Write 3 pros and 3 cons of your own about the argumentative topic "The hunting of animals is a barbaric practice." Write 3 pros and 3 cons of your own about the argumentative topic "The hunting...

Write 3 pros and 3 cons of your own about the argumentative topic "The hunting of animals is a barbaric practice." 

Write 3 pros and 3 cons of your own about the argumentative topic "The hunting of animals is a barbaric practice."

 

Asked on by sajib

4 Answers | Add Yours

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

You have some good ideas here. I was thinking about how to organize this essay. I suggest you talk about each one separately, so that you don't fall into the trap of trying to compare and contrast the six issues. If this is preparation for a debate, that won't matter.
pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

Hunting is not barbaric.  Let me give three reasons why this is the case:

  • Animals are not human beings.  We kill animals for food -- unless a person is vegan, they are complicit in this process.  When we do this, we acknowledge that animals do not have the same rights and feelings that we do.  Therefore, hunting them (as long as it is done humanely) is not barbaric.
  • Hunting is not the one-sided thing people think it is.  It is not that easy to go out and find the animal and then get close enough to kill it.  It is a challenging endeavor -- not like going out and shooting an animal in a zoo.
  • Animals in the wild tend to get killed in ways that are way worse than being shot.  They starve in the winter (not all, but some).  They are hit by cars.  They are torn to pieces by predators.  So what's so bad about being shot?
auntlori's profile pic

Lori Steinbach | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

An argument or persuasive essay can best be characterized as taking one side on a position and supporting it with evidence after giving a concession to the opposing view.  In this case, it appears as if your teacher wants you to be prepared to argue either side of this issue.  In the end, you are the one who must decide which arguments on either side are most important.  What I can do is offer some ideas for you to reflect on and add to based on your own views about whether or not hunting is, indeed, a "barbaric practice."

Hunting is a barbaric practice:

  • Animals are capable of feeling pain and often suffer when they are shot or trapped
  • Hunting for sport is wasteful and cruel
  • Hunting has caused virtual or actual extinction of some species of animals
  • Excessive and uncontrolled hunting can disrupt the ecosystem, causing all kinds of terrible ripple effects.

Hunting is not a barbaric practice:

  • Animals are not human beings and are generally to be consumed by humans
  • Overpopulation of any animal in environments disrupted by human habitation must be curtailed for betterment of both animals and humans
  • Skilled hunters can kill animals virtually painlessly
  • An imbalance in the ecosystem can be corrected by enhancing hunting practices
  • Hunting provides food.

This isn't, by any means, a definitive list; and not all of these arguments can be tied directly to the idea of barbaric.  This list doesn't include such things as the hypocrisy of those who abhor hunting yet eat meat from cattle or hogs slaughtered just as cruelly (if not more so) by meat-packing plants. 

If you're still struggling, I'd suggest taking a look at both the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and NRA (National Rifle Association) sites--which I've included links to, below-- to see what else each site has to say about hunting and whether or not it's a barbaric practice.

 

 

krishna-agrawala's profile pic

krishna-agrawala | College Teacher | (Level 3) Valedictorian

Posted on

Hunting of animals for fun rather than for food is very much an activity closely associated with development of human civilization. Thus it is definitely a civilised practice rather than a barbaric practice.

It is worthwhile noting that no animals, other than humans, kill for fun or pleasure. In prehistoric time the the people we call uncivilized or absolute barbarians, also hunted only for food. As a matter of fact for those prehistoric barbarians, the task of hunting for food also was so difficult that they hardly managed to survive on the food they could get by gathering or hunting. They had no time or energy available for leisure like hunting for pleasure. But as humans become more civilized, they had much more time and resources to indulge more and more of what is described as leisure or sports activities. Hunting was one such activities.

Initially increase in practice of hunting kept pace with development of civilization. Unfortunately for the civilized enthusiasts of hunting, they stated to run out of one essential resource required for hunting - the animals to be hunted. Hunting resulted in extinction of many species of animals. and the population of all the other hunted animals dwindled to dangerously low levels. This is when hunting began to acquire the reputation of being a barbaric activities. However it is important to not that even now what ever hunting goes on is mostly carried out by the elite of society. Ordinary people usually find it beyond their means to engage in hunting.

Ordinary civilized people these days have to satisfy their taste for brutality and violence by other means such as watching sports like boxing, movies full of violence.

So hunting for sports and other forms sports and leisure activities dependent on brutality and violence has always been and continues to be very much civilized, rather than a barbaric, activities.

We’ve answered 318,926 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question