Trophy hunting should not be banned.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Some say trophy hunting is helping animal conservation. Some say the opposite.
FF.......................
TROPHY HUNTING should not be BANNED
CON's argument is fairly insubstantial for start to end. Why negate a negative proposition rather than assert the affirmative. Should not not be banned is a more complicated question than merely stating Trophy hunting should be banned.
CON gives us no definitions or terms. In the absence of any BoP claims, the burden is squarely on CON here and he's allowed precious few characters to fulfill that burden.
CON's sole argument is that removing trophy's from the natural cycle of life and death, hunters deprive the environment of fertilizer. CON offers no discussion of the extent of impact or discernable consequences of this decrease in fertilizer. Are there plant or animals species that are failing due to the impact of trophy hunting?
PRO goes straight to impact by comparing that impact to the impacts of agriculture or tourism and backs the claim with legit and sufficient sources.
CON's really needed a more compelling affirmative and also needed to show at least that hunting, farming, and tourism are not the only options but CON forfeited, dropping all arguments and losing this debate.
ARGS to PRO
SOURCES to PRO since CON used none and PRO used sources effectively
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeiture
Someday, Trophy Hunters from Outer Space might have a great time on Earth.
I wonder if we legalised trophy hunting poachers how it would all go down for their families ethically. Speciesist prejudice is considered completely alright.
Kill an animal for the pleasure of eating,
Kill an animal for pleasure of brag,
Both are pleasure, luxury, for some, though not all.
What with animals being an important food and nutrient source in places and history.
Well they would be hypocritical if they are hunting endangered species for sport, then giving the money to conservation...do you know what animals they trophy hunt?
Some trophy hunters claim that some money goes to animal conservation.
I feel like you're saying one thing in the title, then another in the description. There's a big difference between trophy hunting and hunting for population control. Are you saying they overlap? I'm sure many African species would say its making them go extinct, not controlling their populations.
interesting one - 2 rounds also, will be quick-fire