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

"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.