Hunting should NOT be illegal.

NOTE:This argument is picking up where argument 2 left off starting with the my last sentence in argument 2. If anything refers to definitions or previous statements, look back at my 2nd argument. Thank you. NOTE:I forgot to define excise tax, so here it is. 9. Excise tax -Excise taxes are taxes paid when purchases are made on a specific good I'd also like to point out that this "alarming rate" at which we are taking up land occurs in mostly third world countries because industrialized countries such as America, England, Germany etc. are starting to conserve land. Some of this conservation occurs in places like Yosemite National Park in Canada, and Yellowstone National Park here in America. Maybe you've all heard of one or both of these parks. I'd like to point out that the conservation doesn't stop there. Currently land is being bought by the government solely for conservation, and the money for these purchases needs to come from somewhere. Anyone who has taken a hunter trapper education course would know where this place is, but for those of you who haven't taken the class, the money comes from an excise tax. This particular excise tax is on products for hunting, fishing, camping etc. Therefore, without hunters and fisher, there would be more land getting developed than there already is. My opponent has also stated that hunters seem to think that they have more of a right to this planet than other animals do. I love telling my opponent this, but that belief of theirs is not at all true. I know that I have the same right to this planet as other animals, and all I'm doing is interacting in the way that I was meant to. My opponent also states that hunters deny the problems caused by development, and that is not true. I know that as a member of the human race I have helped to cause this problem, but there aren't any ways to fix it without lethal force, and if there are I'd love to hear them because I don't think anyone wants wolves and/or mountain lions running through their backyard, and that is basically the only way to handle animal populations without humans killing them. In response to my opponents voting slogan, I have already proven that hunting is not a genocide or slaughter, and you can check the definitions if you want to be sure. I have also proven that hunters are not denying that we helped humanity cause the problems that are currently being faced with animal population. Now, for some new arguments of mine. -Argument One- First of all, hunting is a much better way to get meat than most of the world gets it. This is true because when an animals is acquired through hunting it has grown free and wild, not in a cage and swimming in its own filth, and it hasn't been pumped full of steroids. Plus, animals that are hunted have a chance at survival whereas the domestic animals raised for food are born to die. -Argument Two- I'm sure that my opponent believes that animals have the God given rights that humans do. Those rights would be to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'd like to point out that by guaranteeing game species' right to life permanently, my opponent is denying hunting dogs and birds that right to happiness. I'm sure my opponent has never seen a hunting dog in the field, but I have. One dog I saw was literally crying to get out of the car and go hunt. A dog owner who I hunted pheasant with last Saturday said that his dogs were driving him insane from the moment he drove onto the rode that the field we hunted was on. These hunting dogs literally live to hunt. -Argument Three- My opponent acts as if they are better than me by trying to force their views and beliefs onto my fellow hunters and me. This is wrong especially since I am not trying to make my opponent hunt or even approve of it, just tolerate it. In conclusion, My opponent has failed to prove anything while I have strengthened my argument. Here are the sites I got my info from: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://hunting.about.com... . http://www.scienceblog.com... . http://www.irs.gov... *Some of the information I used isn't on these pages, it can be found at a hunter trapper education course. -END ROUND 2- To start off, I'd like to point out that I do have sources for my definitions. One of them being the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I'd like to start off with a comment posted by tornshoe92. "'He goes on and says there is a fair chase rule ; That an animal has an equal chance of being shot as not. This is a flat out lie. A man sitting in a deer stand with a hunting rifle has a significantly higher chance of killing a deer than a deer even knowing that he is there. '" You're assuming that there is a deer there to be shot at all. I've been hunting for 5-6 years and have exactly 1 big game kill and my dad who has been hunting 7-8 years has a grand total of 3. The idea that animals are more likely to be shot than not is BS. " This is an excellent point, and the same one I was going to make my self. My dad has also hunted for years, and only made two big game kills. Just because you sit and wait for a deer does NOT mean that it will EVER show up. You could sit and freeze all day and never see a darn thing. Next, assuming that one accepts my opponent's definition of genocide over mine, it still does not apply to hunting since there is no intent on wiping out an entire species. In my opponent's rebuttal to my first rebuttal, they state that emotional appeals hold no merit. This is not true. Death is a highly emotional event, and has no fact surrounding it except for the fact that the deceased are no longer on this planet. Therefore,my argument still reigns true. I would personally like to know the readers thoughts on this, so if you would comment on your opinion I would appreciate it. For his second rebuttal,as I've shown,I do offer a source for my definitions, and mine is one of the most widely used sources. My opponents definition of tradition holds true to Webster's dictionary,so I will accept that point, but i'd also like to point out that he was not able to name a tradition that has been around since man first became capable of the action, his traditions were ideas someone came up with, and then someone else decided to drop. Hunting has been around for centuries. In my opponents third contention,he once again states that the matters that I've spoken about with emotion are not true, and i have shown how this view is incorrect. I'd like to point out that rhetoric is a way of writing or speaking effectively,and therefore our legal system can't be based on this. I also want to point out that our government, the parent of our legal system,is based off of The Elements by Euclid. I would like to say that the hunter trapper education is not biased because it is run by the government as a whole. I have already addressed fair chase. I also want to point out that a hunter will not fire at a bolting deer, the risk of injury to the deer rather than instant death is too high. Where my opponent lives does in fact hold nothing in this debate, but how old the house is does since my opponent commented on taking up land, and a newer house was developed sooner, and therefore we knew of the problems of development before the house was made. I'd also like to point out that biopower is "the way in which capitalist states exerted control over people to better promote life. " Therefore, I don NOT agree with it since it doesn't apply to a right to life. My second rebuttal is not an ad hominem attack since my statement was not fallacy. My opponent has not shown why we have no moral right to hunt, and has not proven that we are not superior to animals. Finally, some humans must hunt to survive.