The Instigator
sciphi
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
goldtrotter
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Should a circus be allowed to include animals as part of their show?

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 4 votes the winner is...
goldtrotter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,206 times Debate No: 51716
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

sciphi

Pro

I believe that circus animals may be be deployed for entertainment purposes as long as their treatment is humane and closely monitored by authorities.
Debate Round No. 1
sciphi

Pro

Although it is well-known that many circus animals are treated inhumanely, it does not necessarily follow that they should be banned from the circus. It is also well-known that many exotic animals may develop strong bonds with humans.

If circus animals are treated humanely, they may be able to enjoy happy lives along side their human care givers. In principle, if circuses were monitored for their humane treatment of animals, they may be allowed to keep their animals for entertainment. A national certification process that includes input by animal rights groups may be implemented. Circuses that do not comply would simply lose their certification and they would not be allowed to keep exotic animals for any purpose.
goldtrotter

Con

This may sound good in theory but it would be impractical. Circuses are traveling shows and they're losely regulated, if at all. Trusting government to step in and attempt to fix this problem is not realistic. Federal guidelines would have to be uniformly implemented across state lines. Expecting an over-extended government bureaucracy to successfully regulate treatment of circus animals is simply not realistic.

Exotic animals may do well with humans under ideal, controlled circumstances. Such cases have been documented in animal preserves and some zoos that focus primarily on the welfare of these animals. A circus, on the other hand, is a business. There are time pressures and money issues that would trump any concern for animal welfare.

It is not surprising that reports of extreme cruelty to circus animals appear to be rampant. A circus is not primarily focused on the welfare of animals and it cannot be entrusted with their care.

If it is not practical for us to ban animals from circuses then we should encourage people to effectively boycot them. The public should not be supporting circuses because their mistreatment of animals is inherent.
Debate Round No. 2
sciphi

Pro

If anything is impractical it is the banning of circuses. Organizing a boycott is equally unrealistic. Circuses are itinerant and it would be difficult to track them and organize a nationwide boycott. It would probably be even more difficult to pass laws to abolish circuses. Passing a federal law would be impractical. Mounting a state-to-state campaign to ban circuses locally would be even more formidable.

Circuses are here to stay. The best we can hope for is to regulate them and monitor them for humane treatment of their animals. If we can't regulate them through government then the resources expended for a boycott may be better used to support monitoring by local animal rights groups.
goldtrotter

Con

By acknowledging that government regulation may not work and that we may have to rely on local animal rights groups, Pro has basically conceded the debate. He is the one who argued for regulation of the humane treatment by authorities. If he now believes that local animal rights groups may be more effective in monitoring circuses, then he has abandoned his argument that authorities should be the monitors.

Circuses are for-profit businesses that tend to treat animals as inventory. They cannot be relied upon to treat animals humanely. The best solution to the problem is to abolish animals from circuses. This is probably unrealistic through law-making. However, there is hope in the raising of public awareness. If the public stops attending circuses, they will wither and die a capitalistic death by themselves.

To the degree that animal rights groups may help this along, I'm all for it. However, we cannot realistically expect government authorities to eliminate this problem by bureaucratic fiat.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Jevinigh 3 years ago
Jevinigh
sciphigoldtrotterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice and short, Pro never really addressed the inadequacy of expecting governments to regulate traveling shows and even conceded the point that was the core of Con's Argument.
Vote Placed by Imhellspawn2 3 years ago
Imhellspawn2
sciphigoldtrotterTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I had to agree with The Instigator on this case Circus animals should be allowed in the show how else are circuses going to bring in money without animals the lion taming is awesome!.
Vote Placed by EndarkenedRationalist 3 years ago
EndarkenedRationalist
sciphigoldtrotterTied
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 main argument rested on government regulation of circuses, which CON pointed out was impractical. PRO then strawmanned CON's argument by arguing against banning circuses, while CON only advocated boycotting them, which, because CON pointed out that circuses are a business, provides CON with a strong argument. If circuses lose enough profit due to mistreating animals, they'll start treating them better. PRO conceded that government regulation might not be a viable strategy. Arguments go to CON. It was a good debate from both of you! In the future, I recommend bringing in outside evidence to make your arguments stronger.
Vote Placed by Sswdwm 3 years ago
Sswdwm
sciphigoldtrotterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Nice short debate. A couple of typos from Pro, good mannerism form both. Neither supported their arguments with sources but Con made several unrebutted arguments regarding implementation of any government initiative. Furthermore the resolution sets the BoP on pro to justify any animals should be included in the first place. This is a burden that Pro did not uphold, and Con did more than enough to rebut this. Arguments to Con.