The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.
Debate Rounds (4)
1. No forfeiting.
2. No swear words.
Thank you for this opportunity to debate.
It was definitely not beneficial for them to kill the gorilla. My first point will be that they could've used a tranquilizer gun and figured out some sort of punishment for it. It was at a zoo, so there were probably plenty of tranquilizer guns there. If they had tranquilized it, they could've put it in a cage farther from the public. Then, the gorilla's life would be saved and it will be simpler for the Cincinnatti Zoo because they don't have to find a new gorilla to replace the one they killed. Also, the public's opinion of the Zoo would not decline because they killed a gorilla.
This was not an option, because tranquilizers would take up to 10 minutes to work. The boy would be in more danger than he already by the time the tranquilizers took effect. Critics could argue that this would have saved the gorilla as well, but the gorilla would have been shocked by the pain of the tranquilizer. This gorilla would have been 130 to 180 pounds, and you can't just wait for the tranquilizer to work.
B. My opponent also says, "Also, the public's opinion of the Zoo would not decline because they killed a gorilla."
My opponent fails to realize another possible scenario. What if the boy died at the zoo? Public opinion of the zoo would also decrease. Also, it would take far longer of a time for the zoo to recover from the incident. People wouldn't want to go to the zoo with their children because of the safety hazard. Remember Malaysian Airlines Flight 370? Just because of that accident, the airline lost a lot of revenue. The zoo did what was necessary to protect a living human being, and it had to do so at the expense of public opinion.
Well, assuming that your points are valid, they still could've shot its feet or somewhere that would disable it but not kill it. Then it would still be alive. It would've dropped the baby and still lived. Then, the public opinion would still not decline and they would not have to kill the gorilla.
My opponent doesn't know what he is talking about. In Round Two, my argument was:
"Critics could argue that this would have saved the gorilla as well, but the gorilla would have been shocked by the pain of the tranquilizer." If you shot at its legs or its feet, the initial pain would send the gorilla into panic, and the pain doesn't go away in ten minutes like the tranquilizer would.
Look at this website:
According to the Zoo Director, Harambe the gorilla was stimulated and excited. The pain of a bullet would make the problem worse, rather than helping the child.
Well, in this article from the same website, the director of the Cincinnati Zoo states that the gorilla was the good guy. If you watch the video of the incident, you will see that that the gorilla was being protective of the 3-year old. It may have been stimulated and excited, but it still was being protective of the toddler.
Just because the gorilla might be a so-called "good guy," the zoo cannot assume that a strong male gorilla was protecting the boy. The footage shows the boy being dragged around in the moat, and the zoo has to do something to save the boy's life. If you care about the precious life of a child and if you believe that the zoo did the right thing to protect its visitors, I hope you will stand with me on this issue.
The boy did not die, and the gorilla did not deserve to die. The boy only got hurt because of the fall ino the gorilla enclosure. There were other ways of getting the child away from the gorilla. Also, the gorilla had no bad intentions. Does an animal of an endangered species deserve to die because it was being protective of a child? I think you know the answer.
Also, I should also mention that this incident should not have happened in the first place. If the parents were more attentive, the boy wouldn't have fallen in and the gorilla would still be alive.
I want to thank my opponent for this opportunity to debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by llaurenthellama 8 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con seems somewhat uneducated in the zoo's choices, what with the tranquilizer darts and whatnot. Pro quickly debunks these statements, while making a good point: It's true that if the gorilla had been tranquilized, it still would've taken time to kick in, putting the boy in even more danger. S.A.G: No errors seemed to have been made on both ends; no points awarded. Convincing Arguments: Given to Pro for same reasons as Conduct. Reliable Sources: Pro was the only one who used sources in the first place.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.