should animal hunting be legal?

Hi again i wanted to also see your debates on 'for' animal hunting.....Animal hunting is unhumane unjust and unnessesary killing is wrong 2 wrongs dont make a right.Animals have rights too do they not?

To say that animals have rights is to deny the very reason we give rights out.

You and I each have rights based on our usefulness to society. For instance, we have the right to not be killed because society is willing to protect us from being killed. Society need not and should not give right away for no reason.

Plants are just as much living creatures as animals are. If that was the criteria for us protecting something, then eating anything would be immoral. For the same reason we don't give plants rights, we should not give random animals rights. Animals help our society even less than plants do.

Here's what animals do for us [animals that would be hunted - we're not talking about pets, etc here]

1. Take in oxygen and release CO2.
2. Eat plants, further increasing CO2 levels.
3. Cause accidents if near roads.

Here's what plants do:

1. Take in CO2, and let out Oxygen. We rely on this.

Thus, plants should have, if anything, MORE rights than animals, since they're much more useful to us.

The only utility an animal in the wild gives us is a possible source of entertainment, if we allow people to hunt it. Since this maximizes society's well-being, by eliminating CO2, giving someone a sense of enjoyment, and maybe even preventing a damaging accident, we should definitely allow hunting. Not hunting them gives society no benefit, while hunting does benefit us.

My case is very simple.

1. Animals have no rights
2. animals are usless

Ladies and gentlemen, from these two reasons, 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 animals have no rights 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.As my opponent stated,plants are more usefull then animalsnot neccesererly dont forget that animal manure are fertilasions further more animals (other then bees who do it naturally)help through there movement pollintation there for they help survival of plant.

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.They may not have the best of genes but how about humans with defaults in there genes no one is perfect not even me or you.

Your move.

Alright.

First, my opponent quotes two of my premises. Whatever.

Then, my opponent attempts to argue against the first one - that animals do not deserve rights.

The reasoning I gave for this premise was that since hunted animals do not help society [note: livestock and pets are not included here, since they serve a purpose], we have no reason to protect them by giving them 'rights.'

To attack this, my opponent points out that animals give us things like manure. However, ladies and gentlemen, to what extent do you think deer manure is used in farming/gardening? I bring your attention to the fact that we exclusively use the manure of livestock for such purposes - and people don't hunt livestock [livestock is someone's property, and it's useful, therefore it's protected].

My opponent also points out that some animals naturally fertilize plants. However, these animals are not hunted [bees, etc.] and therefore this is also irrelevant.

Thus, when we're talking about whether or not animals are useful in the context of this resolution, the answer is still no. The animals that are hunted do not give us manure, nor do they fertilize plants. They merely give us, as I said last round, a worsened greenhouse effect.

Thus, the point "Animals are useless" still holds in the context of this debate. Better wording would be "Animals that are hunted are useless to society."

And since they are useless to society, society has no reason to give them rights.

Next, my opponent goes into a diatribe about how animals are being clubbed, and some are going extinct. Waah. Extinction is a natural process. If something is unfit to survive in this world, then it goes extinct. It matter not whether it's us or another predator driving them to extinction.

My opponent also says that "If animals are gone one day, chaos will arise." This is irrelevant, since animals are in no danger of vanishing altogether whether we hunt them or not. One species might cease to exist, but I think the world will be fine in the absence of the northern spotted owl.

Take note, as well, something else my opponent says. She notes that after we hunt animals, we often gain their skin and fur. This is only another positive thing about hunting. Not only does it entertain people who enjoy hunting, but it provides society with some additional goods.

Also, keep in mind that endangered species can be protected and hunting can still be legal. In fact, that is the status quo. Killing endangered animals is considered poaching. Therefore, we can ignore the entire extinction argument altogether.

My stance is that hunting animals that are in season should be legal for those who have a license, if the animal is not owned by anyone else and the hunter is not breaking any other restrictions set up by law. Basically, the status quo.

How about animal cruelty ? Hunting is animal cruelty ? Do you not have compassion for animals ?It is not right to kill animals how would you like that to happen to you ?

It's 'cruelty' to bacteria for me to take penicillin. Yet we have little reason to value the lives of the types of bacteria I would take penicillin to kill, and killing them has a positive effect [in this case, it helps me get healthy again quicker].

It's 'cruelty' to animals for me to hunt them. Yet we have little reason to value the lives of the types of animals that would be hunted, and killing them has a positive effect on society [goods such as hide are gained, some people are entertained, less CO2 is produced, car accidents might be prevented].

My opponent has failed to give a reason why we should value the lives of wild animals, such as the ones that are allowed to be hunted [deer, etc.]. Even if you believe that animals should have rights, notice that my opponent has not made a strong case for this. I provided being helpful to society as a criteria, my opponent failed to either A> show that animals [specifically the ones that are hunted] satisfy this criteria, or B> present a superior criteria these animals DO fit. Thus, as far as this debate is concerned, animals do not deserve rights.
Vote for the better argument, not the side you agree with.

Thank you.