Norwegian Whaling

Norwegian Whaling is the hunting of the Minke Whale for the purposes of collecting the whale meat for human consumption. The commercial practice dates back to the early 1900s until the modern day. In the opening argument, I will be be showing the voters why the commercial operation of stripping the whales of their meat and blubber is done in an unethical manner and why unnecessary bloodshed and toil for these animals should be opposed. In order to defend my side sufficiently, I am required to prove as to why the Norwegian Whaling activities are not favorable and present a persuasive set of reasons as to why I believe this. If the voters believe that my points are valid, and carry substantive weight in favor of my side, then I believe I have fulfilled the burden of my stance. 1) It is unethical to injure, maim or kill any animal without infringing upon their basic animal rights. "Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests " such as an interest in not suffering " should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings." [1] Humans are hunting Minke whales primarily through an unethical method of "spear-drifting" in which the whale is harpooned by a weapon with a long shaft and barbed tip. The whale hunting culture is spurred by the "good taste" of the whale meat and the value of the skinned blubber; it has caused whale hunting to become very common and prevalent in Eastern Norway, and the influence of this is quickly spreading throughout the other parts of Norway (even to Iceland), where whales are hunted by large packs of men who obtain the meat and blubber through highly immoral means (puncturing its skin, extracting the blubber/meat, netting it, suffocating it on land, consciously inflicting pain upon it and maltreating it). This can be seen as a direct infringement of the animal rights that are bestowed upon the creatures since birth - we should not only impose stricter laws and fines for a violation of conduct/basic animal rights, but we should also implement stricter law enforcement to prevent future incidents in which whales are impaled and intentionally tortured (a personal rumination: I would suggest provisional license suspension followed by permanent license suspension for recidivism, in which a person or group of people are aware of the consequences of their actions but still decide to pursue illicit activities under surveillance; these criminals should be removed entirely from the fishery field, or sentenced to a high-degree of rehabilitation). 2) Whaling is a dominant and lucrative industry in Norway. If we are able to remove the monetary incentives of harpooning whales in Norway, then we are able to completely destroy any intentional infliction of pain done out of illicit distribution of blubber and meat to wealthy investors, or any secretive whaling organizations that perform these operations behind the scenes. We are able to impose a law in which you are required to have a credible record of legal fishing, a "good" fishing history and experience and no recorded involvement with any illegal external traffickers of meat/blubber that collect and export these prized possessions to affluent collectors/investors. 3) Whale meat is not imperative to human survival. In many countries worldwide, whale meat is not something that is absolutely "necessary" for survival, but rather an addition to their culture. Voters must consider the balance between cultural satisfaction (which has lasted an ephemeral two-hundred years) and the death and extinction of an entire species of whale. A removal of one critical link of an ecosystem/food chain will cause ruptures far greater than the dissatisfaction of one's taste palates and instead disrupt the crucial symbiosis and interactions between the various organisms and micro-organisms of that region, which have a huge dependency on each other's wellbeing - it is bound to destroy the predator-prey connection and if furthered, may damage greater regions as the lack of symbiosis and mutual benefits expands to wider areas such as Japan and much of Eastern Asia (which have already been experiencing a great decline of whale populations in recent years). 4) Whaling has been objected in the past, and has received very strong public support. A key component as to why the whaling ban was imposed was the important fact that fishers in the 1800s were having trouble fishing for "good" fish in the oceans and thus reverted to fishing whales, which were easier to catch, carried a lot more meat, organs and skin, and was easier to sell to the many consumers across the globe for inflated prices. That year, the whale populations plummeted significantly, and the whales that were popular in that generation were becoming critically endangered and were in high jeopardy of becoming extinct. Thus, the fishing community and the superintendents decided to take immediate action to reprieve of this unethical and unjustified decision. "In the profound conviction of the destructive effect of whaling on the fisheries along the coast of..." "...and seriously concerned for the future of themselves and the District, several hundred fishermen appeal to the Government to give the proposal for a Whale Protection Act its full support." [2] 5) Extended opposition. In the following cited paragraph, a few aspects are described quite thoroughly; this includes: significant public backlash, whaling's negligible economic impact (it may support individual consumers of the whales' meat and blubber but has an unsubstantial collective economic impact), Barack Obama and the democratic majority of the United States of America opposes the premise of whaling in Norway, several Jewish groups have also filed complaints regarding the precepts of whaling. "Animal rights, environmental and anti-whaling groups have commented that given Norway's economic position it is paradoxical that this is one of a very small number of countries actively engaged in, and favoring the continuation of, commercial whaling. This is despite the argued negligible contribution that whaling makes to the economy and despite opposition from around the world." [3] "According to documents released by WikiLeaks, US president Barack Obama, who promised to oppose whaling during his presidential campaign, used diplomatic channels to put pressure on Norway during his visit for the conferment of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Several Jewish groups have also noted that while Norway bans Shechita in the name of animal rights, it still refuses to end whaling." [4] I will be furthering my arguments in the following rounds. I'd like to greatly thanks my opponent for proposing such an interesting resolution. I am excited to await his arguments. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...