The Instigator
THEDEBATINGCOBRAS
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
donald.keller
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Should wild animals be held in captivity?

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...
donald.keller
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,049 times Debate No: 70552
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

THEDEBATINGCOBRAS

Con

Animals should not be held in captivity.
donald.keller

Pro

Pro gives no case. I need not put forth a rebuttal. I will start small for Round 1.

Argument I: Captive Breeding Saves Animals.

Captivity isn't a curse that haunts animals... Many species have been saved from extinction via captive breeding, including California Condors, Black-footed Ferrets, and breeds of Horses (1). There isn't much more to be said about this... Captivity is a tool used to save species and restore thousands of dwindling populations (2). All while the animals are cared for and have comfortable living spaces prepared so they are happy.

[1] http://nationalzoo.si.edu...
[2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[]

Argument II: Education of the Public.

Humans are involved on a large scale in every known environment on Earth, Antarctica aside. Zoo's help bring people closer to the wildlife around them, educating them and creating awareness. This aids in protecting animals as a whole, in and out of captivity. It also ensures people are closer to animals, allowing for better treatment and behavior towards wildlife, causing a net positive for animals of all breeds in nature.

Conclusion: Captivity is a tool used to save and help animals. It posts little to no negatives.
Debate Round No. 1
THEDEBATINGCOBRAS

Con

THEDEBATINGCOBRAS forfeited this round.
donald.keller

Pro

Praise be onto Chickadee.
Debate Round No. 2
THEDEBATINGCOBRAS

Con

I apologize for missing round two, I'm new at this so I'm just going to assume I write a rebuttal to your round 1 argument and my include basic opinion.
Argument I: Captive Breeding Saves Animals
Now I will start off with your initial sentence "captivity isn't a curse that haunts animals" When wild animals are in captivity it deteriorates their mental state. In 1992, Bill Travers, the co-founder of the Born Free Foundation, first said "zoochosis" to describe the obsessive, repetitive behaviours animals in captivity show. Many experts such as Bill Travers have proven that after years in captivity wild animals start to show neurotic behaviors. While Bill was visiting zoos around the world looking for zoochotic behaviours he said "In every zoo I visited when compiling the Zoochotic Report, I witnessed some sort of abnormal behaviour". Zoochosis are repetitive behaviors like pacing back and forth, head swaying, obsessive cleaning and swimming or walking in circles, which are commonly seen in zoos and marine parks around the world. Bears and elephants pace back and forth over and over, big cats chew their tails obsessively, birds tear off their own feathers, gorillas rock back and forth for hours, some animals even tear out their own fur until they"re bald and bleeding.

Now yes, in some situations animals can be saved from extinction in zoos, and one of the only pros to wild animals in captivity is to preserve the species, but animals are suffering in captivity; they are put in inadequate artificial habitats and driven to insanity. I believe we can help and save wild animals from extinction without locking them in cages and depriving a life from them.

Arugment II: Education of the Public.
First and for most, I strongly believe you can watch half an hour of Discovery channel or read one article on the computer and get MORE actual information about the animal the watch them in captivity. When watching a captive animal you aren"t watching them chow on their favorite food, walking for miles, hunting their prey or anything close to what they would do in the wild. You are watching an animal in captivity, in a cage not enriching their minds with new sights or fulfilling their capability, you"re just watching a suffering animal in a cage.

I went to the Toronto Zoo last summer with my boyfriend, after 10 minutes in the zoo we saw a suffering animal. it was 30 above outside and this polar bear was in his pool. We watched the little guy for about 15 minutes, he was swimming on his back in a circle, pushing off the wall. People around were giggling and admiring his 'routine", we saw people come and go with the same reaction. But what people weren't noticing was that the polar bear was doing the exact same thing over and over. We saw this animal swim in circles for 15 minutes, it was then I vowed I would never come back, not with my children in 10 years, not ever. I will never support zoos or marine parks.

There has also been many cases of animal outbreaks such as Tilikum the orca whale from Seaworld in Florida, which is another example of zoochosis.

Conclusion:
If you watch a pod of Orcas propel themselves through the water with just their fins, a herd of elephants bulldoze through the savannah, a troop of spider monkeys swing on branches through the rain forest or a school of fish glide through the water, that"s a show no zoo will ever be able to compete with, because there"s nothing more beautiful than a wild animal in their natural habitat doing whatever they want, whenever they want to. I respect your opinion but I hope you do more research or at least reconsider, I think zoos and marine parks are terrible and it kills me to think people still support them. I hope one day, the captivity of mammals will be illegal.
donald.keller

Pro

Con Forfeited a round, and has used no sources over an array of arguments, losing him both Conduct and Source Points.

