Hunting should NOT be illegal.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that this debate was over whether or not hunting should remain legal, not the justification of killing. I said yes, hunting should remain legal and losedotexe said no, hunting should NOT be legal. Now, without further ado, it's time for my closing statements. I have used many examples to prove that hunting should remain legal. These include the fact that hunting is morally correct, necessary for survival, ethical, and, since my opponent insists it was an argument, safe. First of all, I have proved that hunting is morally correct. I have proven that it is morally correct because it saves animals from a slow, possibly painful, death. Animals are at risk of this type of death because they are vulnerable to disease and starvation. They become vulnerable to these through over population, and as humans(the dominant race) it is our responsibility to save them from a death like this. We can save them from this death by leaving hunting legal. Leaving hunting legal helps because if animals are hunted, then they have a predator, and a predator will keep their numbers in check. I have already shown how humans are predators because of our design. Now, my opponent correctly pointed out that it is the fault of humans that animals ever got the opportunity to become over populated. This, however, does NOT mean that we should outlaw hunting seeing as hunting is the only means of population control. I challenged my opponent to provide ways of population control that didn't require hunting back in R3. As one can see, they didn't provide any means. That is because, as I correctly stated, other than releasing other predatory animals into the wild(mountain lions, wolves, etc. ) there IS NO WAY to control population without hunting. Deer(most common animal for overpopulation problems) can NOT be relocated. The first reason for this is that no one wants them, so they die in captivity(from starvation or disease). The other reason is that if they are lucky enough to be released, they die soon because they are such a timid animal, and being captured ad trucked around is a very traumatic experience, therefore, it is much more humane to hunt them. Finally, my emotional arguments about death are valid, and my opponent conceded that in saying "death is always emotional ; then isn't it good to ban hunting so as to stop bad emotions? " I added the part about banning hunting because I'd ;like to point something out about it. My opponent says that it's good to ban hunting in order to stop bad emotions. This is false because, as I stated, the emotions don't have to be sad(a. k. a. bad) ones, they can be apathetic. This means that all emotions tied to banning hunting aren't bad. In conclusion of this paragraph, hunting is morally correct because it save animals from suffering, and it is the most humane way to deal with overpopulation. Next, I say that hunting should remain legal because it is ethical. Hunting is ethical because hunters respect their kill. My opponent stated that I can't respect an animal because I kill it. I showed that this is not true because, in accordance to a lot of definitions, for hunters to not respect animals would mean that hunters consider the animals worthless. This is not true at all because even if a hunter doesn't value the animal's life, they value the food or fur it provides, and to say this is a lie would be highly illogical. Hunting is necessary for survival in some situations such as third world countries that have no other ways of getting food, and Native Americans who have clung to their old ways of life. Finally, hunting should remain legal because it is safe(I'm only using this because my opponent insisted that when I said this it was an argument. I was sincerely thankful they hadn't brought it up, but since they insisted it was an argument, I will use it as one). Hunting is safe because, as I've stated, statistically speaking, you are eight times as likely to be injured playing soccer, and seven times more likely to get injured cheerleading(. http://books.google.com...). My opponent tried to rebut this by saying that hunting is unsafe to the game animals. This is a duh statement. We aren't debating how safe hunting is for animals, if we were I'd have very little to argue. But since animal safety came up I'll point out the reasons why animals are safer being hunted. 1.5 million vehicles collide with deer every year (. http://adventure.howstuffworks.com...), therefore, deer are in more danger from cars than hunting. This article states that trophy hunting makes no difference on deer population, but I don't support trophy hunting anyway. If you keep reading the article, however, you will notice that it states hunting does WILL help population control, and reduce deer-car accidents. Keep reading the article, and you'll see more benefits of hunting. In conclusion, hunting should remain legal for multiple reason. Reason one: it is morally correct. Explanation: hunting causes fewer deer to die slowly and painfully from starvation and/or disease by providing a quick painless death, and it controls population. Reason two: it is ethical. Explanation: hunters respect game animals for one reason or another, whereas when an animal is hit by a car, the driver will probably never think of the animal again. Reason three: hunting is safe. Explanation: statistically speaking, it is a very safe sport(see previous article), and in terms of safety to animals(even though the legality of hunting can't be based on the safety to game animals) it's a less painful and quicker death to be shot than to be hit by a car. Now, there were some topics that should be dismissed. The first is the argument of tradition. This should be dismissed because, in hindsight, it has nothing to do with this debate, and will neither help nor hinder anyone. The next topic is that of biopower. My opponent has already consented that biopower can be dismissed as a definition. Now, I say that biopower can be dismissed as an idea since my opponent has stated that personal views don't count for this deabte, and my opponent has failed to cite a source for their form of biopower, therefore, biopower can be considered as my opponent's own thoughts and dismissed as an argument. Species superiority is non applicable because the dominant species doesn't matter when it comes to the legality of hunting. Finally, the ideas that hunting is a genocide or slaughter can be dismissed. Hunting is not genocide because there is absolutely no intention of totally wiping out any animal in any area. My opponent has conceded this in stating "I'll concede that genocide is a bad word". They also state the idea behind it still stands, but this is a fallacy because the idea behind genocide is the total inhalation of something, which I already stated is incorrect because there is no intention to totally eliminate anything in any area whatsoever. Slaughter cannot be applied here, and this is why. Slaughter - the butchering of livestock for market Livestock and butcher - animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit Since game animals are not livestock, they cannot be slaughtered. As I have proved, hunting should remain legal. My opponent has provided no good reason to outlaw hunting so vote for Pro because. .. A vote for Con is a vote for ignorance and intolerance. A vote for Pro is a vote for tolerance and enlightenment. Thank you for reading my debate.