Instigator / Con

Siuhayden

1487

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#3534

Trophy hunting should not be banned.

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Winner

After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...

Novice_II

Tags

Nature

Parameters

Publication date: 07.11.2022 07:11AM
Last updated date: 07.23.2022 12:56AM
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

Contender / Pro

Novice_II

1896

rating

100

debates

93.5%

won

Description

Some say trophy hunting is helping animal conservation. Some say the opposite.

Round 1

Siuhayden

07.12.2022 12:32AM

Con

I will keep this short. Thx for accepting.

Trophy hunting does not, in fact, benefit animals, nor help animal conservation. Hunters say they help ‘clean the environment’ by taking trophy carcasses away and allow the younger ones to take charge. Indeed, it does seem reasonable, but you will find out it does not hold much water:

If one is to say that trophy hunters only kill the old and weak, thus helping the young shine in their prime, they are taking away the carcasses of the old and weak, meaning the bodies of dead animals will not be able to fertilise the soil. If the soil is not fertilised or rich in nutrients and protein, the grass and plants that grow will also be weaker and less nutritious. When herbivores consume those plants, they too will become a weaker version of their earlier generation. By ‘cleaning’ the environment of old bodies, the trophy hunters are not just ridding vultures of their food, but also weakening the herbivore generations.

Therefore, trophy hunting should be banned because its long term consequences are weakening future animal populations and the environment.

Novice_II

07.14.2022 12:32AM

Pro

A large study found that at least 340 million acres of wild habitats have been conserved by trophy hunting across sub-Saharan Africa [3]. Clearly, trophy hunting has significant ecological conservational benefits.
ICUN research: "trophy hunting, if well managed, is often a higher value, lower impact land use than alternatives such as agriculture or tourism" [7].

Rebuttal

Trophy hunting...nor help animal conservation.

My case has already demolished this point.

Soil gets nutrients from many things, not just dead animal bodies so the soil not be impacted. I have shown evidence that regulated trophy hunting has significant conservational benefits. If natural habitats are not conserved there will be much fewer animals.

Sources

Round 2

Siuhayden

07.16.2022 12:32AM

Con

Forfeited

Novice_II

07.16.2022 12:56AM

Pro

I disproved all of con's points. Con has dropped all my arguments.

Extend all arguments.
I cite literal International Union for Conservation of Nature research that openly states the ecological conservation benefits of trophy hunting. This was cons's main argument for banning the practice and con has run away, (clearly scared) I have won the debate.

Other evidence

"Our findings highlight the usefulness of insights from choice modeling for the design of wildlife management and conservation policies and suggest that trophy hunting in Ethiopia could generate substantially more financial support for conservation and be more in line with conservation objectives than is currently the case" Trophy hunters’ willingness to pay for wildlife conservation and community benefits
ICUN: "Well-managed trophy hunting can provide both revenue and incentives for people to conserve and restore wild populations, maintain areas of land for conservation, and protect wildlife from poaching" [5]

FLRW

07.14.2022 03:28PM

Someday, Trophy Hunters from Outer Space might have a great time on Earth.

RationalMadman

07.11.2022 05:22PM

I wonder if we legalised trophy hunting poachers how it would all go down for their families ethically. Speciesist prejudice is considered completely alright.

Lemming

07.11.2022 04:31PM

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.

Ehyeh

07.11.2022 09:14AM

-->

@Siuhayden

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?

Siuhayden

07.11.2022 09:06AM

-->

@Ehyeh

Some trophy hunters claim that some money goes to animal conservation.

Ehyeh

07.11.2022 09:03AM

-->

@Siuhayden

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.

fivesix

07.11.2022 08:38AM

-->

@Siuhayden

interesting one - 2 rounds also, will be quick-fire

RationalMadman

07.17.2022 08:42PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

FF.......................

oromagi

07.17.2022 08:33PM

Criterion

Con

Tie

Pro

Points

Winner

1 point(s)

Reason:

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