Write three pros and three cons about the argumentative topic, "The hunting of animals is a barbaric practice."
To answer this question, you will want to define "barbaric." You may decide to use the definition of "savagely cruel" or "exceedingly brutal." Now think about the topic from two perspectives. Those who believe hunting is barbaric or cruel may look at the issue from the perspective of the animals and may take a more emotional point of view. Those who don't think it's barbaric may take a more human-centered perspective and may try to be less emotional.
For example, someone who thinks hunting is barbaric may point out that young animals may be deprived of their mothers—this is a theme many people know of from movies like Bambi. Another cruel aspect of hunting is that often an animal is wounded but doesn't die immediately, leading to prolonged suffering for the animal. Those who find hunting barbaric may believe that it is cruel to gain pleasure from killing a beautiful living thing when you don't need to. Few people in America need to hunt for their food because farm-raised meats are so readily available in stores.
Those who believe hunting is not cruel often point to the fact that hunting eliminates overpopulation of species. In some areas, population of deer and other game animals would increase to the point of causing starvation and disease among the wild animals if hunters weren't allowed to decrease the population. Not only that, but overpopulation of these animals creates a nuisance and danger for humans, as they ravage yards and cause auto accidents. Those in favor of hunting may point out that predators are a part of the natural cycle of life. Animals in the wild are killed by their predators. In many cases a gunshot can be a more humane way of killing an animal than an attack by other animals. Wild game is often a more healthful meat, so it benefits the people who consume it, which is better than the animals being lost to starvation and disease.
The topic can be argued from both sides.