The Japanese Whalers are immoral and deserve the Sea Shepherds' actions.

In reply to the first two paragraphs: >The shot was proven to be a fake (1). And steel bolts and golf balls are non-lethal. And I will say it again. The Sea Shepherds initiated the attack, therefore, the Whalers have a right to morally defend themselves. The Whalers are in the right, the Sea Shepherds are in the wrong. "My opponent conceded that Humans are animals thus why should some animals have rights over others. That is prejudice thats like saying "Only whites should be president because they are superior." this is immoral because obviously prejudice is not moral and is immoral." >I clearly said non-human animals. You quoted my words, so you should have read that. I have proven why Humans have rights and why (non-human) animals (such as whales) do not. My opponent failed to refute that. "He needs to diversify his arguments because I have taken one down i have basically taken down all arguments that argue humans differ from animals." >You have said that humans are animals, thus animals = animals. But, that is a straw man. I made the contention that humans have rights over non-human animals, which you failed to refute. "No warrant or impact not a complete argument thus htis cannot be looked at." >But, it is a complete argument. You made a completely fallacious statement, and I just stated that. "Cont 6 ok well then the Japanese whalers are not the strongest we dropped the A bomb on em before so lets resume with that. All of my opponents arguments are one sided flawed ideas if only the strongest truly prevail then we should take over japan." >Umm, what? Survival of the fittest pertains to differing species (2). Japanese and Americans are both homo sapiens, I don't know what my opponent is trying to get at. So, contention 6 stands. "Contention 2 Since my opponent has accepted the people are animals whales ought to be treated with the same rights." >You are making the same accusation over and over again, which dooms your whole argument. I said non-human animals. "If whales had to option to kill us would we want them too? no, which is why we need to stop killing innocent beings." >No, of course we would not want them to. But, they could if they would because of Survival of the Fittest. Just like how lions hunt for zebras, or humans kill pigs for pork, whaling is just humans killing whales for their meat. It is simply nature. "Contention 3 We will wipe a species off the face of the earth should this continue." >I have already provided a source on how the main whales that the Whalers are hunting, minke whales, are overpopulated. And because of the restriction of 950 kills per year, which you pointed out, extinction is near impossible. "My opponent says well because we haven't officially domesticated them what should matter. we domesticate beings to keep them from becoming extinct." >No, we domesticate things for our pleasure. Like cows for milk and steaks. And dogs for love. "Our generations will not be able to see whales should this continue and to see that species wiped off the face of the planet because a couple of people could not comply with the risks being taken." >Our generations will not be able to dinosaurs or wooly mammoths either. "Its like a child playing with his dads gun then he becomes an orphan and cannot survive because he cannot raise himself." >Huh? "Since murder is unjust why should we allow another member of the mammalian family to die." >Because of survival of the fittest. In reply to the 2nd to last paragraph: >I have covered and refuted those issue in deep detail above. In reply to the last paragraph: >I don't understand what you are talking about. ========== CONCLUSION: - Whaling is simply part of nature. * My opponent provided one contention through the whole debate. And that was in round one. I have successfully refuted the contention. * I provided six contentions. My opponent failed utterly to refute any of them.