The Instigator
starsbelongtoag
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Should Animals Be Kept in zoos and aquariums

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 3 votes the winner is...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,370 times Debate No: 29692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

starsbelongtoag

Con

* Should animals be kept in zoos and aquariums?
My opionion: No animals should not be kept in zoos or aquariums. My reasons why::

I believe that zoos are a somewhat bad place for animals.
Reasons why:

  • Animals are built for the real outdoors and to find food and shelter in their own.

  • What if a zoo were to set an animal free. They would never know how to hunt. Especially if they were babies when they first arrived at a zoo. All their lives they wouldn’t have know how to hunt for themselves because a zoo worker has been throwing food out of a bucket to them their whole life.

  • Just because we want to see animals doesn’t mean they have to put them in cages for us. What if we all wanted to see Taylor Swift? We wouldn’t just lock her in a cage for her whole life JUST so she could be seen.

  • After all, most animals need friends just like humans do. Most zoos put 2 animals in a cage. But if you saw an animal alone, wouldn’t you want it to have a friend? Think back during school, were you your only friend, or the most popular person in school. Everyone wants to be popular think about the animals too. They have brains. They think. They KNOW!



Now that YOU know some of the reasons why I think zoos are a bad place for animals, tell me your opinion. (((:

Citrakayah

Pro

I'm sure my arguing here will surprise some people, given that I am for animal rights. However, I believe that my position will make more sense shortly.

Arguments will be abbreviated C1/P1, C2/P2, etc. C2 will be dealt with last because it forms the crux of my argument.

C1: So? This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy. It's not enough to just say 'it natural' when making a moral/ethical argument.
C3: The difference is that we are reasonably sure that Taylor Swift does not want to be in an artificial environment for reasons besides the natural drive to have a large territory or simply wondering what's 'over there'.
C4: This displays a stunning lack of knowledge about animal behavior. Many other species aren't social. Take many species of feline, for instance, or snakes.
C2: This actually supports the idea that animals should be kept in zoos and aquariums.

Think for a second. We have no problem keeping humans unable to care for themselves in an artificial environment where they won't die. If these animals are unable to survive in the wild, what do we do with them? To put them in a facility designed to care for them, supported by attendance and dedicated to building emotional ties between humans and animals, seems a decent option--and the alternative to keeping them in captivity would simply be to kill them. You could make the argument, I suppose, that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but that still leaves a lot of animals who are going to live for a long, long time.
Debate Round No. 1
starsbelongtoag

Con

starsbelongtoag forfeited this round.
Citrakayah

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
starsbelongtoag

Con

starsbelongtoag forfeited this round.
Citrakayah

Pro

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 3 years ago
Skepsikyma
starsbelongtoagCitrakayahTied
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: Conduct for forfeiture; arguments due to a well-executed refutation. I think that you and I frightened her off =(
Vote Placed by morgan2252 3 years ago
morgan2252
starsbelongtoagCitrakayahTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro because of con's FF. I also felt that pro did a better job of supporting his arguments which, admittedly, is also related to FF.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
starsbelongtoagCitrakayahTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.