Argument I: Captive Breeding Saves Animals.

Con starts by describing Stereotypy... The name for the behavior unique to animals in captivity. I will ignore that his whole claim is unsourced and without a corresponding study on account of it being true to my knowledge already... The issue is that Con is begging the question. Animals do show odd behaviors in captivity, but Con does nothing to show that this is inherently bad. Dogs and Cats technically show Stereotypy... It defines the difference between a feral animal and a domesticated pet... We're just used to it and don't see it as odd. Is their behavior then bad? Con must prove Stereotypy, or 'acting differently from animals outside of captivity' is inherently bad.

Con negates the resolution in his next statement. As one can see, the resolution is an absolute... Therefore if even one instance exists where it's good for an animal to be in captivity, I win. Con concedes that there are times when captivity saves species... Only to explain that there are inadequate environments. This poses a false dichotomy. Either the animals are free, or have to live in the current environments provided. In reality, a better solution would be to fix the environments.

The biggest issue with Con's unsupported claim is that it's simply not true. The AZA has a strict guideline on how to become accredited. The guideline sets objectives like having high standards for living environments, social groupings, health, and nutrition, as well as ensuring each animal's daily routine has diversity (1). The AZA alone has over 225 accredited zoos and aquariums (2). That being said, standards for high quality and enriched environments are well met.

[1] https://www.aza.org...
[2] https://www.aza.org...
[]

Argument II: Education of the Public.

Con begins this case with a fallacy. He states that you could get information from the Discovery Channel, and therefore do not need the information obtainable from a zoo, when you could just have both. This could be seen easily as a false dichotomy. Con's case assumes that both TV and the zoo fills the same role. In actuality, few people are interested in turning on 500+ channels of TV, and of every show and movie, turning to the Discovery Channel to learn about animals. Even then, the educational value is often flawed and uninformative. TV simply isn't the best means of learning for the general public.

A zoo provides a hands-on experience full of interactions and activities. It's a much more attractive alternative with a higher educational value. One's children (the group who most benefits from learning about the creatures they share the world with) would be bored by a non-fictional educational show, but typically enjoys the zoo. The educational value of both can not be compared, although both are reasonable options.

Con finishes with a silly appeal to emotions and a personal observation. Without a degree in animal behaviors, Con is hardly one to self-diagnose what was wrong with the animal. It may have been a means of entertainment akin to a dog chasing his tail, or perhaps the animal actually was sick. However Con can't prove the animal was sick because of the zoo. It's more than likely that if the animal was sick, he was being left to 'sweat it out' as humans and animals in the wild often do. Or perhaps the zoo hadn't noticed right away, which still puts the animal in a better position than if he were outside of a zoo... Point is that Con's case proves nothing, and he can't diagnose for us what was wrong.

Tilikum the Orca wasn't acting out. He was playing with the zookeeper and acting quite natural, and as theories went, the Trainers hair got caught in the Orca's teeth. That, or the other theory is that the Orca confused her long hair for a toy, or smelled fish in her hair. It wasn't an attack caused by Stereotypy (3).

[3] http://www.orlandosentinel.com...
[]

Conclusion.

Con has done nothing to actually prove that captivity is bad outside of the unsupported and refuted claim that the environments are bad. I wanted to bring up arguments about other forms of captitivity like pets, farms, and reservations, but seeing as Con skipped a round, I can not do that.

Captivity holds many benefits and can/often is more than reasonably justified.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by THEDEBATINGCOBRAS 2 years ago
THEDEBATINGCOBRAS
thankyou for agreeing! i think it's an absolute horrid thing to deprive an animal just like us of living a happy, healthy lifestyle!
Posted by themoongirl 2 years ago
themoongirl
I totally agree. We shouldn't take the animals out of their homes. How would we feel if they did that to us?? That would be really weird if that happened though.
Posted by Debatable275 2 years ago
Debatable275
I agree, animals are meant to be kept in their normal habitats. The public zoo's take animals in because they are sick, or wounded, but if the animal dies, or succumbs to illness, then let it be, that's the circle of life, we shouldn't be tampering with the lives of wild animals
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
THEDEBATINGCOBRASdonald.kellerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round and failed to cite sources. Pro made good arguments, which he was able to defend against Con's rebuttals.
Vote Placed by sengejuri 2 years ago
sengejuri
THEDEBATINGCOBRASdonald.kellerTied
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 due to Con's forfeit. Pro also effectively dismisses Pro's arguments as unproven or appeals to emotion.