Round 2. Viendin V John Bull 1: Whaling

Debate 4

The topic for this debate is "The international ban on whaling should be lifted."

Viendin will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
John Bull 1 will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count towards the word total.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included as part of the argument in each post. This does not include references, no more than 5 of which can be included at the bottom of each post. Opening and closing statements must not contain any images or links in the argument, and must have no more than 3 references.

As a guide responses should be made within 24 hours, If the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit their replies and possibly the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

[edit on 25-6-2004 by Kano]

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� subject.

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 stable growth.

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.

What no mention of whaling for scientific research ?

I salute you Viendin!

I'm pleased we can ignore this fig leaf of an excuse and concentrate on the human consumption of whale flesh.

I want to raise a few points about your opening statement if I may.

1/ "what would at first seem a 'no-brainer' subject","whaling should remain banned, as it seems to make sense.","I intend to show otherwise, and luckily, despite an impaired position".

My question is do you feel up to this debate? You certainly don't appear to have your heart in the argument.

2/ "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."

Let's get a few things straight right from the start.Japan has the second largest industrial economy in the world.To conjur the image of ten villagers gallantly rowing out to sea with a man holding hand held harpoon standing on the prow and villagers gathering around by torch light as the hunted whale is brought to shore celebrating because the island won't starve for the next month is far from the true situation.These ships are industrial complexes that kill ,process ,and dispose of the carcass and they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build and maintain.

These people don't need to eat whale to survive.

3/ Your seed analogy has quite simply left me confused.Are you saying whales are like plants ?

Whale numbers are nowhere near levels when organised whaling first started and some species are still endangered.

Now,I want to lay out my basic arguments.

1/ The international ban on whaling isn't perfect as some nations still hunt for "scientific research" but it is far better than the free for all that would follow if the ban were to be lifted,which is the position Viendin is supposed to be taking in this debate.

2/ Whales are intelligent mammals from which mankind can learn much.They are not realistic competitors and they have a greater value to mankind than simply lunch.

3/ We don't need to eat whales.Our survival is not dependent on them.Afterall the Japanese,Icelanders,and Canadians have not starved since the ban was put in place.

When I was living and working in Norway I did see whale meat on a menu.Which restaurant ?

McDonalds!

Yes,totally true in Norway I saw a McWhale burger.McDonalds is strange in Bavaria you can buy beer with your Big Mac but in Norway you can have whale with your fries.

I mention this to show readers what would be the consequence of lifting the ban.We are not feeding subsistence islanders.This is about industrial commercial hunting.I don't even like to use the word "hunting" as it is production line stuff perhaps industrial commercial exploitation might best serve.

Short opener for me.Off you go Viendin.

What no mention of whaling for scientific research ?

None yet, thanks for reminding me though. An important aspect. I salute you in return, Semper Fi.

1/ "what would at first seem a 'no-brainer' subject","whaling should remain banned, as it seems to make sense.","I intend to show otherwise, and luckily, despite an impaired position".

My question is do you feel up to this debate? You certainly don't appear to have your heart in the argument.

Any and all the heart that I have is here, and a million times more. Please John, let's try to quote what people actually say, not change 'I do not' to 'I do' with selective wording. If that's what won you the last debate tournament, then it was a sham of a tournament.

3/ Your seed analogy has quite simply left me confused.Are you saying whales are like plants ?

Oh. Sorry. You don't seem to have comprehended my little comparison. I was saying that whales are an important necessity that should be consumed conservatively, and that by overusing them we ruin them, but for the smaller needs we have, they may be used if their use is strictly regulated. I didn't know that Farmer Tucker was too difficult for others to get - was it really?

1/ The international ban on whaling isn't perfect as some nations still hunt for "scientific research" but it is far better than the free for all that would follow if the ban were to be lifted,which is the position Viendin is supposed to be taking in this debate.

Let's review the positions given and our topic.

I, Viendin, am to state that 'The International Ban On Whaling Should Be Lifted.' - with support in a convincing manner.

You, John Bull, are to state that 'The International Ban On Whaling Should Not Be Lifted.' - again with supports to convince.

If I am not mistaken, an 'International Ban On Whaling' is a law or act that prevents whaling anywhere on earth, regardless of the reason. Or, attempts to, we won't get into whether laws are followed well enough. Anyrate, to modify said ban so that whaling was allowed under certain circumstances would mean that it is no longer an 'International Ban On Whaling.' It is now 'A Circumstancial International Ban On Whaling.' - Hence, the 'International Ban' has now been lifted, if you fit the circumstances, it doesn't affect you. I have taken my stance properly, but thanks for the nice tone and overall civility of your post!

All right, from here it can be short and sweet. John, since you didn't want to touch the Scientific side of this, lets take a look.

Every year people break the ban on whaling. They do it for reasons of simple business, they may do it out of hunger, and they may do it for reasons of scientific research. As you said yourself:

2/ Whales are intelligent mammals from which mankind can learn much.They are not realistic competitors and they have a greater value to mankind than simply lunch.

