posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 03:17 AM
Good Day to Kano, the Honourable Judging team, former champ John Bull 1, fellow competitors, and any miscellaneous debate viewers.
Today we debate on what would at first seem a 'no-brainer' subject. Many feel that whaling should remain banned, as it seems to make sense. “Don't
kill whales; they're already jeopardized!” - right? Well, I intend to show otherwise, and luckily, despite an impaired position, I am opportuned in
that I simply have to show that the extreme need not be retained indefinitely. My worthy opponent, John Bull 1, has to show that the extreme should be
retained completely, unchanged. As you may be beginning to think - John Bull may in truth be disadvantaged by stance on this ‘not-so-no-brainer’
Beginning, whaling is very important to some people; important as their livelihood, and even their lives. I’d like to direct everyone's attention to
Japan. Japan is comprised of thousands of islands. Some of these islands have nil contact with the outside world, and rely entirely upon
fisheries for food and income in their locality. Traditionally, they would net fish and hunt whales, but fish don't number highly enough to be a
complete source of food and income - whales, for their different catching methods and their larger size, do. These Japanese towns once relied on their
ability to catch whales; they did for hundreds, even thousands of years. These people have been driven under, occasionally abandoning their islands to
join the overpopulated main islands of Japan - it simply wasn't feasible for them to live without whaling.
I propose that we lift the international ban on whaling, allowing a small number of areas small quotas for operations, small enough for whales to
thrive, but large enough for villages to survive. Remote communities in Japan may not be the only regions these exceptions should be allowed, either.
Through the debate, regions in Japan, Northern North America, and Northern Europe will be viewed, evaluated, and shown to be in need of their absent
whaling industry. I intend to show that the whale and the human can coexist - with whales available as a food source to those who need them. Whaling
needn't become everyone’s and their friends’ hobby, and shouldn't be allowed everywhere, but certain exceptions to the ban are necessary, this I
intend to prove.
I leave you now with this analogy. Farmer Tucker owns a special plant. It tastes marvelous, and you can cut it with dull objects. It is immediately
edible and delicious, not to mention filling and nutritious. He discovered the plant one day, and, using his knowledge of farming and gardening,
figured out a way to conserve and use the plant with his family. Every day they would cut off an inch-thick slice from the plant, and over the passing
night, the plant would grow back, and grow a bit extra. For almost a decade, Farmer Tucker and his family used the plant as a source of food, and in
times he would fall back on the plant as a means of life. Twice, the plant saved his family and even his farm, it was truly a miracle. One day, Farmer
Tucker’s friend, Steve, noticed the plant, and inquired about it. Tucker told Steve about the plant, and agreed to let Steve have half his share, but
once Steve and his family knew, news traveled. Soon others arrived and began to use the plant unsparingly, against Tucker’s directions. Tucker had to
stop this, so he went to the police – they agreed that this was theft, so they would guard the plant, but they decided that as repayment, no one
should be able to use the plant. Tucker protested this, but the law had been laid down. Eventually, Tucker’s family hit hard times. Terrible weather
left them cropless, and they were without a fallback plant. Tucker’s family was almost at its end, they would soon have to sell things vital to their
lives just to eat. Tucker took this to the police, and upon review, they decided that he alone would be allowed to cut from the plant, under strict
guard. Farmer Tucker then cut from his plant and fed his family, they pulled through and kept their vital possessions. The plant has since maintained
Do you think that was the right thing to do? Should Tucker and his family have been forced to do otherwise, just for the tree’s benefit? Or should
they have been allowed access to the tree? While being an obvious miniaturization analogy, it is a true one, what would be right, allowing the
measured and slow consumption of whales allowing for growth, or forcing the affected people to suffer and die needlessly? You, the judge, the debater,
the reader, the Kano, decide.
800 Words, I pass to you, Sir Bull.