The Instigator
ariana61104
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should we stop High-Kill Shelters?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 91218
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

ariana61104

Pro

Yes, I agree High-Kill shelters should be stopped for a few reasons. My main reason is because around 9,000 healthy animals are killed each day in High-Kill shelters in the U.S alone. These animals need loving homes and a safe place to be till they get one, if you kill the animals they don't have a chance in this world and won't find the loving family they need. My point is STOP HIGH-KILL SHELTERS.
Danielle

Con

Pro claims that high-kill shelters should be abandoned because animals need loving homes and the opportunity to find them.

First off, it's important to recognize that animals do not have the right to life. This is evidenced by the fact that in most cultures around the world (including the United States) many people eat animals; in fact animals are kept as pets, kept for labor and/or literally bred and held captive to be slaughtered for our personal enjoyment. Thus we should not assume that killing animals is inherently unethical. Indeed we place subjective value on different animals based on our personal preferences.

Secondly, we must consider that kill shelters exist because no-kill shelters do not have enough space and resources to care for the huge population of unclaimed animals. Allowing animals to roam free could be dangerous to society and infringe on our environment and communities [1]. If we don't euthanize animals, they will continue to reproduce and result in even more homeless animals [2].

If there were people that are willing to care for every animal in kill shelters (or provide the resources to do so) then kill shelters wouldn't exist. They exist to alleviate a problem and address demand.

We can encourage less animals being placed in high-kill shelters by promoting fostering and adoption, making more people aware of this problem, soliciting donations and perhaps offering cheaper spay and neuter programs. But "turning unwanted animals loose to roam the streets is not a humane option. If they don't starve, freeze, get hit by a car, or die of disease, they may be tormented and possibly killed by cruel juveniles or picked up by dealers who obtain animals to sell to laboratories" [3].

The reality is that we can't save all animals, so how would we want them to go: turned away at a shelter to be left for dead in the cold, cruel streets? Or death in the arms of a loving person, who comforts them while they get injected and pass swiftly and calmly? Euthanizing animals that we cannot care for is the more humane option. Pro has not suggested any reasonable, viable alternatives.

[1] http://healthypets.mercola.com...
[2] http://www.peta.org...
[3] http://jessicanerissa.blogspot.com...
Debate Round No. 1
ariana61104

Pro

ariana61104 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the last round.

Please extend my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
ariana61104

Pro

ariana61104 forfeited this round.
Danielle

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this entire debate.

Please extend my arguments. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by llaurenthellama 1 year ago
llaurenthellama
'Animals do not have a right to life'? Sad. Just Sad. Although I do agree with euthanasia for the shelters, high-kill will never be 'right'.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Please refine the resolution to include a time frame, and provide a source for your statistic.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
ariana61104DanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
ariana61104DanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06