CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
That is very, very wrong. That is so absolutely and unbelievably wrong. An animal is sentient if it can feel or perceive things.
Non-human animals can feel pain, fear, joy, anxiety, anger, even jealousy! As for animals that are self-aware, we know that humans are self-aware, as well as apes, dolphins, and elephants (all of which can recognize themselves in a mirror).
This is not sentience. A robot can perceive things, and some can recognize themselves in mirrors. that does not make them self aware. And you have provided no evidence that the "emotions" you claim animals can feel are no more than primitive survival instincts. give a source next time. opinions don't make arguments.
They're not my opinions, love. They're facts. I'll give you just a few examples of higher thinking and emotions in non-humans.
Orangutans will often climb a dead tree, destablize it as it begins to fall, and scream with excitement as they plummet to the ground, jumping onto nearby trees or vines seconds before the tree hits the earth.
Chickens are very social birds, as intelligent as dogs, cats, and even primates. Mother hens will cluck to their brood while they are still within the egg, and the chicks will chirp in response to her and to the others.
Cows are clever animals that have been known to go to great lengths to escape from slaughterhouses. Within a herd, they develop complex relationships, much like dogs in a pack. On dairy farms and cattle ranches, cows can be heard calling out for their calves for days after they've been separated.
Fish have memories and the ability to learn, and are known to feel fear and to fear the anticipation of pain. They can communicate with sound (inaudible to humans) when they are in distress.
Pigs are considered smarter than three-year-old humans. They are naturally very clean, loyal, and friendly.
Turkeys love having their feathers stroked and to listen to music, to which they'll often sing along to quite loudly.
Geese mate in pairs for life and grieve for considerable amounts of time if their mate for any reason disappears.
More and more scientists are agreeing that animals are conscious and can feel basic human emotions, such as happiness, sadness, boredom, and depression. Some of these scientists do agree that, yes, animals can feel even higher emotions, such as jealousy, love, and spite.
You misunderstand the word sentient (or you're just a nut). the definition of sentient is "Having the ability to think, feel, and perceive subjectively". Animals do not have this higher consciousness. Just because the emulate human behaviors does not make them sentient.
Yes, killing animals for fun is cruel. It also worries me when I am around people who take so much pleasure in killing things. First its starts at animals, usually it will stay there, but then again maybe it will go to humans. What about if someone, who was a little twisted, went hunting and they accidentally or purposely killed your pet such as your dog or horse? I doubt you would respond, "Hey at least you had fun."
A person who takes pleasure in such dominating power because they are able, as in killing a "lesser" creature, is not someone I would respect.
I'm not sure about fishing for sport. It looks like it could be painful to the fish. I mean if someone stuck a hook in your cheek it would be painful, but its ok because it would heal. If all the other sports that kill or seriously harm animals were banned except sport fishing i would be happy enough.
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
What kind of a "sport" is it when a person takes a gun and goes about shooting an unarmed creature ? What kind of a pleasure does it give the so called "sportman" ? Like the games people play "let jim, james, harry and I go and lick tom ", killing animals is at best a cowardly and selfish act. I can understand the killing of animals for food, which, though is odd in a civilized society, is a hangover from the days of the cave man and we have to go still some distance in abandoning our natural instinct of killing for power.
No, i strongly urge that there should be a ban on any killing of animals and especially for sport.
In the bible God gave humanity animals to eat before the flood. the question i would ask you is why did god kill all the other animals that were on the earth surely this was a complete and utter disregard for every living creature on the planet including all the children and mentally ill that perished along with them.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!IT SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what if you were that animal, then you just got shot or sliced or whatever? isn't that just cruel? killing animals for sport!?!? THAT IS JUST RUDE! RIDICULING MOTHER NATURE!!!!!!!!!!!!HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Killing for fun is not only wasteful of life it is morally wrong. Killing for a reason is a different matter all together. Hunting for food and clothing is a natural thing it has been done since the dawn of life or soon enough thereafter. Killing animals for medicinal reasons I belive is an extension of that, and killing for pest control is another.
Lets look at this topic from thee animal's perspective. Say you, a deer, are on your way home to feed your two children, when, suddenly, a gray ball hits you in the head. Cheers ring out in praise of Jim Henson's "nice shot". He yells "that hit's worth four points." How disguisting. Death, Desolation, murder, slaughter, mixed in with a bit of blood and gore, all for a few points and a day's entertainment. Those who belive in this mos vile "sport" disguist me. Those who cheer death and praise the unneccessary shedding of blood are a most loathsome lot.
This world is survival of the fittest. Hunting helps control the animal population which otherwise, is taking up land that we need anyway. Even if they were not hunted, our actions as humans will kill them off slowly anyway. The only animals that are truly thriving, are the ones that we are farming. We are the superior beings and thats the circle of life(and death lol).
I'm choosing not to harm/kill sentient creatures. So are you, when you choose not to go on killing sprees. But since that's your choice, should murder not be illegal? We wouldn't want to force your choice on others.
Besides, we're all a part of the circle of life. It's a natural human instinct to hunt for food. We're predators, and some people think that's too mortifying to think about, but there was a time when it was eat or be eaten. We're animals at heart. So why shouldn't we have the freedom to act like them?
Animals don't kill for fun. Animals kill for survival. We, on the other hand, are special in the sense that we actually have a choice. We can decide not to cause pain, we can even decide not to eat meat.
Sure, we can. But we also don't have to. You'll become a pariah if you condemn it. It's a choice, yes. But it's also something people like to do, and the animal in question is going to return to the earth at some point anyways. We're animals. It's not a sin to act like one.
So what about the severely retarded? (I've made this point in another debate, but here I go again.) Is a severely retarded human without the ability to think critically lesser than a "normal," functioning human?
