Animals should be freed from zoos
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2 : Main points and justifications
Round 3: Contradictions
Round 4: Conclusion
If you forfeit then you automatically lose the debate and voters should consider this when voting.
Though I not only believe that animals should be free; they must also be forced to wear shoes..
I give my opponent the floor.
Before animal rights and laws regarding zoo conditions, zoos actively sought out animals to showcase. There was no understanding or appreciation of animals. Zoos were never a prison. Living conditions and social conditions weren't taken into account. The animals weren't necessarily put in zoos because they did something wrong. Zoos were more so and (I will accepts, still are) circuses and fairgrounds. There is still that elements of attraction but we don't actively seek out animals to put in zoos for entertainment. We do it for their safety. The fun aspect of zoos is there purely as a bonus not as a matter of priority.
My argument may be seen as contradicting the Darwinian perspective - survival of the fittest. But I say to this - who says that our intervention is a negative force. Our interventions supports the evolutionary journey so beings have no need to die out.
Many zoos also protect endangered animals. In fact many animals would have become extinct by now. You may decide to contradict this by saying that more species are killed than saved but without zoos then that as I said previously that statistic would be higher without zoos.
The modern zoo is a progressive force for the betterment of all animals.
All good zoos try to recreate an animals natural habitat. Animals will get the care that they need and the animals may not be aware of this but generally there quality of life will be improved and there food supply will also be generally higher. Animals are not being taken to zoos for no reason. They are taken there either because they are injured or are not fit to be out in the wild; because they are being hunted in the area that they are living in or they are on the verge of extinction. Would you rather die or have your family taken away from you (possibly temporarily)? You would also know that your family is safe and that you will be to.
They will be given the right amount of food and the right medication to bring them back up to strength. If they are ready to return to the wild then they are allowed to - unless they are endangered, this is because zoos are trying to keep their species alive.
Now onto the point about shoes...
Giving an animal shoes will present them with an unknown object and may affect their maneuverability. Giving an animal shoes isn't natural and may result in strange behavior from certain animals. Animals are living things. They should not be considered as toys to dress up and make them wear whatever you want - including shoes. Unless you go to some strange shoes shop of are dealing with a strange animal then it is hard to get the exactly right shoes size. If they are too tight it can cause pain and discomfort. If they are too loose they can make the animal uncomfortable and hesitant when moving. They can also slip and fall easily.
Some animals rely on their feet to perform action that help them hunt and escape from predators. The Red panda is a good example...
".... woolly fur on the soles of their feet which helps to keep their feet warm .... "
-As I am sure everyone here is aware of, the moose will be defending the animals rights to live their lives free of useless captivity.
-My opponent states " There is still that elements". This is indeed true, as hydrogen continues to exist to this day. Though my opponent refuses to acknowledge the rights of said molecules to live free from the bondage of our bodies... As we all should know from basic calculus, E=MC^2.
-My opponent continues on to say that "Understanding was limited". I'll say...
When attempting to understand my opponents rambling in paragraph two, I find some contradictory statements in his defense. "The fun aspect of zoos is there". I believe you meant to say... "are". Though, I can forgive my opponent for being so confused during this extravagant topic of debate.
If we are to have equal rights for all then animals must be set free. Imagine an eagle soaring through the heavens takes a stroke.. according to your logic, this animal deserves to be kept in imprisonment for the remainder of its day.. This of course, is false. If such were the case then half of the human populace should be kept in such cages as many people are incapable of supplying for themselves.
-My opponent proceeds to comment on my shoe proposal... "Giving an animal shoes will present them with an unknown object".-- It will be like Christmas for any known 4 year old obtaining their first I-pad, nothing but fun for all!--
Seeing this statement made the cartilage of my tonsils reverberate with despair. Why would one wish to prevent animals from sharing the same commodities that us humans get to experience? Psychopathy comes to mind... A deep rooted hatred for all other species, almost like segregation of species. I ask you audience, is my opponent pro animal segregation? I would hope not.
-Continuing with the shoe rebuttal, my opponent makes the claim that.."Giving an animal shoes isn't natural and may result in strange behavior from certain animals". --This seems to remind of of the times I witnessed humans murdering each other over a pair of "FRESH OG KICKS"down by the local expressions. According to the media it was a justified act of Darwinian survival of the "swag"-liest.--
-"If they are too tight it can cause pain and discomfort. If they are too loose they can make the animal uncomfortable and hesitant when moving. They can also slip and fall easily." --The same can be said of any human who wishes to wear shoes, adaptation of the survivors will breed animals more accepting of their -lacey- fate.--
I would like to point out that my opponent used "yahoo answers" as a source. Please refrain from using such useless pigeon feed, horse sources my feeble minded foe!
Also.... Vote --CON--
The moose has spoken
Any contradictory statements that you found were most likely to be because of a slight confusion. At some points I was talking about the modern zoo and at others I was referring to to what a zoo used to be. That is why you thought that I made a grammatical mistake. It was in fact correct.
According to my logic then the eagle wont be in a zoo unless it is endangered, under threat, seriously injured or has no family to go back to.
Your arguments regarding the shoes is anthropomorphic. Animals cannot experience 'fun'. The reasons that I would want animals not to wear shoes is simply because human experience is very different to the experience of an animal. This is not animal segregation. I am in favor of animal rights. One of the biggest fears in modern society is the fear of the unknown (xenophobia). You say that you are fighting for the rights of animals yet you want to "force" them all to wear shoes. I have quoted the word "force" from your introductory argument. Your arguments would have made more sense if you had been more careful with your word choices.
I don't see how your argument regarding people murdering each other over "FRESH OG KICKS" supports your argument. This actually supports my argument. If humans are killing each other over products then animals are bound to do strange things as a result of wearing shoes too.
The difference between a shoe being too tight, too loose or just right is that the person can tell you. With an animal it cannot tell you. It is true that if it is uncomfortable then it will squeal or let out some form of distress signal but they will probably do this anyway - considering that they have no say in whether they get to wear the shoes or not.
Regarding the Yahoo! source. If you actually checked what I had got from that source then you would have known that I merely used that source to get an ordinary person's opinion. If it had been to retrieve a fact, then it would have been an issue. Yahoo answers is perfectly okay to find a person's opinion because all other pages provide a professional opinion.
You said Vote con at the end. If you had actually checked your position in this debate then you would have realized that I am con.
VOTE CON!!! Even pro agrees with me!
frenchmoosetwo forfeited this round.
I'll continue my conclusion anyway. It is our moral imperative to protect this planet and everything that lives on it. You may think that I am implying that we are superior to other animals however we are the only animals that protect many different animals on such a large scale. If we stop now then who will be there to help them and care for them when they are alone and in a time of need. I don't feel like I need to elaborate on why animals shouldn't wear shoes because con has forfeited and therefore not brought up any new points.
I would like to also point out that since my opponent is indeed an ostrich. This makes any and all arguements from it thoroughly useless.
Resolution = NEGATED
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Berend 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited.
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.