as habitants of this shared world. Unless my opponent can provide adequate reasoning for why humans are superior to other animals.
Also it is cruel to hurt animals in the name of sport. It's a barbaric sport to end the lives of animals, sometimes in a painful way, for fun. This is very sadistic to animals.
No it doesn't. Moreover, hunting was done for survival in the old days. Humans are superior to animals as we are more intelligent, are more in numbers and have made ourselves formidable. Although an eccentric notion, hunting could be done to train the army and the police so that they don't get too disconcerted by the blood.
I don't believe animals have the right to live independently without human interference. Also, animals hurt each other, yet it is not barbaric. A lion hunts a deer, we shot the lion. Haven't we done a good favor to the deer?
Furthermore, I quote " animals have rights just as much as we do as inhabitants of this shared world" then shouldn't we stop eating plants as well? Just cause they live, doesn't mean they should live. If we stopped the breeding of chickens and cattle since the farmers start thinking animals should get rights, then not only would they eat up all the grass, they will also be easy prey for the carnivorous animals and be dead in no time.
Usefulness of hunting
I think hunting should be done as hunting will provide us food, leather/ other types of skin, and much more. Hunting should be done as it is profitable and is a gold mine not fully exploited. Pro argues it hurts animals, I argue that since they have to get hurt and die anyway, better they die for us.
" For example if you successfully rob a bank." Hunting is illegal now in many places, actually.
Cybertronians > humans > animals > plants
And my opponent assumes that I think animals eating other animals isn't barbaric. Which I do think it is. Then he brings up the example that "A lion hunts a deer, we shot the lion. Haven't we done a good favor to the deer?" You also did injustice to the lion, even if he was going to kill the deer. Because killing going against the principle, which is killing is bad. You don't kill a murderer, because you are then just as bad as he is.
And my opponent says that since I said animals have the right to live, plants should too, but the difference is that plants don't feel pain. The concept behind this is that animals have feelings, pain, and they even communicate. And my opponent says that cattle and chicken would eat up all the grass and also get eaten by carnivorous animals, but wouldn't they get eaten before they eat all the grass to the point where it's even?
Then my opponent says the reason why he thinks it's justified to kill animals is because they will provide us food and much more which by that logic, again humans should be able to be hunted. Then he also says that we have the right to kill them because they have to get hurt and will die anyways. Again by that logic we should be able to kill humans unless my opponent thinks that humans are immortal and never get hurt.
Videos won't have the same effect as they are not real and moreover, the army men didn't cause the death of that animal.
Intelligence makes us superior. Have you seen any other organic with guns and cities? No, you haven't.
This link shows that plants give distress calls (communicate) when under danger, i.e. in probable pain.
Furthermore, science has sadly classified them under living. And "life is the right of all living beings" Then from the same logic, don't eat plants.
"wouldn't they get eaten before they eat all the grass to the point where it's even?"
I read in this link there are 50 billion chickens on this planet. They won't kill 50 billion of them at the same time in the wild. And we have cattle to add to that number. While it may not be precise, the actual figure would still be large. Furthermore, thye would raid city supplies as well, and we won't be able to kill them "because they feel pain".
My opponent only refutes my arguments by saying kill humans as well. But animals are not the same as humans, and they exist for our benefits. We must utilize them before they destroy the world!
"As far as I know no reputable study has ever shown that plants can "feel pain". They lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. A plant can respond to stimuli, for example by turning towards the light or closing over a fly, but that is not the same thing." Pain can not happen to plants without these perquisites, my opponent says plants give out distress calls, and therefore that means they feel pain. But that's not true at all because someone giving a distress call means simply they are in danger, not that they feel pain. Unless my opponent is saying distress can not happen without pain.
I never said life give something the right to live, my opponent just interpreted as that and has used that as his last chance at winning, but it fails to do so. See there is a difference between hunting and self defense which is what my opponent here is confusing. What we do with humans when they attack us, we protect ourselves and the same goes for animals.
My opponent says animals are not the same as humans, and yes they aren't, but that doesn't mean lose their right to live due to the selfish mentality revolving around the idea of "only our own have the right to live". Then says they exist for our benefits, says who? What makes you think they exist for our benefit? Because they are made of food, if this is the reason they we go back to where humans have that same things, which by his logic we would kill. Plants don't feel pain, there has been no evidence to say so, and self defense isn't prohibited.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.