Hunting should be forbidden

Thanks, Pro, and good luck to you! ~~~~~ PRO: We kill for the anticipation and challenge of the hunt. . . They're happy that they succeeded in the hunt and that they overcame the challenges of nature. RE: Killing for whatever reason is still killing! My opponent seems to think that the "challenge" makes this act admissible. But would it be moral to rob a bank for the challenge? Would it be moral for a married woman to try and pick up men outside of her relationship out of "anticipation of the hunt?" Would is be alright for me, probably a terrible hunter, to try and shoot a stray jack russel terrier because I know it would be a heck of a challenge? No. Hunters can find other things to be happy about than "overcoming the challenges of nature." ~~~~~ PRO: Uses dictionary.com to support the notion that hunting is a sport and not murder. RE: I don't care what dictionary.com says. The dictionary is a book of words which are symbols that explain an idea; it is written by flawed humans and updated and changed constantly. I can argue anything in that dictionary and I've already explained why I don't think hunting is a sport (there is no willing and voluntary opponent for the hunter). Instead of disputing my rationale, Pro simply cited a dictionary definition which is bad debating. He did the same thing in arguing that killing is murder. Sure, semantically speaking animals may not be covered in the definition. However the concept of taking an innocent being's life is still there. Referencing definitions without arguing the concepts shows a lack of creativity and base for one's argument. ~~~~~ Pro: Didn't make sense in arguing my point that just because the destruction of animal habitat, for example, is the prominent cause of extinction, that over-hunting can and does eliminate certain species. It has in the past and even with modern guidelines there is still that possibility. ~~~~~ Pro: You obviously don't know your hunting facts. . . Those three shots are semi-automatic, not automatic. . . You have obviously never hunted, so don't act like you know it's easy. RE: First of all, I never claimed to have either hunted (obviously if I am opposed to it!) nor have I ever suggested that it was easy. However I noticed that not included in his lesson about hunting, Pro did not refute the fact that humans are equipped with guns (whatever kind they might be) whereas animals are left defenseless in their natural habitat. In terms of skill and natural ability, i.e. strength and speed, clearly an animal would defeat a human without all of the necessary and expensive tools and weapons that Pro has described. While I appreciate the detailed description about how many shots it takes to kill a deer (not really, cause I'm a huge Bambi fan), the fact remains that just because hunting requires skill and is mentally exerting and exhilerating DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT. Pro did a lot of explaining hunting and very little defending it. ~~~~~ Pro: Once again, since you've never gone hunting, you wouldn't know that there is a game that can (not) compare to hunting. RE: Of course not. The same way that masturbation could never compare to actual sex. However just because sex might be the ultimate thrill does not mean that someone should do something immoral (i.e. cheat or rape) to attain it. Sometimes you have to settle for a lesser rush in the interest of acting morally. I'm aware that a video game or paint balling couldn't equate KILLING something but it seems a lot more reasonable, safe, practical and just. ~~~~~ Pro: Once again, you obviously have never gone hunting. . . Only good hunters get the game, although others can be hunters while Only good singers are listened too, eve though others can sing. RE: What? Pro ONCE AGAIN points out that I have never been hunting. Big surprise! I never claimed to know the ins and outs of the "sport" but rather stand in moral opposition. Anyway, Pro didn't make any sense with this rebuttal- he agreed that only good hunters get the game. . . So what, only good hunters act immorally? Okay. How does that help his case??? ~~~~~ Pro: We're debating hunting not fishing. . . RE: Using my opponent's own weapon of dictionary references, hunting is defined as to pursue intensively so as to capture or kill (animals). Fish are animals. They are relevant. The absolute danger facing these animals is depicted not only in blogs but in way more legit websites such as: http://overfishing.org... And this Worldwatch Institute website details, "Nearly one in four mammal species is in serious decline, mainly due to human activities. Hunting provides the most immediate threat to large animals." http://www.worldwatch.org... ~~~~~ Pro: If people are really wanting to get guns to do something bad, it doesn't matter if hunting is illegal RE: True. But it would make it more difficult. Consider drugs- making them illegal doesn't stop their distribution or use by any means. But having legal drugs makes it a lot more feasible to get your hands on them. ~~~~~ Pro: Children aren't allowed to use guns without an adult around, or hunter safety. RE: Right. And we all know that kids always obey their parents and don't do things like take guns to school and shoot up their classmates. Clearly children always abide by the rules. ~~~~~ Pro: Without hunters, wild populations would get out of control and ruin ecosystem. RE: This is an assumption. Moreover, if a population problem threatened the safety and welfare of humans or other animals, we could find alternate means of controlling the problem. However, more importantly my opponent would have to prove that killing (hunting) would be moral in ANY sense. Think about all of the debates on here that have discussed "The intentional taking of one individual's life in order to save the life of several other innocent people." A main argument is that intentional killing is wrong no matter what 'good' comes out of it. If my opponent wishes to argue this final point, he would have to combat that ideology. ~~~~~ Back to Pro for now!