The Instigator
BriarMarie
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
GeorgiaAshley
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
GeorgiaAshley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,694 times Debate No: 27828
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

BriarMarie

Pro

Animals are taken away from their natural habitat and placed in an enclosure, in a zoo, which is continually crowded with visitors, and noisy. Several arguments to come
GeorgiaAshley

Con

I accept.

Pro has proposed a rather interesting argument.
Pro states that it is cruel to keep animals in zoos.
I disagree wholeheartedly.

Firstly I would like to surface the rather grueling fact of extinction.
Many animals kept in zoos are in there to preserve their particular race, when an animal(bird) etc, etc is kept in a safe, clean environment it is more likely to thrive than in the wild. Which means that in some cases, zoos are actually helping species regain their ability to carry on breeding and making bigger their race.

A common argument to this is that animals can breed freely in the wild without becoming extinct. This is wrong because under the current influence of man this actually is not possible for some species, eg elephants, could become extinct as they are wanted for many things, skins, tusks and so on. Another example would be tuatara,s if it weren't for zoos and recreational parks we wouldn't ever be able to see them.

Secondly i would like to bring up the matter of the public.
when are the general public ever going to be able to see animals like giraffes and zebras,anywhere other than zoos? A family trip to the zoo is always one to be remembered, zoos give you an opportunity to see and sometimes even feed the animals in their natural (or very similar) environment. And anyway here is something you can't argue, there is nothing like watching two elephants get it on...

Some might argue that people can go on safaris or wildlife park visits in other countries.
That would be ideal, but unfortunately this is a luxury most families can not afford. Going to Africa just to see a lion is out of the question for many people...
Debate Round No. 1
BriarMarie

Pro

To "counter argue" your first opinion regarding extinction. Lets take for instance Tiri Tiri Matangi. Now I do believe you are familiar with this "recreational park". It is currently on a very successful breeding program, in a natural friendly enviroment.
Secondly, Wild Life parks and Recreational parks .They are both alot better than zoo's. If a family really wanted something to their child would remember as well as themselves what would they do" Spend $100-150 on going to a zoo only to forget within months OR spend $2000-3000 on a family trip to Africa to see thrse amazing animals in their natural habit and their natural behaving AND remember this for a lifetime. Which would you choose???
GeorgiaAshley

Con

Firstly I would like to please excuse my self for the bad grammar used in Argument 2, I wrote "i" instead of "I", this was incidental.

You were saying that a trip to the zoo is something children aren't going to remember, that is untrue and proves to me that you haven't quite got your facts set in concrete...

You also said that people should spend $2000-$3000 on a trip overseas to see that same animals that you find in the zoo. This is an unreasonable statement and I suggest you do a bit of research...
Most people cannot afford an expensive family holiday to Africa, where as most people can afford a trip to the zoo..

I rest my case...
Thanks
Debate Round No. 2
BriarMarie

Pro

Please excuse my spelling mistakes. It is difficult to type on a phone.
Firstly, not all animals are at wild parks and secondly im sure many people would rather go to a Wild Life park and see animals run free and live in their natural habit than see a lion sleep or a Hippo poo.. If a family really wanted to go to a wild park, im sure they would all chip in. And have a lifelong memory to share
GeorgiaAshley

Con

Once again, a family holiday dedicated to a wildlife park is not something most families can afford.
So that is out of the question.
Debate Round No. 3
BriarMarie

Pro

I disagree, If families really wanted to go to A Wild Life Park, they would. Fundraisers, family event etc.
GeorgiaAshley

Con

To conclude I believe it is NOT cruel to keep animals in zoos, IF they are kept in a clean, safe environment that is similar to their natural habitat.
Zoos are doing a favor to animals and the general public, it is a win win situation.
Pro has not argues his point properly and so I feel you should vote me.
Thank you for your time, thank you for your votes...

Thank you Pro. :)
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Pinkprincess 4 years ago
Pinkprincess
BriarMarie please check your spelling of either "these" or"those"
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BriarMarieGeorgiaAshleyTied
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: CON said "And anyway here is something you can't argue, there is nothing like watching two elephants get it on..." So, CON wins. And because I lol'ed, she gets conduct. Oh, and her points were valid.
Vote Placed by bergeneric63 4 years ago
bergeneric63
BriarMarieGeorgiaAshleyTied
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: Umm there was no competition here. Con went into more detail and was more polite
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
BriarMarieGeorgiaAshleyTied
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 had the burden of proof, which means that she must prove her claims to be true. What was required was some expert opinion or data that shows zoos are bad for animals. It would have to show that all zoos are cruel. Con should have also searched the web for counter evidence. Another line of argument would be o show that there are zoo parks not too far from major cities -- I'm not sure of the data on that, but it's worth investigating.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
BriarMarieGeorgiaAshleyTied
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: Perhaps in some cases, in some zoos, it is cruel. I'm still somewhat undecided... but con has the better arguments. There could be a rematch with more statistics and arguments however!!
Vote Placed by htennis 4 years ago
htennis
BriarMarieGeorgiaAshleyTied
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: No argument from PRO about their treatment? Wow. Had to vote CON from the arguments.