Hunting should NOT be illegal.

--Definitions-- Tradition[2] - a : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom). Genocide (From the USHMM)[1] - The term "genocide" did not exist before 1944. It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group. Paul Watson defines Murder as ; To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. [3] I'll start out by saying that because he provides no sources for definitions, and I do, we can assume mine are more reliable and should be used. = Countering Opponent's Rebuttals = -Contention 1- He says he would rather die quickly from a bullet than from disease and starvation ; No one cares what you think, feel, or say, only what the facts are. This emotional appeal bears no merit. Next he says that humans are a part of nature ; Yes, we are. However, we are an intelligent species ; us hunting is less for our survival and more for our own enjoyment. As a species, we do not NEED to hunt, we only choose to. We are moral beings ; we do not need to mercilessly slaughter for no true purpose. The circle of life is natural and necessary ; us hunting is not. You go in to explain how we are predators, judged by our eyes and what not ; what does this have to do with the legalization or criminalization of hunting? If that's a justification, that a deer does not care when it's dead ; you still don't acknowledge the fact we have no right to take it's life ; you drop my value of biopower, offering none in return ; this point still stands. You haven't shown WHY it is okay to take life. -Contention 2- On to tradition, he says what I've listed is not tradition ; because it was only relevant for set periods of time, and done because it was logical, not because it was traditional. Everything we do is done for set periods of time ; the tradition of arranged marriages lasted for certain time periods. You fail to back up your own claim. Only assert it ; this can be ignored. Tradition, as defined, is a customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior ; All 3 of my examples meet this ; you failed to rebut this. I provide a source for my definition of genocide ; my opponent does not. My definition encompasses animals ; his point is moot. (Deer fall into the category of GROUP) -Contention 3- He starts his rebut with a bunch of his feelings and views ; I've already addressed why this doesn't matter and should be ignored. This is basically his entire argument. Because he failed to really refute anything, my argument flows on. In the last section, he poses a moral question ; and I say, Yes, he does deserve his right to life. "An Eye for An Eye leaves the whole world blind.' We can not make judgments based on our emotions ; our legal system is based on rhetoric for a reason. It makes sense. He says my rebuttals are weak and poorly based ; I've shown how this is false. ==Opponent's rebuttals== -First Rebuttal- My opponent immediately appeals to the authority of a Hunter Trapper Education Course ; they support hunting ; the source is biased and as such is not credible. 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. He also talks about banned traps ; okay? It doesn't eliminate the fact that we HAVE GUNS. Guns, even the weakest, shoot a bullet at 896M/s. [4] A white-tailed deer, at it's fastest, can run 36MPH.[5] Convert the miles to meters, and it equates to ~16M/s. Obviously, a deer is heavily disadvantaged, seeing as a hunter can fire more than a single bullet. He says humans are superior because have developed intellect ; this is true. We also have a weaker frame than even a deer, as shown by deer attacks.[6] We can also see we are slower than wolves in speed, and less agile than birds. He showed our superior intellect ; where we excel in some places, we lack in others. -Second rebuttal- My opponent goes on in this rebuttal to say nothing but Ad hom attacks ; "I could almost guarantee that my OPPONENT lives in a house, and I would bet that it's a new house." Where I live has nothing to do with this debate. In conclusion, I've shown how both of my contentions flow through ; I've disproved his rebuttal of my first ; he fails to rebut my second, and even agrees with it. "My opponent starts off very hypocritically by stating that we are at fault for animals predicaments essential because of development. I'm not denying the truth in that" I want to point out that he says nothing of biopower ; He must agree with it, and thus his case is, in part, contradicted. I've shown why his rebuts to my rebuts are flawed and easily undone ; my rebuts flow through. I've shown how his first rebuttal of my case is just his personal feelings ; my argument flows through. I've shown how his second rebuttal of my case was an ad hom attack ; not only does my argument flow through, but Conduct point goes to CON. My arguments show why we have NO MORAL RIGHT (as shown through BIOPOWER) to take life, and as we cannot take the life of humans, or hunt humans, we must apply this standard to animals as well. I've shown why we are not superior to animals. This moral standard should be extended to animals as well. We do not need to hunt to survive, and it's taking life we have no right to take. VOTE CON. [1]http://www.ushmm.org... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://www.seashepherd.org... [4]http://hypertextbook.com... [5]http://www.fcps.edu... [6]http://www.usatoday.com...