Dear Editor,
When is a debate not a debate? When one side of the debate seeks to bully and intimidate the other side into submission.

This was certainly the case at last week's NUIG Inter-Societies Debating Forum when many of those supporting the motion for the debate 'That This House Would Ban Hunting' were laughed at and ridiculed by the opposing faction.

This debate may have been an academic exercise for the students of the Inter-Societies Debating Forum, but their organisers were visibly shocked at the levels of aggression they had to contend with from the pro-hunting lobby, and for this their chairperson, who did his best to keep order throughout, should be congratulated.

The pro-hunting lobby, having been bussed in from the four corners of Ireland to support their cause, grossly outnumbered the anti-hunters. This is, of course, not the fault of the hunters, but it does indicate their determination to fight their corner.

Poll after poll reveals that 80 per cent of the Irish population stand firmly against hunting of all species as a sport. It is a great pity that this 80 per cent did not bother to turn up to this debate, perhaps believing that the debate was an 'open and shut' case for the anti-hunters.

At no point throughout the evening was the pro-hunting lobby able to produce one piece of accurate factual evidence to support its argument that hunting is the optimum method of population control.

One of the two main pro-hunting platform speakers admitted that he had no idea how many foxes are in Ireland, yet he and every supporting speaker vowed that hunting was necessary to keep down numbers. This illogical admission was shortly followed by a figure of €280 million being quoted as hunting's contribution to the Irish economy. On questioning, the same speaker could not stand over this figure or enlighten the audience on how it had been calculated.

Illogical, irrelevant arguments were cast around like confetti, with the real issue of the debate being carefully air-brushed out; this being that hunters hunt for the thrill of the chase and the buzz they get from terrorising outnumbered animals, be those animals wild foxes or tame deer.

Anti-hunters had to endure the usual catalogue of clichés such as: urban v rural (only 'townies' are anti-hunting and pro-hunters are the real guardians of the countryside), as well as: foxes enjoy the run and mostly outrun their predators. If this is the case, then how could fox hunting possibly be a viable method of population control?