Killing animals for sport is acceptable. HELP

[LilMissSunshine]

my debate topic is ''This house believes that killing animals for sport is morally wrong'' I'm supposed to oppose it. I need HELP because the topic itself is a little one-sided. anyway...this is what I have so far...

1)Killing animals for sport is acceptable as long as the animals which are killed are not endangered species or rare.

2)Balances the ecosystem. (some animals breed very fast at a certain period in the year, therefore hunting is promoted and number of kills are controlled)

3)Legal because in certain areas like spain, it is culture.

4)Moral textbooks and revision books itself clearly state that culture and tradition which have been carried out in the past should be carried out now.

5)To make the judgment that killing for sport is morally wrong is wrong because it's neither wrong or right. Morality is relative.

6)Killing animals is not murder! Murder is defined as human killing humans! So killing for sport is totally fine because there are only certain types of animals that you're going to hunt and an animals life is below a humans life. When your pet dies, you can moan and groan for max 1 week. then you move on. But when your loved one passes away..that grief is carried on..FOREVER.

now I need help..I need more points. Even if you are against this topic..just please act and help me out here. I have no choice but to say I agree which my stand.

[AJtogo]

How about the economic benefits of hunting for sport. Local economies benefit from the millions of dollars spent by sportsman to hunt and fish.

It is an ecologically beneficial activity to control animal populations so that a species does not exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat. Hunting for sport is regulated and acts in the best interests for the scientific conservation of a species. Therefore, it provides sport for those who wish to participate while serving the conservation interests of the species.

The morality of killing is ambiguous and opinionated and event sensitive. It can be ok to kill humans in times of war but not in times of peace.

Killing for sport does not mean reckless killing. An animal is harvested just as you would harvest crops from the earth.

[soxfan94]

Beat to the punch. Great answer.

[genericname85]

dude honestly how can "killing animals for fun" be a sensible thing to do... considering economic benifits to legitimate something imoral is just wrong! economics don´t legitimate things that are bad.

so i´m gonna tackel your arguments that make actually sense:

1. conservation interests of the species... ever heard of darvin? nature regulats itself... it doesn´t need humans to artifically provide a balance they think is appropriate it worked millions of years without our help!

2. Killing for sport doesn´t mean reckless killing... so in other words: killing a being for "fun" isn´t reckless?

3. an animal is harvested just as crops... i bet you don´t say that if for some reason, scientists would find out that killing puppies and kittens would help the natrual balance and suggest shooting them.

[genericname85]

please ignore my typos...

[kheserthorpe]

If you're allowed to eat animals killed for sport...

It's a little odd to suggest that having say a duck live it's life naturally till it's shot one day is less ethical than for example shoving debeaked chickens in cages so small and packed they'd peck each other to death of they weren't debeaked for their entire lives.

[ivarei]

i'm 100% against killing for sport, but I did a little research, so apparently hunting for sport includes hunting and using the animal for food...i didn't know that because I thought that it was just killing an animal and mounting it on your wall. killing and animal and eating it is no different from eating beef from the super market. in many cultures, hunting is necessary for survival.

another thing is that hunting helps control animal population. for example, deer have a much higher population now than they did 300 years ago in the US. why? because when we colonized this land and used it for farming, we killed and herded out most of the deer's natural enemies. if the wolf isn't there to control the population, something else has to...people and their guns...and cars =(

[ivarei]

To put it correctly: "we killed and herded out ALL of the deer's natural PREDATORS."

[LilMissSunshine]

But in spain, it's their culture to keep the bloodsport bull fighting. IT shows their culture and tradition. It states in moral textbooks that we as students and individuals should know our culture and carry it out as it has been set by our forefathers...

[ivarei]

I'm just giving you arguments to add to your debate. the overpopulation thing is quite significant. as for bull fighting, it is human instinct to show dominance over beasts and each other, that's what boxing and wrestling is. fighting a bull is a very manly thing for them.

[redheadbabygirl]

I'm totally for killing animals for sport. I don't personally hunt, but my dad did a lot when he was younger and we have dear heads and antlers all over my house :P

Use cows as an example. Think of how many thousands of times more cows are killed each year for beef than all the carefully guarded "endangered species." You could argue that this is proof that eluminating all threats to animals actually hinders them from multiplying. You could also soften your argument a bit by providing a compromise--that we should breed the animals we hunt so that the ones we kill will be replaced and it won't wipe out the species. I'm not sure if this supports the argument you have to make well or not though...

[Avalace]

Ditch 6. It is opinionated and circumstantial and you can easily crush it.

One argument is to say that killing animals usually has strict rules. For example, hunting has rules. If you injure a deer, you must kill it right away so it doesn't experience the pain etc. Often times things are mislabeled as hunting, say some guy goes into the woods with a shotgun and shoots every animal he sees. That is not hunting as it does not follow the set of rules that considers it a sport.

[soxfan94]

Avalace, I agree with your proposed argument but I disagree with your conclusion that #6 could be "easily crush[ed]". There is an argument to be made that moral relativism dictates a sliding scale when killing animals, with insects on one end (almost universally accepted as killable) and humans on the other end (almost universally accepted as non-killable). Rather than start down a slippery slope, setting a firm line classifying humans as the only protected class could be seen as very rational.

[Avalace]

If it were reworded and dropped the example, it could become a valid argument. But as it stands, it holds little ground.

[Phoenix98]

I kill for food and for hides, animals were put on the earth for the purpose of being hunted and killed and used by us for food and clothing.

[Anonymous]

isn't this kinda considered cheating?

use your brain to figure it out =S

or go do research.

don't be lazy

besides, you kinda gave your opponent an advantage.

now they know what kind of points you're gonna come up with.

O.O

[Anonymous]

To control the population, the kill after the sport is usually either eaten, sometimes sold, then eaten, donated. Also it could control disease