Norwegian Whaling

i) In defense of my first claim, which stated that "It is unethical to injure, maim or kill any animal without infringing upon their basic animal rights," I'd like to project the fact that I was making a standpoint. In condensed form, what I am saying is, the unethical maiming and mutilation of an animal's body is a direct infringement upon its animal rights and that, given enough substantiated reasoning, I believe that the whales of Norway, primarily the Minke whales, should not be hunted indiscriminately for their meat, organs and blubber. ii) My opponent responded to my arguments in a cogent manner, but has not expanded upon his statement which asserts that the Minke whale of Norway is not an endangered species of whale. I located a source on the web which supports his claim, but I would like to remind him to source his statistics/claims so that they show integrity and validity to the voters. The claim that he makes does not influence the validity of any of my arguments; whales are being harpooned for an unnecessary commodity in which they possess (meat, blubber) and blood is being shed for unsubstantiated reasons. The rights of these whales are being "directly" infringed upon and they are being slaughtered in masses to pander to the fisher's cultural satisfaction (which should "not" take precedence over animal life) and the monetary incentives fomented by selling the fish's organs/blubber to affluent tycoon's either so that they can be sold to other markets for inflated prices or processed to render oil for the production of soap, paint, varnish, and other accessories. Furthermore, the extremity of the immorality has continued "free from obstruction"; the baleen of a whale has been commercially used in products like corsets and umbrellas. I'd like the voter to consider how much further humanity is willing to proceed in the extreme mutilation and monetization of whales for the purposes of expanding the whaling industry and satisfying one's cultural desires/protecting one's cultural identity. Once again, I would like to emphasize the importance of the "balance" between cultural preservation and the indiscriminate mass slaughtering and harvesting of internal whale organs and blubber. iii) The source that I provided comes from Wikipedia. I would not like to argue about the validity but instead I'd like to focus on refuting your arguments. I don't believe its proper conduct to question the credibility of my sources but nonetheless I would like to say that the sources that I have enlisted are reputable. By criticizing the integrity of my sources, you have essentially criticized the reputability of the information provided by the administrators of Wikipedia; if you are willing to go to such an extent to break down my arguments, then I don't believe that "any" source is "credible" or "reputable" to you. My opponent responds to my argument about "spear-drifting" by asserting that I have made the claimant about the fact that "spear-drifting" has been occurring for hundreds of years now, and that it is untrue. According to my source [1], spear-drifting has been in operation since the 12th century in the North Atlantic and has been in use until the modern-day, in which the technique has been adapted into open boat "spearing". iv) I am typically against quoting my opponent in verbatim, but in this case I feel it is necessary. My opponent has said: "They are currently hunted by fishing boats, crewed by 4-6 men. They are shot with either a 50 or 60mm gun that fires a harpoon at the whale, tipped with an exploding penthrite grenade. NAMMCO reports that 80% of the whales are dead or unconscious instantly or within 10 seconds." The NAAMCO reported that 80% of the whales are dead or unconscious within 1 minute; the statistic that you sourced is erroneous [3]. I will not contest the credibility of this source, but evidently it is a pro-whaling source that have derived many statistics without sufficient demographics or scientific inquiry; this appears to be the "only" website that cites this statistic, meaning that it was the only organization to have conducted the research and obtained this statistic. If you have ever witnessed a slaughtering firsthand, you will become aware of how much blood is shed in the process of harvesting the organs, skinning the animal for its blubber and extracting any parts that may be of monetary worth. Even if the statistic that my opponent has cited is applicable, any period of suffering is not morally right, and any period of physical torment and trauma is an unenforced infringement upon the animal's intrinsic rights. The premise of my opponent's arguments is wrongly focused on the ethicality of the whaling operation, while the main focal point of this debate is the indiscriminate killing of 1400-1500 whales annually, for the cultural thirst, the whaling industry's satisfaction and the distribution of the whale's physiological components in exchange for monetary wealth (which has a negligible economic benefit). [4] The annual number of killings is rising exponentially, and this conservative statistic does not even take into account the private and unlicensed killings that occur en masse each year. "... if a grenade explodes in your nerves or heart, you don't have much keeping you alive. If the whale is not dead within this time, it is shot in the head with a large hunting rifle. Once the whale is dead, it is hoisted onto the boat, the blubber is cut off, the meat is cut off, all tissue is frozen for transport, and the unusable carcass is dumped back into the ocean to feed other animals." Has it ever been morally correct to maim an animal so overtly - to throw explosives at an animal, to shoot it in its head, to suffocate it on dry land, and to feed its fresh carcasses for other animals to cannibalize upon? "They do not net whales, they do not bring it back to land while it is alive..." Netting whales was originally in commercial use, until harpooning became a more practical way to hunt whales - so yes, in the past, netting has been implemented. "...they do not intentionally inflict pain upon it." When a fisherman have complete subjugation over an animal or being, he will begin to feel that your actions are "unlicensed" and "uncontrolled" because he is engaging in an activity that is not being performed on the basis of moral or ethical considerations and thus, it is done out of other incentives (such as culture or money). The hunting of whales is most often done with a party of fishermen, and the extraction process is always reckless and very bloody. This is due to the fact that when the fishermen are doing something with high transparency and anonymity, they will try to get the most out of what they are doing, regardless of its legal standing; thus, they will be extremely brash and tactless when performing extraction and skinning of the whale. A defining example of this is the Stanford Prison Experiment . Below, I have provided an excerpt of the results of the psychological experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo, which has a direct association with the contention we have at hand. "While the Stanford Prison Experiment was originally slated to last 14 days, it had to be stopped after just six days due to what was happening to the student participants. The guards became abusive and the prisoners began to show signs of extreme stress and anxiety. While the prisoners and guards were allowed to interact in any way they wanted, the interactions were generally hostile or even dehumanizing. The guards began to behave in ways that were aggressive and abusive toward the prisoners, while the prisoners became passive and depressed. Five of the prisoners began to experience such severe negative emotions, including crying and acute anxiety, that they had to be released from the study early." It is unfortunate that their is a character limitation that is attached to this round. I would like to end by introducing a new argument and enlisting my sources. I will finish my rebuttals in the following round. 1. New research has been exposed which lays claim to the fact that scientists have hired fishermen to harpoon whales for scientific research which deals with the migration patterns and demography of the whales. I find this to be a highly dubious claim, as harvesting the internal organs and blubber of a whale does not seem to have a direct correlation to the scientific inquiry that the scientists seem to have an interest in. "The idea of scientific whaling is dubious. The idea is that slaughtering a given number gives information on the status of populations, but it is rubbish because there are non-lethal ways to track populations. Luckily there is group called the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society which confronts the whalers, rams their boats and generally gets under their skin which has proven to be successful." [2] Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://ca.answers.yahoo.com... [3] http://www.nammco.no... [4] http://www.britannica.com...