The Instigator
qamareli
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Reeseroni
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should animals be held in captivity?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Reeseroni
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 579 times Debate No: 73390
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

qamareli

Pro

Animals should be held captive but there must be restrictions. They should be in good conditions. Zoos are able to protect animals more than the wild and if certain animals are not isolated from the world they can become extinct. Yes people can use them for the wrong reasons but some people treat them well. Plus, some are used for protecting homes and sightseeing dogs help the blind. So if this was banned or declared illegal the world will change in many ways making it harder to live for the disabled. Last but not least, if we build a relationship with wild animals and make them domestic we most likely can have a safer environment for ourselves as human beings.
Reeseroni

Con

I accept to argue that animals should not be held captive, but rather they should be allowed to roam in loose conditions such as large fields and plains which house plenty of grains, meat, and water to feed them.

Of course many people abuse animals, but keeping them in captivity can not help the fact. Restricting access for animals to roam can induce stress and unhealthy situations for animals. Restricting them within captivity will restrict them from exercising or stretching their legs. Keeping them inside of closed quarters will just limit their access to exercise and outdoor space.

Many may be domestic, but there are still many things that we cannot provide for animals that their parents can teach them themselves.

Also, zoos are not always kept in the best conditions, and animals have killed each other in their habitats before. This may have been from their stress of being kept up in tight spaces, or it may be mutual issues. There are many issues to animals being kept in captivity that can be solved by allowing them to roam with either more or complete freedom.
Debate Round No. 1
qamareli

Pro

Yes you are right however animals are treated by certain foundations especially when their life is on the line in the wilderness
Reeseroni

Con

Thank you Pro for your rebuttal, "Yes you are right however animals are treated by certain foundations especially when their life is on the line in the wilderness" and I would like to point some things out.

There are MANY foundations like the ASPCA and others that prevent animal cruelty and save strays, but this is not the condition in the wild.

Animals who live in the wild generally grow up with elders' influence, and they learn how to hunt and fight, and survive on their own. No person can teach an animal like its parents can. We are completely different breeds. Animals originated in the wild, and thats where they should be- domesticated or not. Animals can be our companions, but we need to treat them with respect and realize that they really do not like being kept in kennels and cages. They would much rather have fields of grass to run around in and chase other animals. This is a primeval instinct, and has somewhat been influenced by others. Animals do not need human owners to survive, as they are completely fine in the wilderness with their brothers and sisters . This is the most natural way.

Animals who have their life on the line in the wilderness are only those who are being hunted or those who have been hurt by outside forces. Anything that happens to animals in the forest or in the general wild is called the food chain, or the occurrence of natural events (circle of life). We impact the circle of life by taking animals out of the wild as we choose- which is fine- but they are much better suited on their own.
Debate Round No. 2
qamareli

Pro

Ok, thanks you for replying. What about endangered species who can't fight for themselves or get outnumbered would you like for other animals to end up like the dinosaurs and just become history and die off and without them how can animals evolve.
Reeseroni

Con

Um okay, well animals reproduce, so naturally- they repopulate as much as they die. If animals cannot fight for themselves, they should migrate to a leg vulnerable area where their predators will not find them, or cannot get to them.

This is the idea of Survival of the Fittest, where only the most suited animals to survival will survive. Animals do not just become extinct or endangered for the heck of it. They encounter difficulties to which they adapt, or they die from. This is only natural- holding them in captivity would be keeping them from accessing their wild side, and essentially you would be keeping them from repopulating and helping their endangered kin. Animals work with each other and can survive much easier in generally large groups.

Animals will evolve when necessary, so if they are under attack by a certain predator, overtime they will evolve/adapt to survive. If we intervene it will only make it more difficult for the animals to survive.
Debate Round No. 3
qamareli

Pro

qamareli forfeited this round.
Reeseroni

Con

I extend all arguments due to Forfeiture.
Debate Round No. 4
qamareli

Pro

Yes they should because they can have their population expanded when reunited by owners
Reeseroni

Con

Pro suggests that animals' populations are expanded when they are united with their owners. There is nothing that says that my pet dog will have more offspring just because I own it. Animals have a wider variety of mates in the wild, than they do in a human household. Most pets are spayed and neutered when adopted by humans. By saying that an animal will have more offspring because it is in a environment of readily available food and shelter is not a valid statement.

Thank you for your participation in this argument ;)
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
qamareliReeseroniTied
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: Forfeit, and a few base assertions, and even agreement with con's case. Con of course had a very Darwinistic case, not even a strong one, but he did not need one against this opponent.
Vote Placed by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
qamareliReeseroniTied
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: ff