The Instigator
Balacafa
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
18Karl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Animals should be freed from zoos

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Balacafa
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/31/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 79218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Balacafa

Con

I have done this debate twice now but my opponent has either forfeited or provided a very weak argument each time. This time I am making it so that only a debater ranked better than me (in terms of elo and win ratio). This will ensure that I can debate this topic properly.

As Con I will be arguing that animals should be kept in zoos. Therefore, Pro will be arguing that animals should be freed from zoos and returned to their natural habitat.

The debate structure is as follows,

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Main points and justifications (no rebuttals)

Round 3: Conclusion and rebuttals

Definitions:

Animals: a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Freed: release.

Zoo:
an establishment which maintains a collection of wild animals, used to protect animals in need of protection.


Rules

No trolling

No forfeiture

Swearing or use of inapproriate language is no allowed

Failure to abide by the rules results in an automatic win for the opposing side.

Sources

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...

https://www.google.co.uk...
18Karl

Pro

bring on the arguments m8
Debate Round No. 1
Balacafa

Con

First we need to establish in our understanding of what exactly a zoo is. But first let us start with what a zoo was. A zoo was a place where animals were showcased for people's entertainment and amusement. Conditions were appalling. Understanding was limited and lets not get started on the rights of animals.... but that was then. Now zoos are for conservation and protection for the rights of animals. Many zoos and zoological societies petition against governments who don't protect and enforce protection legislation over animals.

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.

As well as this it is also important to consider the consequences of sending animals back to the wild. If an animal is born and raised in a zoo then it is not used to hunting out in the wild. Do you think an adult lion that has been raised in a zoo since birth will know how to hunt and survive in the wild? The answer is simply, no.

I look forward to reading my opponents main arguments and rebuttals.
Sources

http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
18Karl

Pro

18Karl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Balacafa

Con

Vote Con!
18Karl

Pro

18Karl forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
If anyone else wants to challenge me to this debate or a similar debate to this then feel free to do so.
Posted by Lovetheworld4real 1 year ago
Lovetheworld4real
Aerosr71, why would you put an animal in a national park if that's not its natural habitat. It would become an invasive species
Posted by Lovetheworld4real 1 year ago
Lovetheworld4real
I would join if I was the right level
Posted by Lovetheworld4real 1 year ago
Lovetheworld4real
Ok, animals can be thoroughly trained for release into their wild environment. This has happened with dolphins and orcas and is quite possible. Animals should be freed into the wild because they were not made for cages. They can go mad or become irritable or hostile. Animals in zoos have proven in some cases to be more openly hostile towards humans. Orcas have a gentle record towards humans in the wild but have caused many deaths in captivity. Apes have become mad and show very unhealthy activities they would probably not undergo in the wild. Captivity is not healthy overall because of lack of space and realistic diets. Sometimes the animals fight each other with fatal results. Seeing as release is an option for these poor creatures, and a good one at that, I side with animals being freed from zoos.
Posted by TubOLard 1 year ago
TubOLard
Healthy animals that are not in danger of disappearing should not be in zoos. If you want to see them, then go to their environment. They are not there behind a cage for your amusement. The worst is the bird cages, where space is very limited.
Posted by hellywon 1 year ago
hellywon
One question about your definition of freed:
You have defined it as release. But where? In the city? To the environment? I think you should define it much more in depth, I presume your definition is a little bit to broad.
Posted by hellywon 1 year ago
hellywon
I would have happily accepted if I was not already in 3 debates currently! :(
Posted by aerosr71 1 year ago
aerosr71
The pro definition overly narrows the arguments against animals in a zoo. There are other alternatives to a zoo than the animal's natural habitat. National parks and protected areas are two examples. They do not maintain a collection of wild animals, but they do make available a protected zone for animals to live.
Posted by mostlogical 1 year ago
mostlogical
Apparently we need zoos to save species going extinct, 41,415 species are on the IUCN Red List, and 16,306 of them are endangered species threatened with extinction, and the figure is rising by ~ 200 per year.

If we keep species in zoos every time their numbers dwindle eventually there won't be any mammals living in the wild because they will all be in zoos. People will then be feeding animals they don't want to eat.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i think they problem is lack of free space for the animals and the animals should always have a choice to not be seen
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Unbelievable.Time 1 year ago
Unbelievable.Time
Balacafa18Karl
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by darthebearnc 1 year ago
darthebearnc
Balacafa18Karl
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
Balacafa18Karl
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture and lack of arguments by Pro.