Hunting should NOT be illegal.

I'd like to start out that biopower is not referring Michel Foucault's theory of biopower ; I explained biopower ; please ignore his forcing of a new definition on the theory. For clarification ; Biopower is the idea, that creatures have a right to their body ; their body, their right. It is their temple, and as such, no one may act upon their body without consent. --R2 C1-- My opponent's argument starts by talking about wildlife conservation. This is a good thing, and I'm not refuting this. He says that this comes from excise taxes that are placed on hunting, fishing, and camping goods. My opponent says all he is doing, with his right, is interacting like other animals. Is that why bunnies can blast the wolves and mountain lions away? No! Our interaction is more than that ; It's us taking into our hands other creatures' lives. There is NO justification of taking what is not ours ; again, he ignores my moral argument, that we must uphold biopower. He has failed to refute it ; he still leaves a moral argument without any justification. He also basically argues that excise tax helps prevent wolves and mountain lions coming into our backyards ; this is a false correlation. The origin of the money can come from many places ; it doesn't HAVE to come from excise taxes. This lone statement breaks the rest of his argument. I'm going to point out that it is now round 3, and my opponent is introducing NEW ARGUMENTS ; this is considered bad conduct ; conduct point goes to CON. -Argument 1- His argument says wild animal meat is better than store meat ; this is more than likely true. I, however, NEVER justified that store meat to begin with ; this is a straw man argument. Because we are so technologically advanced, we don't NEED to eat meat at all to meet our nutritional needs. [1] -Argument 2- I'd like to start out that my opponent says I think animals' have god given rights ; I am an atheist, therefor, this is impossible. Next he listed the AMERICAN RIGHTS, not NATURAL RIGHTS. Then he says HUNTING ANIMALS need to HUNT to be HAPPY ; I'm not promising happiness. I've said we have to uphold biopower ; that it's our body, and others have no right to act upon it without consent. This is another straw man argument ; it tries to set up an argument, assume I agree, and then destroy it. -Argument 3- My opponent assumes that I'm forcing my views on to them ; I'm not forcing it on to anyone. I'm presenting the reasons why WE SHOULD NOT HUNT, and he, in turn, is taking it as a personal attack ; not only is this bad conduct, but inaccurate. This argument isn't even an argument. My opponent uses a comment as an example ; just because you hunt, doesn't mean animals will show up. Okay? IT doesn't mean that 3 or 4 or 12 won't, either. It doesn't make it fair to take life ; also, this debate is at risk of turning into a huge 'high five, we rule,' issue ; I will ask both voters and my opponent to refrain from using voters' comments as evidence. He contests my definition of genocide ; saying that it does not apply because it's not intent to wipe out. It says a 'to destroy the existence of the group', couldn't it be the existence of deer in a certain area? -Rebuttal to Rebuttal 1- Then he tries to justify emotional appeals ; Death is emotional for some ; not for others. The problem with his argument is that it doesn't provide ANY REAL REASON why we should do something ; he provides no reason to accept his argument, and acknowledges it as an emotional appeal ; this argument can be dropped in its' entirety at this point. -Rebuttal to Rebuttal 2- My opponent said I was unable to provide for a tradition that has been around since man first became capable of action ; This is demanding extraordinary evidence that doesn't exist. This would go into a very atopical zone of "How is Man here? ", which I'm not going to acknowledge. The definition of tradition holds strong to the tradition of owning slaves, beating children, and taking women as spoils ; this argument flows through. -Rebuttal to Rebuttal 3- My opponent concedes this is an emotional appeal ; we can drop this argument. I've shown how emotional appeals hold no bearing on the facts. He goes on to say that rhetoric is a way of writing or speaking effectively. This is true ; emotional appeals hold no merit, however. They may be able to persuade, but an argument (of which debates are comprised) are persuasive arguments based on LOGIC. [2] HE also goes into an atopic statement about our legal system being based of The Elements of Euclid. I'm not arguing this one way or another ; it is atopical. -Rebuttal to Rebuttal 4- My opponent once again assumes that where I live has to anything to do with this debate ; other than that, he drops this argument ; The argument flows on. I've refuted the argument against biopower earlier in this case ; It's a moral philosophy ; not the philosophy by Focoult. He drops my argument about why humans are NOT morally superior ; this flows on. He drops my argument of biopower ; this flows on. He accepts that 2 of his arguments are emotional appeals ; these are dropped. I've shown why his arguments/rebuttals are flawed and have destroyed them ; my arguments are standing strong. I'd like to point out that hunting is not necessary ; We have more than enough ways to obtain vital nutrients and calories without meat. [2] In addition, hunting is perpetuating the idea that we are a superior species ; I do not have to justify we aren't ; it is assumed. My opponent bore the Burden of Proof on this, and ignored it ; he must agree we are equal. Voting PRO is continuing the abuse of biopower, justifying the killing of animals, and protecting outdated tradition ; just like many did during the 1800s with slavery.