The Instigator
DebateWonder
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
SirSocrates
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.

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 1 vote the winner is...
DebateWonder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/2/2016 Category: News
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 517 times Debate No: 92254
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

DebateWonder

Pro

This is referring to the shooting of an endangered gorilla to protect the boy. I believe that the zoo did what was necessary to save the child's life, even though it is tragic that the gorilla died. I thank my opponent for joining this debate, and I will be eager to debate him/her.

Rules:
1. No forfeiting.
2. No swear words.
SirSocrates

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateWonder

Pro

A. My opponent says, " 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. "
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.
SirSocrates

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateWonder

Pro

My opponent says, "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:
http://www.nbcnews.com...
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.
SirSocrates

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateWonder

Pro

My opponent doesn't realize that the same zoo director also said that from direct quotes from the Cincinnati Zoo Fire Department, "the gorilla was dragging the boy around." The fact that the Cincinnati Director saying the gorilla was a good guy is true, but he also acknowledged that they had to save the boy's life. I have watched the footage of Harambe the gorilla and the boy, and according to the same video that my opponent referenced the gorilla was dragging the boy around. Also, the boy had to go to the hospital in a serious condition, according to
http://www.nbcnews.com...

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.
SirSocrates

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 8 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dtien400// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were very civil and both had swell grammar and both used sources. Pro definitively wins the arguments as he was able to refute all of Con's points; he proved why tranquilizing the gorilla wouldn't have worked, why the public opinion of the zoo may have declined anyways, why the gorilla had to be fatally shot and not just wounded, and why the gorilla was still a danger to the child even though the gorilla may have been protecting him. Con did not refute any of Pro's points. Nice job, Pro. Condolences, Con. Good job guys.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter has to assess specific points made in the debate by both sides and weigh them against one another. In this case, the voter indirectly examines Con's points without explaining why each of Pro's rebuttals were effective (instead just stating that they were), but never examines any of Pro's points, despite saying that they were dropped. As those seem to be the basis on which this vote was case, that makes this RFD insufficient.
************************************************************************
Posted by SirSocrates 8 months ago
SirSocrates
Here is the link: http://www.nbcnews.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by llaurenthellama 8 months ago
llaurenthellama
DebateWonderSirSocratesTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
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.