Hunting is OK

Hunting animals is needed for population management and less painful deaths. Many animals, deer especially, do not die painlessly. Usually, they either contract diseases or get eaten alive by predators. A clean shot, therefore, causes much less pain. Animal conservation is important because too much of a species can be harmful. For example, an overpopulation of deer can destroy farmers' crops.

I think that the title of the debate is vague and needs to be narrowed down. Hunting is ok when measured by what standard? Utility? Morality? "OK" is an extremely broad term and I was hoping it would be defined a bit more definitively in your opening argument. I'll also have to only be able to speak to hunting in the USA, as some of my rebuttals will involve regulations and I'm not familiar with any other country's hunting practices.

I'll approach your argument by addressing each individual point. I've identified two main points, one of them being population control, the other being the reduction of suffering.

The first point I will address is that you believe "hunting animals is needed for population management." While hunting is one way that the population of animals can be controlled, it is not the only way and is therefore not "needed" like you asserted. Wildlife contraception, such as GonaCon that was developed by the US department of agriculture, reduces the mating drive in deer. Or PZP, which effectively works as a spermicidal coating on the egg of a doe, preventing conception. From a morality standpoint, no/ extremely minimal chance of causing suffering seems to have an edge over hunting. However, from a utility perspective, this is likely much harder to implement than hunting.

Live trapping is also a common method of wildlife population control, one that allows the relocation of the animal to areas of underpopulation and encourages population decline and growth as needed, effectively benefiting two separate geographic regions. From both a utility and morality standpoint, live trapping seems to be a better option than hunting.

The second point you brought up is the reduction of suffering. You claimed that "a clean shot... causes much less pain," and while that may be true, there is no guarantee of a clean shot, and I'm not aware of any regulatory agency that addresses proficiency when issuing a hunting license to ensure that shots are always well placed. So I would argue that without any guarantee of a skilled hunter, this point is wildly subjective and may or may hold water depending on the individual. In order for this argument to have validity, I would have to see some sort of data confirming that the vast majority of hunters kill in one well placed shot.

I would like to know if you would support regulation preventing bow hunting and having competency tests prior to obtaining a hunting license to ensure that the population control tool can be used while reducing suffering more uniformly. You would also have to regulate alcohol consumption wile hunting to ensure proficiency in marksmanship stays in tact to eliminate the chance of unnecessary suffering. I do not believe that hunting (as it exists currently and is regulated in America) is a good model for the reduction of suffering, and I do not believe that is is the only or (possibly) even the most effective way to control wild populations.

Pro forfeited the round.