The Instigator
GeorgiaAshley
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
toolpot462
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 6 votes the winner is...
toolpot462
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,109 times Debate No: 27638
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

GeorgiaAshley

Pro

It IS cruel to keep animals in zoos.
I have several arguments that I would like to make my opponent aware of.

I would like to thank my opponent in advance.
Good luck :)
toolpot462

Con

I'll take it this round should be purely for acceptance, and allow you to start with your case.
Debate Round No. 1
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Thank you.

Migration, natural migration, something than can clearly not take place in zoos.
Argue that.
toolpot462

Con

"Migration, natural migration, something than can clearly not take place in zoos.
Argue that."

My opponent is correct, natural migration cannot take place for animals within zoos. How this is an example of cruelty taking place, however, I cannot see.

Google defines cruel as such:

1. Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.
2. Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal.

Though I may not live inside the mind of an animal within a zoo, I can only reason that such inhibitions of instictual nature do not cause pain or suffering. An inhibition of natural behavior is not necessarily a cause of suffering; for instance, it isn't instictually natural for humans to cover themselves with clothing.

I would challenge my opponent to bring to light any pain or suffering within zoos that is necessarily a result of keeping them there, as opposed to their natural habitats.
Debate Round No. 2
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

Maybe you are right and not allowing natural migration to take place is not cruel. Yes, but it is unnatural and not the way it should be. Animals need to migrate, whether it be in need of a temperature change, to find food in a place more abundant or for mating reasons.

Take the elephant it migrates to find food during the wet and dry seasons.
But this cannot take place in a zoo, where the animal is restrained to an area, where it stands all day entertaining people.
So I think I won this particular argument about migration... Would you not agree?

A point that you might of thought to bring up is scientists.
Scientists are common visitors at zoos, they come, they poke, they prod, they drug, they examine, they take notes and leave.
Have you ever put yourself into a animals shoes and imagined what the constant testing and examining must be like?
Think about how it feels to always being watched or studying, never left alone.
Scientists can bugger off and test animals else where, in the wild, where the animals are behaving naturally.

And yet another point would be the natural habitat.
Try as they might, zoo's never get the habitat for the animals quite right.
The rocks barricading the animals in are almost always fake and the greenery scattered throughout the area often is useless to the animals, true they try hard to simulate the animals habitat in the wild but it is never right, maybe the greenery and shrubbery in it changes, the fact that they can never get out doesn't.

Animals in zoo have no freedom.
They are trapped inside a world of photographers, people, scientists, cages and zookeepers.
toolpot462

Con

Well, how sad. I don't agree that any of this is a cause of suffering. These animals are well fed, well taken care of, and typically have good company, be it their own brethrin, or the people that take care of them, depending on the animal. These animals suffer necessarily less than the average house pet, what with abuse being easier to get away with in such situations. I'm sure you've heard of animal hoarders.

Your argument regarding migration seems to be nothing more than, "migration, so there." You've given no reason for me to believe such conditions cause suffering. Zoo keepers must have the resources to provide comfortable environments for the animals. Sure, they are largely synthetic, but this doesn't necessarily cause pain.

Take the elephant in a zoo. It doesn't need to migrate in search of food. It gets all of the food it needs.

It's true that they have no freedom, or very little, at that. They are constantly watched and enclosed. This would surely be a miserable environment - for a human. Animals, however, don't share the human sense of shame. They don't look out at the world with longing for a better life. Quite the opposite, they accept what they have; they can be content in such environments, unlike most humans.
Debate Round No. 3
GeorgiaAshley

Pro

You clearly don't really understand the context of what you are saying.
Because if you didn't you wouldn't keep repeating the same thing over and over again...

What I don't understand is why we can't just have Wildlife parks, safari parks and so on...
Anything that can let us look and observe the animals in their NATURAL habitat without disturbing them.
Who are we to say that we are superior to animals and that they are inferior beings to the human race.
That statement is flawed beyond measure.
Who is it that carries people to safety when tsunamis hit? Elephants.
Who is it that helps us find bodies after earthquakes? Dogs.
Who is it that helps us find drugs at the airport? Dogs.
Who is it that has carried man for years? Horses.
Who is it that carts people around in the desert? Camels.
The list goes on, these are just a few examples of how animals have helped the human race all these years...

How does this tie in with our debate?
Why should we be treating animals the way we do after all they have done and are doing for us?
toolpot462

Con

Oh, I'm sorry, do you want to change the subject of the debate?

No.

You have utterly failed so far to provide any example of suffering or cruelty necessarily caused by zoos. Factory farms are cruel. The production of animals as comodities is cruel. Keeping some animals as pets or companions is simply not necessarily cruel, and this applies in the household and in zoos.

Do not assume that I don't care about animals because I disagree that zoos are cruel. As long as the animals are taken care of and treated well, there is no suffering. I never made the claim humans are better. I don't believe it, either. All I said was that other animals are different from us.

As for your last question, why should we take advantage of animals in such ways as riding them? Isn't that cruel? It would certainly be cruel to keep humans to ride around on. Horses and camels don't suffer from it, though, maybe unless one hits them to get them going, which I don't approve of.

If you think it's cruel to keep animals in zoos, you should also think it cruel to keep them as pets, use them or otherwise interfere with their natural behavior in any way. Do you?
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
GeorgiaAshleytoolpot462Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter TMR
Vote Placed by SeniorIntelligentDebator 4 years ago
SeniorIntelligentDebator
GeorgiaAshleytoolpot462Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I disagreed with this statement from the beginning, but I ranked the third, fourth and fifth questions as a tie.
Vote Placed by The_Master_Riddler 4 years ago
The_Master_Riddler
GeorgiaAshleytoolpot462Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Who carries humans to safety when tsunamis hit? Boats. There are no sources so.....
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
GeorgiaAshleytoolpot462Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seems to have committed the naturalistic fallacy, and didn't really recover from it. Pro also tried to change the subject. Lost arguments and conduct. No vote for sources or SAG.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
GeorgiaAshleytoolpot462Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's arguments focused mostly on the fact that zoo's are not natural for animals, however the debate was over whether or not it is cruel to keep animals in zoos, and pro wasnt able to meet his burden of proof to prove that it is cruel to keep animals in zoos, only that its unnatural. Con showed that there is a differecne between cruel and unnatural successfully and that was enough to win the debate. I give arguments to the con, sources werent used by either side so I left that at a tie, as with grammar and conduct.......... Not a very good debate, I give it 1 out of 4 stars
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
GeorgiaAshleytoolpot462Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO agrees that inhibiting migration is not cruel. CON adequately argues that scientists are not cruel but actually beneficial to animals in zoos. CON also adequately argues that freedom (natural habitat) is irrelevant to the life of an animal. PRO's round #3 arguments have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Bottom line, zoos are not cruel to animals, good job CON.