Hunting should NOT be illegal.

Alright. I'm going to begin by countering my opponent's attempt to destroy biopower. It doesn't matter where biopower comes from. It's a value ; the name doesn't matter, the idea does. He fails to argue against the value ; biopower flows through. Next, I agree. a deer doesn't consent to death ; but we don't have a RIGHT TO TAKE IT FROM THEM, EITHER. I don't consent to breaking my arm, but that doesn't justify someone smashing my arm with a hammer. Nature is not a moral entity ; it does not contain a conscious. If you are going to claim a moral high ground (as you do in R1), then you need to justify it ; you have failed to do so. The value of biopower is obvious ; It holds strong because my opponent attacks the definition, not the ideal, thus practically ignoring it. My opponent has claimed I'm telling voters how to vote ; I'm explaining why a point SHOULD be ignored. My opponent asserts rabbits are meant to be eaten ; this is incorrect. The rule of nature is survival ; No animal's WAY OF LIFE is to be FOOD. You provide ABSOLUTELY NO justification that rabbits, quote, "ARE MEANT TO BE EATEN!". This point should be ignored ; it makes an incredibly extraordinary claim with absolutely no evidence. My opponent talks about the excise tax ; he fails to defend against the attack, merely clarifying where the money comes from. "Well, it TYPICALLY comes from here," doesn't justify anything ; laws, regulations, and tax revenue can be changed. Again my opponent is asserting an extraordinary claim ; "...most people still eat meat, and taking it away would destroy lives." This is ridiculous claim, and I've shown evidence to the contrary ; my opponent provides no evidence ; this point can be ignored. I'll agree that we are BIOLOGICALLY INCLINED for an omnivorous diet ; I agree. This still has NOTHING to do with the morality of HUNTING. He also says we SHOULD be ingesting meat ; If you are going to assert the claim, justify it ; my evidence trumps this as it is not necessity, and not doing so upholds biopower. My opponent says we do not have the cost to not eat meat ; however, the opposite is actually true. it costs 6-20x more fossil fuels to produce meat proteins versus plant proteins.[1] In addition, it costs ~31.5x the amount of water to produce a single pound of beef, versus a pound of wheat. [1] If we stop eating meat and eat non-meats, such as wheats, we actually are capable of producing SIGNIFICANTLY more food. My opponent goes on to assert a theory of natural rights ; When I refer to natural rights, I'm referring to the innate rights all creatures have. The definition of natural is, 'in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature.'[2] Rights is defined as 'legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement.'[3] We cannot say that animals do not have rights ; Otherwise, animal fighting would be legal. My opponent voices his own personal views ; That a miserable life is worse than death. This is untrue ; if you are alive, but miserable, there is still a chance your life could improve ; if you are dead, you have destroyed any potential of feeling happiness. My opponent says i'm not sticking to the debate topic because i'm talking about killing ; Isn't hunting killing an animal?? He asserts life isn't fair ; This I can agree with. However, this doesn't justify NOT trying to make things more fair, especially if it's in our power to do so. I'll concede that genocide is a bad word ; the idea behind it, however, stands. That hunters are killing with little to no discretion for their own gains. Hunters are wiping deer out ; not entirely, but they are still reducing their numbers. Emotional appeals are a logical fallacy.[4] My opponent says death is always emotional ; then isn't it good to ban hunting so as to stop bad emotions? Tradition doesn't have to exist for a set period ; A tradition is defined as, "an inherited pattern of thought or action". [5] The argument against tradition stands. I've shown how emotional fallacies are fallacious. Debate is about persuasion ; however, without logic, we are establishing nothing and harming academia ; Debate is also intended to increase discourse of ideas ; without logic and reasoning and evidence, all we are left with is how we feel. Where I live has nothing to do with this debate. I never claimed that hunters are to blame ; merely that hunting isn't justified because of our society, as a whole, has taken action to put animals in the situation they are in as far as land goes. My opponent attempts to sneak an argument in here ; that hunting is safe. Hunting is NOT safe ; it's not safe for the animal you are robbing of life. That is the goal of hunting. I want to address again the assertion of atopicality against me ; hunting is killing ; therefor, killing is TOPICAL. The debate has gone into atopic arguments, merely because it is necessary in order to address arguments asserted by my opponent ; otherwise, the argument would be considered dropped. Dropped arguments _________________ Hunting is unnecessary for survival Species superiority Biopower (as the value, not a definition) Because he didn't argue against these, he must agree with them. My rebuttals accurately destroy my opponent's arguments, whilst ensuring my own are still stable. A Vote for PRO is a vote to extend the needless slaughter of animals, the assertion of species-based discrimination, and the destruction of biopower ; However, a vote for CON is a vote to protect animals, to acknowledge that species are equal, and to uphold THE RIGHT TO YOUR OWN BODY. VOTE CON. Sources _____________ [1]http://www.chooseveg.com... [2]in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://www.nizkor.org... [5]an inherited pattern of thought or action