This is very much a debate that a bolt action rifle in a .30 battle rifle type caliber is inherently superior to a self loading intermediate caliber rifle. Which is actually a class warfare discussion, my ethics and choice of weapon are better than yours. And it can be demonstrated to be complete BS.
This is something that came up years ago, in the marketing of bolt actions, as a method of undercutting the arguments that bolt guns ought to be a lot cheaper, considering the simple construction and uncomplicated machining. Their dynamic operation isn't even a major engineering problem, no gas cycles to time or heat resistant materials to bother with.
Always picture the bolt gun user with expensive accoutrements in an ethically pure, untainted situation, and all is right with the world. Don't forget, offer a major caliber, to boot. How uncomplicated.
This elitist notion of gun use wasn't something much shared by our forebears, IIRC many of them chose to use technically superior guns whenever the opportunity arose. It was largely the impact of declining game populations that created a sense that large volumes of fire weren't going to happen anymore, sell the single shot guns and great white hunter lifestyle.
Which isn't what a hog hunter in Texas would find helpful dispatching a herd in his fields, trampling down hundreds of dollars in crops every hour.
There's the crux - bolt gunner A declares himself righteously equipped to ethically dispatch his trophy buck in fair chase on one hand, and self loader AR shooter B categorically states no less than a 20 round magazine will do thinning a pest damaging crops.
The very obvious point is that properly used, the AR will do just fine on deer, too, but in the target rich environment of pest control, the bolt gunner is outclassed by the working mans friend. That inversion is what rankles so many bolt gunners so much.
Hence, all the justification in one shot, one kill, when experience tells us that isn't the most likely shot hunting. Very often - even with an ostensibly good shot - the game isn't anchored at all, just the same as in combat. Soldiers shot more than once with major caliber weapons don't go down, and fight on, to actually win.
Since there can be no predictable result of bullet impact - regardless of the thousands of dollars spent in live animal research done every year - what hunters should be doing is providing the best gun for the worst situation. THAT's ethical, not hampering themselves with a deliberately obtuse firearm that has less capability to provide followup shots for when they will absolutely be needed.
It's not something the Great White Hunter wants to consider, sipping brandy after supper with his cohorts while smoking cigars in the library. The concept he might simply screw up is anathema to his ego. Bad luck, old chap.
The disgust they exhibit toward selfloading firearms is a defense of socio-economic status - and their arguments are phrased to support inherent moral superiority. The simple fact is that bolt guns were proven completely insufficient by the constant challenges of actual mortal combat - something else they shy away from in this age of the volunteer Army.
No, I'm not wrong - steering this conversation into the brambles of English grammar is exactly the example to point out, an exercise in "My use is more upperclass than yours therefore I am superior to you." What usually goes along with that is a reticence to acknowledge the game that got away, because they were cranking an modern adaption of a curio and relic, rather than squeezing the trigger on game in their sights. People who consider themselves better than others don't admit to mistakes unless the Twitter photo is put out there for all to see.
All just a contest to see who measures up using a different yard stick. Nothing smaller could possibly be considered.
Odds are that I'll use my AR for night-time varmint hunting, once the night-vision scope is on it. Daytime? Whatever floats my boat at any given moment. 