And it's true. They're more than just lunch. To some people they're life. To others, they are valuable scientific specimens. Either way, they aren't humans, and while they could be very smart, the amount we could learn from them, which you pointed out, easily surpasses the amount we value one of their lives. Scientists can try to do live tests as much as possible, but there is a reason Free Willy escapes - it is because holding an animal, injured or healthy, in captivity to run tests for the majority of its life is cruel - crueler than just putting it down and doing what you have to do. It doesn't have to suffer that way.

Scientists can learn a lot about evolution and about DNA structures, as well as a lot about the digestive system, about the respiratory system, the reproductive system, the ocean biome, and the dynamics of all ocean life. A lot of it just because it is so damned much bigger than ours - but they often need to look inside, and rather than perform complicated whale-surgery, they have to kill it, and commonly need more than one in case they've found a fluke whale. If we want to learn about these things, we shouldn't make Scientist's whale catches illegal. We should just give them authorisation to take 2-3 whales every few months. Technically, as I have shown, this would lift the 'International Ban On Whaling'.

760 Words Total. With Title.

Let's review the positions given and our topic.

I, Viendin, am to state that 'The International Ban On Whaling Should Be Lifted.' - with support in a convincing manner.

You, John Bull, are to state that 'The International Ban On Whaling Should Not Be Lifted.' - again with supports to convince.

Let's start by looking at the ban.The ban was put in place in 1986 by IWC (International Whaling Commission) and more correctly it is The International Ban On Commercial Whaling.

This International ban was put in place to protect whale stocks which had been seriously depleted because of industrial style whaling.

But there were important exceptions written into this ban.

One exception was that indigenous peoples who relied on subsistance whaling for survival or as part of their cultural heritage were exempt.

Under current IWC regulations, aboriginal subsistence whaling is permitted for Denmark (Greenland, fin and minke whales), the Russian Federation (Siberia, gray and bowhead whales), St Vincent and The Grenadines (Bequia, humpback whales) and the USA (Alaska, bowhead and gray whales). It is the responsibility of national governments to provide the Commission with evidence of the cultural and subsistence needs of their people. The Scientific Committee provides scientific advice on safe catch limits for such stocks.

www.iwcoffice.org...

As you can see any nation who feels that it has a people with a history or cultural heritage of subsistance whaling can apply for exemption from this commercial whaling ban.

Another exception was to allow whaling for scientific research.This exception was seen as a sensible step back in 1986,however, Japan has used this exception as a loophole to begin commercial whaling.What they do is put a couple of scientists on their whaling ships but then sell the whale products.

This is what I meant when I refered to Scientific Research being used as a moral fig leaf.This is commercial whaling under the guise of science.

Some Scientific Research is legal under the terms of the International Commercial Whaling Ban.

Some thriving smaller whale and porpoise species are also exempt from the International Ban On Commercial Whaling.

I point all this out because the position I must argue is that the International Ban On Commercial Whaling should not be lifted.It is not my position that it should be extended to a complete ban.What the ban exempts is as much part of the ban as what is disallowed.

Now let's take a little time to look at what Products are sold commercial whalers.

As well as meat for human consumption it is also used in petfoods.

Oil can be used to make margerine and cooking oils

Spermaceti can be used to make candles; soap; polish' cosmetic creams' and medical ointments.

Ambergris can be used to make expensive perfumes.

Not one of the above can not be manufactured using alternative products.

Whale numbers have increased but they are nowhere near the levels of even fifty years ago.

Viendin took too long to reply. Post forfeited. Over to you John Bull 1

I thought Viendin had forfeited the debate and so I did post something then I edited it to delete it and so by the rules of the contest I forfeit this post.

Apologies for my presumption.

Alright, sorry John, Sorry Kano, but I do forfeit.

After your last post, I felt that this debate was unwinnable, I still think that, because my point has to be that more whales die for human consumption - something I am completely opposed to. If it were either of the exceptions I had earlier pointed out, which have in fact been made, then I was fine, but as it is I see my stance as being equal to an attempt at proving the use of children as a food product, or proving that everyone should commit suicide tomorrow - It seems useless.

I had planned to continue, but, well, then I worked moving 4200 lbs of dry wall down a flight of stairs with my brother in law, and fell asleep until I went to work the next day, after I got home from work I was over to one friend's house, and after that I was straight over to another friend's for a birthday party, at which I currently attend. I will be home late tommorow, plan on resting Friday, have work Saturday, resting sunday, and I am in a different town with other friends Monday-Friday. So I'm relatively booked - that in addition to my not wanting to win this argument, has forced me into a situation where I shall forfeit. If, after I do this, and you are declared the winner, either Kano or John Bull 1 could mail me or post the type of position available where I didn't have to kill more whales for money and could have won this debate, I'd like to see it. I really am stumped on that, and I'm truly sorry. Good luck in Round 3, John Bull 1. I do reccomend that you attempt a more civil style of debate though, your first post had me contemptful - at such terrible and pointless devices as selectively choosing 27 out of 101 words.. Anyrate, yet again I apologise - Good luck in the future, I will likely participate in our next debate tournament, but for the time being I am busy and uninterested in devoting so much of my life to something this small.

Sorry Again, Viendin.

Ok, Viendin forfeits. John Bull 1 passes on to round 3.