Hunting should NOT be illegal.

First of all, I think biopower should be completely disregarded since we have two definitions that are equally accurate. I'd like to point out next that if you choose to keep biopower and go with my opponents's definition, you may want to ask my opponent were they got their definition for biopower because I checked ALL of the sites they offered, and not one refers to biopower even once, at least not in the way my opponent uses it. Finally, in reference to biopower, my opponent uses it as a reason to say that "because a deer does NOT consent to death, we are infringing on THE ANIMAL'S RIGHT to LIFE. "(this came from round one). I want to point out that a deer has NOT consented to death when it's lying in a field or the woods dying slowly and painfully of disease and/or starvation, therefore, a "natural" death also violates the idea of biopower. As you can see, I have shown three flaws in my opponent's use of biopower, and I would recommend dismissing biopower all together. Granted, I can't tell you what do to, and this leads to something else I want to point out. My opponent, throughout the debate, tells the voters to dismiss certain arguments, I want to point out that whether or not an argument is dismissed is neither my nor my opponent's choice, it's the choice of each voter individually. Next my opponent states that I said I am "interacting LIKE other animals". This is a fallacy, I stated that I am interacting WITH other animals in the WAY THAT I WAS MEANT TO. THAT is why bunnies aren't blasting away wolves and mountain lions. RABBITS ARE MEANT TO BE EATEN! MOUNTAIN LIONS AND WOLVES ARE MEANT TO EAT, THEREFORE, MOUNTAIN LIONS AND WOLVES EAT RABBITS! See how that works? I have already shown why biopower should be ignored. Finally, I did NOT say the excise tax keeps wolves and mountain lions out of our back yards, I said the excise tax went to education courses and land conservation. And while the money doesn't HAVE to come from excise taxes, it generally does. My opponent would know that if they had taken a hunter trapper education course. I'd also like to point out that there is no rule that states I can't introduce new arguments in the middle of the debate, therefore, conduct point does NOT go to Con. My opponent states that we don't need meat. This is not entirely true, while it's no longer a staple like it used to be, most people still eat meat, and taking it away would destroy their lives. Being a vegetarian(not eating meat) is a choice, but us being omnivorous(we eat both meat and plants) is scientific fact, therefore meat is still something we should be ingesting. Visit this link. (. http://wiki.answers.com...) Next, my opponent states we have the technology to avoid meat. While this is true, it does NOT mean we have the money. Ex: We have the technology to send people to the moon every year, but we don't have the money. Next, I will drop the God given rights, and pick up natural rights. First of all, natural rights apply only to man(visit this link . http://www.u-s-history.com...), so they hold no ground in this debate. Next, my opponent states that they do NOT insure happiness. Now WHAT is the POINT of LIVING if you aren't HAPPY? ! There is none, a miserable life is just as bad, if not worse then, death. I'll consent that my third argument is not really an argument(there is also no bad conduct there). This is because in order for my opponent to be forcing their views on me, they would have had to stick to the debate topic of why hunting should or shouldn't be illegal. They haven't been doing this, they have been arguing why killing is immoral, and that is not what the debate is about. My opponent also comments that taking life isn't fair. Guess what. LIFE ISN'T FAIR! I'd like to address genocide again. My opponent claims that hunters are wiping out deer in certain areas. This is, once again, a fallacy. My opponent fails to realize that hunting has regulations to avoid deer being wiped out in any areas, and if they are wiped out in an area, it is because of poaching(an activity done by a poacher. Visit this link for the definition of a poacher. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Since poaching is illegal to begin with, outlawing hunting would NOT eliminate that problem. Next, my opponent states that death is emotional for some and not others. A fallacy. Death is ALWAYS emotional, but the emotion doesn't have to be that of sadness. The emotions can range everywhere between depression and apathy. I'd also like to point out that there is NO RULE AGAINST EMOTIONAL APPEALS. Because of this, my argument still stands. My opponent has admitted there have been no traditions around as long as hunting, so the other short traditions listed cannot be used in this area. If my opponent agrees, I propose we drop tradition entirely since it is getting neither of us anywhere, and just wasting characters. I've shown how emotional appeals hold strong, so keep my response to my opponents third contention. I'd also like to point out that the point of a debate is to persuade the reader to your views, therefore, arguments do NOT have to be based solely on logic. (not that this matters because my emotional appeals are based on logic and emotion together anyway) By the way, the comment on Euclid's Elements was just a fun fact, not an argument. Where you live DOES have something to do with debate. Now, since you have kindly asked me not to quote comments, I won't. I will, however, use the idea from a comment since it is a better way of getting my point across. My point was on how you comment about land usage. Where you live matters because you must use things that used up land, and this is not the fault of hunters. The rest of what my opponent says is just recap that I've already addressed. Finally, I'd like to thank my opponent for not bringing up safety as a reason for why hunting should be illegal(not that they really gave any solid reasons for hunting to be illegal, just reasons for why killing is wrong which doesn't address the debate topic. ) because statistically speaking, hunting is a very safe sport. Soccer is eight times as dangerous and cheerleading seven times. Go to this link for exact details. . http://books.google.com... Finally, just as a reminder to all, the closing statements will contain NO NEW ARGUMENTS. They will only contain recap.