brandon.apasta (PRO)
The above illustration is the quote that is used in the affirmation opening statement, this is purely for evidence reasoning only.
The whole document on this opening statement/acceptance is on the following link; javascript:nicTemp(); but may also be viewed on this argument.
Initially, the outline and formatting of the affirmation side of this debate should be understood beforehand. The affirmation will follow the following basic outline for all 4 rounds of the debate, during the debate, there will also be cross-examination periods, dispute, clarification, and supporting periods during each round, but the basic outline is as follows:
- Opening Statement/Acceptance
- Affirmation Constructive Speech
- Rebuttal Speech
- Closing Statement
Therefore, the affirmation will start this debate with an opening statement and acceptance of the debate.
The affirmation position clearly defends the resolution “Poachers who kill endangered animals should be tried for murder”. Anthony Douglas Williams once stated, “I do not connect, at any level, with anyone who hunts animals for sport”. This shows that the ultimate killing of animals is incorrect and should not be allowed in this great country of the United States of America. Poachers are people who simply hunt for entertainment and as stated above, “for sport” which proves to be ineffective, it is just the waste of an animal's life that this hunter goes through for satisfaction. This is completely incorrect, and many of these acts are committed on endangered animals, which is completely incorrect. Some people may believe that these poachers should not be tried for murder, such as the negation side, but why would these animals not deserve the rights that we bestow on people? After all, humans are animals, either way, all animals including humanity breathe and live continuously and these poachers are continuously disrupting their environment. If any dangerous animal were to step into our environment, we would simply be attacked, then why do we need to attack them persistently when these animals have done nothing in harm to humanity. These endangered animals are endangered due to our society which seems to care about just humans, and not the real animals that deserve the same right to life that we do. Take the Boston Massacre, for example, one may see it as incorrect, violent, and not right for all the humans in this horrible incident that died deserved rights, and any death happening nowadays, would be blamed for murder. What we are doing to animals as humanity expands is also completely incorrect, it is a massacre towards specific animals that are endangered that deserve the right to life, and if someone were to kill this animal, then they should be convicted of murder. The affirmation will provide 4 contentions to support their argument. Firstly, all must understand how these endangered species were created under the influence of humanity's cruelty towards these animals. Secondly, all must understand the true duty that all humanity holds to protect these animals for they are part of the world as well. Thirdly, all must understand how the conviction of murder falls towards these animals rights to live. And finally, all must understand how the connection between humanity and nature is alike. Therefore, the framework in this debate is whoever does a better job of protecting the societal beings of nature and creates an ultimate understanding of peace and rights, shall win this debate.
The affirmation side truly and dearly accepts this debate and it’s arguments, opponent, and outcome. This side will fight hard and truly, but respect the opponents on the negation side as well.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-21 02:54:13
| Speak Round
Random Stranger (CON)I would like to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate, on account of the fact that there was little time remaining to join, and there will little time to post. I plan on adhering to to pro's outline of the debate as close as possible.
So without any more delay, my opening statement:
It truly is a shame that human beings have the lack of conscience to break the law and kill animals in danger of extinction, especially species at have low numbers as a result of human behavior.
With this being said, suggesting that poachers[1] should be tried for murder[2] is a dangerous path to traverse. Placing animals on the same level as humans is a radical idea that would have serious negative effects. Certainly, as a Christian, I believe that humans are superior to animals. We are made in God's image, whereas animals are not. There are also secular reasons for this. Humans have aspirations, goals, and plans. Animals have the sole purpose of reproducing. The life of a single human has a profound effect on the life of other people, while animals tend to be fairly independent, and couldn't care less if a fellow creature died.
Animals kill animals for food, as well as people kill animals for food. Should we hold animals accountable for "murdering" to survive? Humans own pets; however, by the logic of equal rights for animals, we shouldn't have pets because we would violate their "right" to be free.
As history has shown, animals without predators can overpopulate and destroy the species' ecosystem, or even the species itself. Legal hunting helps stop this. Hunters will also often step up to help save populations that they have damaged by hunting.[3] Because hunting is proven to have conservation benefits for overpopulating animals, the only reason it should be outlawed against endangered animals is to prevent them from going extinct, not because they deserve equal treatment as humans. Therefore, poachers, as despicable as they are, should not be tried for murder.
Sorry, this was a bit rushed.
1: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poacher
2: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
3: http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/25ReasonsWhyHuntingIsConservation.aspx
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-10-25 01:12:10
| Speak Round
Look in cross examination if you have time.Posted 2016-10-25 22:53:05
Currently, we are in cross-examination, so I believe I m fine right now. If anything arises I will be sure to inform you. Thank you for the generosity!Posted 2016-10-25 01:47:55
I'll take any time extension you want. I see you are in a couple of other debates, and you only get 24 hours to post on this one. Posted 2016-10-25 01:45:11
Nevermind its finePosted 2016-10-21 05:36:05
Of course, I understand. If you want I could postpone this debate for later. What do you think?Posted 2016-10-21 05:35:22
@Brandon Acosta Sorry, a situation that just arose will prevent me from being able to post for about 2 days.