Hunting should be banned

Since Pro has not established any rules, here are a couple guidelines to follow:1) Be polite and respectful. Avoid the ad hominem logical fallacy.2) Sources are not necessary, but recommended. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------We have rather limited amount space to work with here, so if Pro doesn't mind, I'll propose an outline for the debate. In my first round, I'll state my assertion, the burden of proof, an overview of what Pro will have to argue, and then I'll state my argument(s). In Pro's second round, he will articulate his case and refute my argument(s). In my second round, I'll refute his case and defend my argument. I will not make any new arguments in the final round. Message me or comment if this seems unfair, Pro. That being said, I'll start. Pro's resolution is that hunting is bad and therefore should be banned. As Con, I believe that poaching is bad, however, I assert that other forms of hunting are not bad and should not be banned. Burden of proof lies entirely with Pro to prove why hunting is entirely bad and should be banned. Before continuing, let me clarify how I can win. Pro's resolution is that hunting is bad and should be banned, so I can prove that any aspect of hunting can be good and their resolution will be negated. Pro did not specify in his resolution what form of hunting they were referring to, so they will have to argue against it on a broad scale. DefinitionsHunting: The activity or sport of chasing and killing live wild animalsPoaching: To hunt wild animals illegallyPro, if you disagree with these definitions, feel free to propose new ones. PoachingPro asserts in their second sentence that some animals are hunted to extinction and they are not wrong. Poaching is essentially the act of killing animals that are protected by the government of any particular country. The reason for the protection is usually because the animal in question is an endangered species. However, the issue is that poaching is already illegal (banned), so Pro cannot use the argument that animals are being hunted to extinction. Since that point won't support Pro's resolution, they are left to argue that the hunting of common animals (deer, rabbits, ducks, etc. ) in general is bad and should be banned. Hunting to SurviveHuman Life > Animal LifeIt's common knowledge that human lives are more valued than animal lives. So in the case of a survival situation where a human has to hunt animals for food to keep from starving to death, hunting is good. To further elaborate, if an animal life is taken to save a human life in the form of hunting to eat, this specific form of hunting is therefore not bad as it has saved a life. Brief Syllogism(P1) Some forms of hunting can be generally considered bad. (P2) Some forms of hunting can be generally considered good. (C) Hunting is not entirely bad nor is it entirely good. Pro's resolution is effectively negated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------To conclude, Pro has to provide evidence/reasoning that hunting is bad, but they cannot use poaching (illegally hunting endangered animals) as an argument as it is already resolved. As well as that, Pro will have to argue against the "Hunting to Survive" and "Brief Syllogism" arguments as they are currently negating their resolution. In my next (and final) round, I will refute Pro's arguments then defend my argument(s).