Should animal hunting be illegal?

Well, how in any sense is it right ? Why? how is killing an animal ever the right thing to do ? You dont even use the meat?

First, I'll take it that you meant "Animal hunting should be illegal" and that all the questions you asked should be made declarative statements. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument will be based on logic, rather than emotion.

First, we must find out why killing is wrong. The answer to that question is logically that killing deprives individuals of the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right, necessary for all other rights.

The next step is to find out who has rights. Again, the answer is logically that only those individuals who can act as moral agents have rights, as one cannot have rights if one cannot actively respect the rights of others. This means that most animals have no rights.

A killing something with no rights is not necessarily wrong (assuming it is not the property of another moral agent) hunting is not wrong, and there is no logical reason to ban it. If anything, much of it should be encouraged. Nutria hunting helps get rid of nutrias on the east coast, which are invasive species that destroy wetland. If deer weren't hunted on the East Coast, they would have no major predator, and suffer overpopulation, destroying themselves and the environment around them. Hunting has a useful purpose in many instances. Of course there should be restrictions, such as bans on hunting endangered species, safety regulations, overhunting control, et cetera, but there is no logical reason to ban a useful pastime that many partake in.

Opponent's case: "Well, how in any sense is it right ? Why? how is killing an animal ever the right thing to do ? You don't even use the meat?"
6 reasons why killing an animal can be the right thing to do:
1. Self-defense
2. Food
3. Population Control
4. Pest Control
5. Environmental Protection
6. Compassion (Mercy Killing)

Hunting is usual done for food, and can often serve as Population Control and Environmental Protection (Deer, Nutria). In those cases, it is right.

Second, even if it is for sport, it isn't necessarily the wrong thing to do, as long as the carcass is used, as most animals have no rights.

You do actually often use the meat.

Your move.

My case is very simple.

1. Animals have no rights
2. Hunting is usual done for food

Ladies and gentlemen, from these two premises, which my opponent offered and I concede to the fullest extent, we should indeed make hunting illegal. My opponent attempts to appeal to you by telling you that hunting animals are used for food, but this is not true as foxs and many other species that are hunted but not eaten. As my opponent stated,OVerpopulation , rather killing animals [ by hunting them ], we do our part for the animal overpopulation issue and forego saving them.

Animals do not have rights in many animals that assuming it is not the property of another moral agent. I totally disagrre with this they definetly have rights! under animal law/ rights like every human has rights animals do too.

Every year hundreds of thousands of animals are clubbed, killed, and used for their skins and fur. And, even though its illegal to hunt endangered animals, if we don`t stop soon, they will be endangered. Just look at how easily the human species drove the mammoth to extinction!! Animals are a very important part of our lives, believe it or not, and help the world go round. If animars are gone one day, chaos will arrise.

Your move.

"1. Animals have no rights
2. Hunting is usual done for food
Ladies and gentlemen, from these two premises, which my opponent offered and I concede to the fullest extent, we should indeed make hunting illegal. My opponent attempts to appeal to you by telling you that hunting animals are used for food, but this is not true as foxs and many other species that are hunted but not eaten. As my opponent stated,OVerpopulation , rather killing animals [ by hunting them ], we do our part for the animal overpopulation issue and forego saving them."

You just conceded that animals have no rights, so that means that killing them is not an issue, and your point about fox hunting is nullified. Your point about overpopulation makes absolutely no sense at all to me, how are we hurting animals by preventing overpopulation?

"Animals do not have rights in many animals that assuming it is not the property of another moral agent. I totally disagrre with this they definetly have rights! under animal law/ rights like every human has rights animals do too."

Law is often wrong, and these "rights" only extend to domestic animals under the law. You need to prove why animals have rights in a moral sense.

"Every year hundreds of thousands of animals are clubbed, killed, and used for their skins and fur. And, even though its illegal to hunt endangered animals, if we don`t stop soon, they will be endangered. Just look at how easily the human species drove the mammoth to extinction!! Animals are a very important part of our lives, believe it or not, and help the world go round. If animars are gone one day, chaos will arrise."

The first sentence is just a lame appeal to the pathos, which is illogical by nature, so just ignore it. The part about the endangered species is also going against the logical limitations on hunting that I said would arise. The government will prevent overhunting, and we will not drive the animal kingdom to extiction. At least not through hunting.

Your move.

My opponent now brings up the point that again brings species are endangered. This is what we like to call natural selection at work. Why should we keep around a species that can't even continue to exist on its own? We shouldn't. Its bad genes SHOULD die.

Therefore, since hunting kills endangered species, that is yet one more damage we are doing to the world. How can you limit what people can and cant kill on there land how will people monitor that?
Me:'Every year hundreds of thousands of animals are clubbed, killed, and used for their skins and fur.'
You:‘The first sentence is just a lame appeal to the illogical' Well it the truth because of many people wearing leather on there feet and carrying dead animals on there back people have to hunt and and hundreds of thousand die… it is not used to apply to the emotions it the facts and truth .

You need to prove why animals have rights in a moral sense.

• Relevant rights for animals can be any benefits appropriate for animals that people wish to bestow on them. Relevant rights for animals can include:

• The right to live free in the natural state of their choosing.
• The right to express normal behaviour (eg food searching, grooming, nest building).
• The right to life (ie not be killed for human food or other human use).
• The right to reproduce (ie pass on their genes to the next generation).
• The right to chose their own lifestyle (eg not be coerced into experiments or used as entertainment).
• The right to live free from human induced harm (eg hunger, thirst, molestation, fear, distress, pain, injury or disease).

Also, extend my arguments about animals contributing to greenhouse gases and taking up space that could be better used. Along with the premise don't we cause global warming ?

And with that, it's off to the voters.

(by the way if you have msn please add me : Georgiasmsg@Hot mail.com)

"My opponent now brings up the point that again brings species are endangered. This is what we like to call natural selection at work. Why should we keep around a species that can't even continue to exist on its own? We shouldn't. Its bad genes SHOULD die."

Okay, then we can kill them through hunting, that argument only hurts you.

"Therefore, since hunting kills endangered species, that is yet one more damage we are doing to the world."

Well we can ban hunting endangered species, can't we, and you just said we SHOULD kill them.

"How can you limit what people can and cant kill on there land how will people monitor that?"

You take away the motive, for example, in the US, people can't buy products from endangered species, so there is no motive to hunt endangered species that no profit can be made off of.

"Well it the truth because of many people wearing leather on there feet and carrying dead animals on there back people have to hunt and and hundreds of thousand die… it is not used to apply to the emotions it the facts and truth."

Yes, but you need to show why this is bad, why do there lives have any value? You need to answer this question.

"• Relevant rights for animals can be any benefits appropriate for animals that people wish to bestow on them. Relevant rights for animals can include:

• The right to live free in the natural state of their choosing.
• The right to express normal behaviour (eg food searching, grooming, nest building).
• The right to life (ie not be killed for human food or other human use).
• The right to reproduce (ie pass on their genes to the next generation).
• The right to chose their own lifestyle (eg not be coerced into experiments or used as entertainment).
• The right to live free from human induced harm (eg hunger, thirst, molestation, fear, distress, pain, injury or disease)."

So we give them rights, what, that makes no sense, rights are inherent benefits. Anyways, you have not shown why they have these rights, it seems like you just made up rights and gave it to them.

"Also, extend my arguments about animals contributing to greenhouse gases and taking up space that could be better used. Along with the premise don't we cause global warming?"

You never made any argument like that.

Quod erat demonstrandum