Animals should NOT be kept in zoos,
Debate Rounds (3)
An African man was put in a cage at a zoo because he was black and people believed he was close to being a monkey rather than a human, people than found that wrong. Even though he was fed well and he could move around people understood what he was saying and how he felt because he was their own species he was still human.
Eventually people protested for his right to be set free.
We cant have conversations with lions and elephants etc. We don't know what their saying. We don't know how they feel. I bet they would feel like how that man felt in the cage. We have no right to take animals away from their families for our own entertainment. Your not seeing the true king of the jungle when he's stuck behind a glass wall or in a cage.
In conclusion animals should NOT be kept in zoos.
Thank you and good luck.
My opponent begun the first round with an argument so I am led to assume first round is for not reserved for acceptance. I will therefore begin my cross immediately
My opponent has taken the stance that the only animals that should be held in the captivity of zoos are animals that are unhealthy or injured.
This would create a problem for the company running the zoo. Were a zoo to only showcase injured specimen, then that would likely reduce traffic to the park.
A wildlife refuge like a zoo is created with the purpose of entertainment. It does so by displaying various wildlife in a contained, safe environment. The workforce required to run such a business can be quite large and creates a number of jobs
One of the above studies accredits zoo-related jobs to employ over 140,000. Most say that the point of visiting a wildlife refuge is to experience the enjoyment of observing the various species of animals that inhabit our world. Now, imagine if the majority of these animals were released into the wild.
A few negative things will happen.
First off, the number of specimens in captivity at the zoo will decrease for certain. It would logically follow, that traffic and therefore business to these parks will take a plummet, likely causing some zoos to close down. This creates an issue as the majority of the 140,000 will now be out of work. Sure, there will still be some parks, but honestly how far can a company go relying on injured animals as their only source of revenue?
Next my opponent brings up a moral argument about an African man who was captured and put on display in a zoo. Besides the fact that we cannot be sure that this story is factual (no source was provided) there is a fundamental difference between putting humans in captivity and putting other organisms in captivity.
The first being the intellectual capacity of human beings. We, as humans have an amazing ability to feel various emotions and ration out a situation. The same cannot be said for animals.
The main issue with entrapping humans is you're denying that human 2 things:
The ability to experience freedom
The ability to be intellectually stimulated.
As humans, we desire these abilities with a great passion. However, that desire is not inherent amoung all organisms. For example, there is little evidence that points to a mammal other than humans becoming bored. While there are exceptions like polar bears, they only show minor signs that may be tied to boredom. Humans developed boredom as an evolutionary trait. It was a means of stimulating ourselves to do something productive, to help our species.
Other than our own desires, we cannot assume animals share the same ideals as humans. While we are still unsure of the intellectual power of other mammals, we can safely say that they aren't sitting there pondering the benefits of freedom and embracing the desire to make choices. These are simply humans tacking our own emotions onto other animals who don't share them.
So, in conclusion I'm trying to demonstrate that captivity of animals in zoos is not making the life of said animals any worse. We as humans simply make it out to be that way because we assume all other life forms operate like we do.
Mostly everything I needed to address was brought up in my cross however there is another point I'd like to make.
There are many reasons other than amusement that animals are captured and stored in zoos. Not all of them are morally incorrect either.
For one, there are thousands of endangered species kept in zoos for protection. Our human-based world has become fairly hostile for animals to freely roam about. So zoos are a way to protect various species from outright extinction.
Second, wildlife parks are the only habitat left for a lot of species. Us humans take over land like it's going out of style and leave many other animals searching for a place to thrive. That place may not even exist anymore. So releasing those animals would likely lead to their demise. Which is fun for nobody.
III. Closing remarks
So my main points are as follows:
1. Releasing animals would put thousands out of jobs
2. Holding most species in captivity doesn't hurt the species in any mental way
3. Zoos are supporting animals that can no longer survive in our modern world
With that, I pass it back to Pro.
sahaam forfeited this round.
-sigh- All arguments extended.
sahaam forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NiamC 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.