Fishing doesn't have to cause harm to animals, and hunting can be a way of survival. What we can do is try to understand why some people find fun, entertainment and satisfaction in killing animals. And lock 'em up until we find a cure...
a) In a great majority of cases you can catch a fish and release it without serious or long lasting harm. I slipped some adjectives in there to avoid wasting time in defining 'harm'. I just don't think you'll find many antisocial, potentially criminal, probably mentally ill people doing sport fishing.
b) Yeah... But the description says 'activities'. Anyway, both questions are bogus. Killing animals in itself is not the problem. They taste good, they carry diseases, they destroy crops... You can think of a lot of reasons where exercising our species supremacy would be ok. The real problem is that some people find pleasure, satisfaction and fun in taking a life. You can't solve that problem by banning a sport. If anything you'll just make test subjects for finding a cure harder to find...
I really don't know if it's pleasant or not. As I said, I don't find it harmful enough to be indicative of a problem with the human engaged is such activities. It's very simple, and I'll try it one more time. If I see a man kill an animal for no good reason and derive some pleasure from it my first thought is not "Oh that poor animal!" It's "Oh that poor man is sick, can he be helped?" A few years back it would be "What a sick fuck I hope he dies a slow and painful death!", but I've grown. And that too is a whole different debate...
I’ll say it again – the goal should not be to stopping animals getting killed because they're bound to be. Unless you firmly believe thay should and can all be made not to pose a threat to us in any way. It should be having less sick people around.
I said that about threats because I don't think even a vegan can be opposed to self defense. I'm not saying you are, just wanted to save time. That right holds for humans too, of course. I personally extend every possible chance of a peaceful resolution to both humans and animals, but I can understand if someone is not skilled enough to deal with a venomous snake or insect or a carnivorous mammal in a way that doesn't get the animal killed. Humans>animals. That's the way things are and no amount of hysterics is going to change that.
Secondly, how in the world does a fish pose a threat?
Again, in an effort to save time: Killing animals - OK in some cases, killing humans - NOT OK in most cases, the point - why are some people sick and how to help them, not the point - burying the sickness so we don't have to watch it on TV.
I suppose the problem that we have is that we differ in the most basic of points that this debate offers. I believe that killing any animal is absolutely and undeniably wrong. You don't. I don't think we can get past that.
Nowhere have I said that there is some arbitrary classification of which animals are to be killed and which ones are not. You’ve just made that up. This debate is not even about animals, and that’s the point you can’t seem to get past. It’s about humans and trying to identify what makes us human and how to preserve it. I believe those things to be, among others, compassion, empathy, sense of fairness, reason, etc. And none of those involve killing anything for fun. And all of those hold up if you kill in a life threatening situation, i.e. strong possibility of an attack, hunger etc.
Just go about it from the other side, human side, your side. It will be much clearer…
You're saying that a debate discussing the legality of killing animals for sport doesn't involve killing anything for fun. And also that it's about identifying what makes us human and how to preserve it. So, let me extrapolate, killing animals for sport makes us human? And we should preserve that? And it doesn't involve killing anything for fun? Or, no, I'm sorry, it involves killing animals for humanity....
You are, once again, ignoring the fact that the debate starter doesn't seem to be a very intelligent person, and that he posed two fundamentally different questions. So you'd be best off not to extrapolate anything. My arguments are perfectly clear, whereas you have yet to produce one. I can only suppose that being a vegan prevents you to make any kind of a reasonable argument about this matter.
But I actually agree with that statement to some extent. The human population should be controlled. I think people should have to obtain licenses to have children. That is a very valid point. You're just heading it in the wrong direction.
Hunting has been a sport and a way to survive for thousands of years. We use hunting as a way to maintain a propor food chain, like if there is too many of one kind of animal in a small area we lower its population by hunting. Some people like eating fresh meat from the animals they hunted instead of meat thats been sitting in the freezer for who knows how long. Hunting is a part of life for people why stop now just becuase you think its wrong.
Hunting and fishing are often for food. They should be banned for sport if the species are threatened, but otherwise most large game doesn't have any natural predators left- they need people as population control. Fisheries should be more controlled either way, for sport or not. However, killing animals humanely isn't inherently wrong, especially if it's better than the alternative.
You could be helpful and actually offer a rebuttal instead of just down voting my argument because you don't agree with it.
I'm down voting your argument, if you want to call it such, because there isn't any. Also i have noticed that you down vote many arguments that are pro-animal rights or pro-vegetarian without any decent rebuttal, with the only apparent reason being that you don't agree with the opinion.
with the loss of natural predators hunting is the only realistic way to keep animal populations in check. look at deer in the united states. if hunting didn't help keep their numbers down they would overpopulate and die from starvation, auto accidents and possibly even poisoning when they invade gardens and farms looking for that diminished food supply.
I'm okay if you decide not hunt (or fish) but don't you dare make it illegal for me to have a wonderful time with my family and friends, provide for them, see a beautiful landscape,and just plain have fun, cause that's what hunting really is.
If you've never been to a hunt, then go to one, even if you don't see anything, you will probably have a great time.
Without hunting the population of animals would decrease dramatically. If we don't go kill those deer, then they'll eat all the grass, if they eat all the grass, then there's no more, if there's no grass, then all the deer DIE.
We're just part of the lifecycle.
And besides, hunters give more money to wildlife organizations, than others. All the money used in buying hunting licenses, tags, and a lot of other stuff too, goes to wildlife organizations, the same goes for fishing.
I completely agree with hunting and fishing, in fact I love to hunt and fish, UNLESS you don't take the food, when you hunt ( or fish) you should try to take as much meat as possible, if you just go into a forest, shoot a deer and leave it there, that is WRONG!