Should Animal Acts In Circuses Be Banned?
Debate Rounds (1)
Reason 1: Banning these acts is unethical
Subpoint A: This violates the rights of humans
It is our right as humans to do what we want, as long as it is not directly morally wrong.
Subpoint B: Animal rights aren't being violated
These animals do these acts because they want to or because they have some reason to believe that this will lead to getting what they want. Otherwise, they will not do these acts.
Reason 2: This is completely impossible to implement
For years now, people have tried to get rid of a variety of animal bloodsports. These attempts haven't been entirely noneffective, but they haven't wiped out the real issue. Banning these acts would only put the animals in them directly into these bloodsports or have them continue these acts behind closed doors. Either way, the animals will still be in a bad position.
Reason 3: Banning this doesn't address the root cause.
The root cause is the malice of people. People will still treat their animals maliciously, show or not. Banning these acts will only lead to animal owners who are doing things properly to be shut down. This will lead to only the bad people having the animals.
Banning these will only lead to more violence towards these animals, while simultaneously harming humans (who are far more important) in such a way that recovery will be difficult.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 8 months 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||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that circus animals are unhappy, sick and unwilling. Con argued that animals do the acts only because they believe they will get something that they want. Con also argued that banning wouldn't solve the problem. Since it was a 1 round debate, pro couldn't rebut. Con's arguments were more organized as they were in points, and pro had a short but crisp argument. Con argued that practically this wouldn't be properly implemented, while pro stuck to the moral part. Conduct was fair on both sides, neither used sources and spelling and grammar was equal as well.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate