Hunting should NOT be illegal.

Thank you for your response, and good luck to you. Now, I'd like to post some of my own definitions, and concepts. 1.Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group 2.Slaughter - the butchering of livestock for market 3.Livestock - animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit 4.Butcher - animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit 5.Respect - the quality or state of being esteemed 6.Esteem - the regard in which one is held 7.Regard - the worth or estimation in which something or someone is held 8.Murder - the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought 9.Excise tax - 10.Fair Chase – in hunting fair chase means the animal has an equal shot of getting away as it has getting shot I will start with my opponent's rebuttals, then move to his arguments, and finally post some new arguments of my own. - Their First Rebuttal - First, I will respond to my opponents comment about how one death is not more moral than another. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd much rather die quickly and painlessly as opposed to the long painful death of starvation or disease. Not to mention the fact that I would have to watch the hawks or vultures circle above me if I died from starvation or disease. My opponent also commented on how hunting is not letting nature take its course. I'm sure that they have seen the Lion King and heard of this little thing called the circle of life. Well, since humans are technically an animal, we are a part of this "circle", and we are a part of nature. Therefore, me hunting is still nature taking its course. We, as humans, are at the top of the food chain, and we are built to hunt. I know this because a predator, which we are, has its eyes more centered to allow for depth perception. An animal of prey, on the other hand, has its eyes wide apart to allow it to see more, and increasing its odds of escape. Finally, in response to my opponent's comment on how a deer doesn't care about over population if it's lying dead from a bullet, I'd like to point out that a deer doesn't care about much in this world when it's dead (and on its way to heaven if that follows your belief), so therefore that is a bad argument. - Their Second Rebuttal - My opponent has pointed out that not all traditions are good, and I will give that to them if they can put forth a bad tradition. What they have so far called "tradition" is in fact not tradition, and never was. The slave, beating of children, and taking women as spoils of war were ideas that lasted in very specific time periods. It was never a tradition to have slaves, people didn't get slave because their parents or grandparents had them, they got them because it made sense at the time. If you had more slaves, then you could farm more land, and ultimately make more money. People also didn't beat kids because they had been beaten, they beat their children as a disciplinary action. I'd also like to point out that beating still happens, just not as often and to the same degrees. Finally, people took women as spoils of war because the women were things they wanted. And this too still happens, just not necessarily among humans. It happens with other animals. During the rut, bucks fight to see who can win, and ultimately mate with, the most doe's. In a pack of wolves, only the Alfa male, who has been proven the strongest, can mate with females. Finally, you generally get one bull in a herd of cows. Finally, in this paragraph my opponent first introduces the idea of hunting being genocide. Now, if you'll look back at the definitions that I posted, you will see that hunting cannot possibly be genocide for two reasons. Reason one: hunting is not a deliberate or systematic destruction of anything; nothing is destroyed let alone destroyed systematically and deliberately. Reason two: animals don't fall into any racial, political, or cultural group, therefore, there can't ever be a real genocide of animals. - Their Third Rebuttal - As I've already stated, just because I respect an animal does NOT mean that I can't also kill it. To say I have no respect for the creatures I hunt would be to say I consider it to be worthless, and that could not be further from the truth. I would like to point out that if a driver runs over a squirrel, they probably won't care whether it died instantly or is lying on the road half crushed, and they will probably not think about it ever again. Whereas I feel terrible if I have even the slightest doubt that I may have wounded a squirrel, and as soon as I kill it, I make sure that there is only one bullet hole. When I went hunting last Saturday, and I got a squirrel, the only time I got upset was when I thought that I wouldn't be able to find it because I could not stand the thought of having shot an animal only to leave it rot. I know that most hunters feel this way because I have talked and hunted with quite a few people that I meet in the field. I also have a question for my opponent. Why is it irrelevant for you to address my statement about hunters being educated to not disrespect an animal's carcass, and that all killing should be quick and painless? Finally, at the end of this rebuttal of mine, my opponent states that all killing is wrong. What about the death penalty for a mass murder? Does that person still deserve their right to live? Oh, and don't try to say that hunters don't have the right to live under this same question because if you look at the definitions that I've posted, then you will see that murder applies only to people. Here I have shown how my opponent's rebuttals are weak and poorly based. Now, I will show you where his arguments are lacking. - My First Rebuttal - My opponent mentioned how humans are overpopulated, and we obviously can't hunt them. Besides the legal reasons that this statement is true, there are technical reasons. In order to hunt humans, there would have to be a chance that you wouldn't get one, and there isn't one. If you wanted to hunt humans, you could get some with no trouble. If my opponent had taken a hunter trapper education course, then they'd know that inside hunting is fair chase, and fair chase means that an animal has an equal chance of getting shot as not getting shot, and in order to keep the chase more fair so to speak, some stares have banned things such as camera traps and baiting. He also states that humans think they are better than animals, and he goes on to state that this is not true without any proof. I, on the other hand, have proof that we are in fact better (we are better overall, not necessarily as living organism to living organism). Humans are better because we have developed highly effective methods of communication that allow for fewer misunderstandings, and are still so simple to learn that we have taught some pets some words. We also have a substantially more evolved intellect, and to deny this would demonstrate extreme ignorance. Finally, we have become capable of build massive structures to house hundreds or thousands of people in an amount of space that used to hold 20 or 30 people. My opponent also states that we are killing off rare plants and animals when in fact that is not the fault of hunters, but the fault of clear cutting located generally in African rainforests. - My Second Rebuttal - 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, but I would like to point out that I could almost guarantee that my opponent lives in a house, and I would bet that it's a new house. 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 star