Hunting should NOT be illegal.

I'd like to start with a few basic definitions, just to clarify this debate. Hunting - The activity or sport of pursuing game. Game - Wild animals, birds, or fish hunted for food or sport. illegal - Prohibited by law. moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. Justified - To declare free of blame; absolve. I'll start with my opponent's case, then onto my own. I wish the very best of luck to Blackhawk1331, for making this debate, and allowing me to debate with him. *Opponent's Arguments* -Contention 1- My opponent says it is morally correct ; yet gives on standard as to how to judge what is moral. He merely says one form of death is more moral than another. Because, he asserts, a shot is less painful than suffering of disease and starvation, it is a moral action. He only says one form of death is more moral than another ; this is false. We are TAKING LIFE as opposed to nature taking COURSE. We are playing an active role in their population ; A deer doesn't care if it's population is under control when it's lying dead from a gunshot wound. This is a bad argument. If we were to apply the same logic to humans , the arguments that come from it would be very, very different. -Contention 2- He makes the argument that hunting is traditional ; because we've done it in the past, we should continue to do it. This is a marvelous way of thinking, just like how we used to have slaves, beat children with switches, consider women a spoils of war, etc. Appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy. No one claimed we were doing what was RIGHT ; only what HELPED the INDIVIDUAL, at whatever cost necessary. Traditions CAN be a good thing ; but as I've shown, some traditions need to be broken. Any tradition that involves the merciless genocide of animals, be it human, or game, is wrong. Who are we to say who or what should live and who or what should die? -Contention 3- His last contention says that because of education, hunters are taught to respect landowners and animals. Yeah, it's showing a LOT of respect for an animal by taking it's life. It does NOT MATTER if it is quick or slow ; you are STILL TAKING LIFE. I don't have to address the idea that hunters are educated to not disrespect the animal's carcass, and that all killing should be quick and painless ; this is irrelevant. He's failed to justified killing. In my case, I will show why killing is wrong. ===Arguments Against Hunting=== -Contention 1- Hunting is immoral My opponent claims that hunting has a moral high ground ; I've refuted this idea. The reason is that as humans, we are moral beasts. We can comprehend morals ; that is, what is right and wrong as far as actions. Biopower, the right to body, is vital to understand this situation. The act of hunting doesn't respect this INNATE RIGHT ; The right to body. Because a deer does NOT consent to death, we are infringing on THE ANIMAL'S RIGHT to LIFE. Again, if we were to acknowledge that humans' are overpopulated, we don't form a human hunting party ; we know this because we do not have the right to take the life of others. Humans are not better than other animals ; to say this would require extraordinary evidence. But there IS evidence that humans' are overpopulated, as shown in the study conducted by biologicaldiversity.org, that because of our excessive growth rates, and our blatant abuse and exploitation of natural FINITE resources, we are killing off rare plant and animal species at an alarming rate. [1] -Contention 2- Humans are disassociating the blame As I stated in my previous contention, we are destroying our planet's finite resources. Because of OUR abuse of resources, our infringement on lands which was originally animals, and our rape of or vital ecosystems, we are beginning to go down a path of self-destruction. [2] Because humans are constantly taking up more and more land at an alarming rate, animals have less and less land. Hunting is a sign that an individual believes they are better than animals and have more of a right to this earth than they do ; this is the path of SELF DESTRUCTION. We, as a population as a whole, are destroying this planet and encroaching on land and destroying it with roads, cities, or forest clear cutting for lumber, we destroy the vital ecosystems that these animals live in. Because WE have forced animals into less and less land, their likeliness of overpopulation has increased. For this, we say we must 'control' animal population. This is a blatant disassociation of the problems we created. We caused this problem for animals ; now we are going to kill them to 'maintain' their population? This is an atrocity, not only does it infringe on an animal's right to life, it is immoral in it's own right ; We cause the damage, and then scapegoat it on something else. In short, because HUMANS are to blame for animal overpopulation, and that is the only reason my opponent listed for hunting (that being, population control), we have a lack of moral high ground to do so. Not to mention the fact that we are NOT respecting a FELLOW ANIMAL'S RIGHT TO LIFE as we would our OWN SPECIES. We HAVE the technology to protect these vital ecosystems, and in turn, these species of animals; all we need now is the will, and the human spirit is strong ; a vote for CON is a vote for proper environment control, accepting the damage we've done, and acknowledging it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to make it right WITHOUT animal slaughter. A vote for PRO is a vote for animal genocide, turning a blind eye to the problems HUMANS have created, and the justification of unjustified killing. I look forward to my opponent's next argument.