The debate "Hunting is a great sport" was started by
December 4, 2016, 11:55 pm.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 41 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 7 arguments, roasting4days posted 1 argument, raghav posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Zuhayr posted 1 argument, CheifAnshuman posted 1 argument, PoliticsAsUsual posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
Yanksxx21, NationalistGuy, harley_quinn123, roasting4days, Radhikadhawan, CheifAnshuman, harshita, GagandeepSingh, missletoe, R3HAB, thereal, Najam1 and 22 visitors agree.
Rakesh, Zuhayr, adriana, PoliticsAsUsual, deezmofonutz, raghav, Marvelgirl2002, nellie11iah, smv2005, redstar, SalonY, Lennon13 and 29 visitors disagree.
welcome to debate org haven't seen u here.
that is excessive hunting. something most hunters actually despise. we are even useful because we have rules to help agaisnt overpopulation and rules to where we can't hunt animals to extinction. idk how it is in India (assumed from name) but in America we hunters honor these rules.
hunting animals is very cruel and we have already lost many Tigers and have only a few of them left
We should stop hunting animals and start hunting gingers.
fair enough. like any activity it's not for everyone
as long as it is done responsibly, hunting has alot of benefits for eco systems. I'm not sure I would categorize it as a sport. but since you have specified that you meant it as a leisure activity then I don't disagree with the topic. I don't think I would enjoy it myself so I'm not sure I agree either.
true. which is the one I meant
I'm not sure it is not. It is not a competitive sport, but it is a test of skill and accuracy. You are competing against nature rather than against other people. I would put it in the same category as things like mountain climbing and surfing in that there really isn't an inherent interpersonal contest so much as proving your ability.
When it started being called a sport, the definition was anything that people found entertaining or amusing.
we been over that. look below.
it is not a sport at all
anything can be a competition. who can eat the most apples. who snore louder. don't think that makes those sports.
and your title didn't exactly scream leisurely pleasure. you know you meant it as an equivalent to basketball or boxing. it's not. if you meant leisurely activity you would have said something similar to "hunting is fun/nice/enjoyable" not sport.
using the main, primary, default definition of sport. no it is not.
leisurely activity? probably, haven't tried but wouldn't mind it.
what do you do with the dead animal?
I meant leisurely pleasure. then again it could turn into a competition. if two hunters are betting on who will get the bigger buck
one can find a definition of sport that refers to a person rather than an activity. "he is a good sport isn't he?"
your title made it seem like you were referring to a physical competition, not a leisurely pleasure.
"Success or pleasure derived from an activity such as hunting or fishing"
second def. in the Oxford dictionary for sport.
legal hunting in Africa is funding the conservation and protection of animals from poachers and illegal over hunting. rich people like that doctor who hunter the lion pay well and allow for the funding that the local governments simply don't have. many endangered species have been saved because of legal hunting.
that being said, I would under no circumstances call it a sport. it's a past time at best. there is no compeition, and unless your going at it without firearms, you may as well call channel surfing a sport.
Even if animals are over populated no one has the right to kill them.And if this the case, humans too should be hunted because as a matter of fact we are over populated too.
u don't know what u are talking about because there are regulations for hunting soo that stuff u are saying dasnt happen and they are put there sooo the animals don't get over populated and trust me on this I learn about every day in school u tree hugger
Responsible hunting does not push species to extinction. Many of the loudest voices about conservation are sport hunters since without conservation of land and animals there is nothing left to hunt.
I would also mark a distinction between hunting things like deer and ducks which are used as meat and hunted in numbers that do not do long term damage to the population and hunting tigers and rhinos where human activities are endangering them. One is a sport. The other is poaching.
I don't personally hunt but it is largely due to a lack of time. I plan to get a rifle in the near future because I do enjoy shooting and would like to hunt since it provides good meat and would give me an excuse to spend a great deal of time in nature, which I enjoy.
There are a lot of us that live on plant-based diets anyway, it sounds as if you're saying that resorting to this is the end of the world.
If the treatment of animals and possible extinction is the concern, then you'd probably be more interested in factory farming or the lives of circus / zoo animals or any animal in captivity.
that's why u have to get tags and only on certain times. this allows the animals to repopulate and it keeps them in check so they don't overpopulate.
I absolutely disagree, because hunting is damaging animals lives and killing them, and soon like this it will destroy a cycle one by one, and we will also be involved there.
Now hunting is I bet good, for us because it helps us get food, but we can't do it on a daily basis. Hunting is such a sport that is related to a domino, if you understand it carefully. One bye one all animals will die, and only the herbivores plants will be alive, and after the carnivores die, the herbivores will be alive, and after they are dead, the fishes, and like that every one dies, and we have to go towards plants, and ourselves.
I hunt and I would rather do it than any other sport. this is mostly for those for and against hunting