The Instigator
NicKnows85
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

The Zoo...Why?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 82216
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

NicKnows85

Con

A zoo is a place for humans, not animals. Sure there may be humanitarian examples, like when the Denver zoo saved polar bear cubs or when the San Diego zoo breed orangutans. Hell, when I was eleven years old I donated my over grown Bala Sharks to them and continued to. Honestly I have only had positive experiences at the zoo, any zoo from Berlin to New York to San Francisco. It's great fun for the family (for whatever reason). However...After experiencing animals in the wild out in the open on the plains of the Masai desert in Kenya, I began to heavily question the nature of our so called zoo. What purpose does it truly serve, and furthermore what values are we teaching our children about animal rights. What values are we teaching our children about how to treat other living creatures. I don't want to make the mistake of personifying animals, so I will phrase this carefully. But if you look into the faces of any caged animal you will almost always see hardship in their eyes, slavery is any fashion is obvious. I will give an elephant as an example the elephants on the plains in Africa are loud and actually play with each other, they have a wild nature with slanted eyes, as if they might be on the wrong continent. The elephants at the Denver Zoo for example are slow, tired, bored, quiet, unhappy. Just because they are locked up doesn't make them safe. They didn't volunteer to be there, just oogled at everyday. So why then do we have Zoo's please someone point out all my errors in this logic and set me straight. Because for the life of me..not one answer I have ever gotten has been ethical, logical, or even slightly understandable.
Stupidape

Pro

Since no real resolution was provided, I will provide one.

Resolution: Zoos should exist.

Zoos should exist since they provide valuable learning and educational experiences to humans. This learning about animals helps us learn, grow, and learn new respect for nature. Looking at a cartoon animal is a sorry excuse for a real animal. Many underprivileged children do not have the resources to fly to the country of origin of these animals.

Learning from the animals at the zoo helps people care about and respect the environment. Think about a group of inner-city children who have only seen animals within the city. A few cats, dogs, rats, cockroaches, and various city birds. The zoo is the only real opportunity for these youngsters to see other animals. To open their minds.

If these future adults hardly see any animals how will they learn to respect them? Think about an unknown alien race. How could we respect a being we don't even know exists? We can't. Just as we can't respect animals we don't even know exist.

Some animal right activists go so far as to declare that pet ownership is immoral. Yet, how would a world of cement be any better? Let's say we got rid of all the companion and zoo animals. Do you think the young humans growing up with not an animal in sight would grow to respect animals? I don't think they would.

Instead, we should work side by side with animals. Learn that they are useful. Integrate them into our society. Instead of building a wall between us and wild animals. Imagine a world where there was one huge city. The city has a massive wall around it. Outside the city is wild nature.

In this society we would forget nature, since animals would have no place in that society. The residents of the city would not be happy. Crime would rise and a yearn to return to the wild would occur.

Humans are part of nature too, whether we want to admit it or not. We breathe, eat, sleep, and so forth. By suggesting banning zoos you put humans in a role of the oppressor. Must protect innocent animals from evil humans. Yet, since humans are part of nature its a bad idea to isolate ourselves too much from our natural environment.

We need integrated environments with both animals and humans. Integrated environments including zoos. We need to learn to respect animals by being around animals. Not sealing ourselves off even further by disbanding zoos. Zoo should exist.
Debate Round No. 1
NicKnows85

Con

My Resolution: Zoo's should not exist.

You say that we shouldn't build a wall between us and animals, but isn't that exactly what a zoo is? You also claim that zoo's integrate respect for animals as far as children learning....how is that so? By telling them that "were doing it for their own good" I'm pretty sure Hitler said something similar about the Jews when the Ghetto's were installed.

I could understand that idea if zoo's were strictly endangered animals, animals who were sick, injured or VERY old. And to see these animals you had to enter a sacred space that wasn't a show case but rather had an element of togetherness with the animals. But we can't do that now- we don't want to teach the kids too much.

I think pet ownership is also specifically cruel and incredibly selfish- but that's not what this argument is about- but the same immorality I feel toward that is the same.

To say that not every child can return to their native country and see wild animals is a far cry from a secondary option. Since a child flying to Nairobi would still have to go to the zoo- which does exist. Or they would have to pay for safari. It's the same damn thing globally. A secondary option would be for humans to stop paving the face of the earth and learn to live with the creatures that exist along side us.

Zoo's have taught us how to fear animals, not respect them. Yes, they are wild, yes they can be dangerous, yes we know nothing of the animal thought- we think we do...but then again we think we are the race that knows it all, because our brains are more developed and we have use of our larynx and that gives us the ability to conversate. Which is something they can't do...whop are we to speak for them.

What about the hot mess that Sea world is?! How are people so upset over sea world and don't give a second thought to zoo's?!

I just can't get over this statement:

"Instead, we should work side by side with animals. Learn that they are useful. Integrate them into our society. Instead of building a wall between us and wild animals. Imagine a world where there was one huge city. The city has a massive wall around it. Outside the city is wild nature."

The thing is- working side by side with animals is not what a zoo does for us, it is literally the building if walls between us and animals...furthermore I'd rather imagine a world where we actually do tear these walls down and learn respect the real way...by learning how animals behave and adapting ourselves to their nature because part of us respecting them is knowing they can't speak- we absolutely must try and change it in ourselves to be more humble toward other creatures and even races.
Stupidape

Pro

"The thing is- working side by side with animals is not what a zoo does for us, it is literally the building if walls between us and animals...furthermore I'd rather imagine a world where we actually do tear these walls down and learn respect the real way...by learning how animals behave and adapting ourselves to their nature because part of us respecting them is knowing they can't speak- we absolutely must try and change it in ourselves to be more humble toward other creatures and even races." Con

I perceive that you desire a world where there is greater respect for animals and nature. I just don't see this ideal as feasible. Maybe before gunpowder was invented, but even then there was the roman legions.

"Before the Romans invaded, Celts lived in Britain." [1]

"Gunpowder or black powder is of great historical importance in chemistry. Although it can explode, its principal use is as a propellant. Gunpowder was invented by Chinese alchemists in the 9th century. " [2]

This hippie type attitude doesn't work in a world of roman legions, gunpowder, and other military threats. Ultimately the strongest army is what wins, not the more righteous. What's the point of respect for nature if a more powerful army with less respect for nature takes over? None, since the more powerful army will conquer and then abuse the Earth's resources.

Power is the key value to other values like freedom and justice. Without power, we are powerless and freedom and justice will fall. In an ideal world your idea would work, yet we have to live in this world. Vote Pro, zoos should exist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...
http://chemistry.about.com...
Debate Round No. 2
NicKnows85

Con

OK, Ok I get it. My way is a bit fantastical. However, guns or no guns- Zoo's in today's modern world seem so selfish. With that being said- I'm just gunna throw in my towel, you went to such a realistic place I can't even keep up.

I'm gunna work on this argument of mine and keep it pushing..thanks for the debate, the knowledge and the time.

I'm not a hippie...I swear.
Stupidape

Pro

"With that being said- I'm just gunna throw in my towel" Con

Concession on Con's part. Thank you for the debate. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by HomelySherlock 1 year ago
HomelySherlock
An animal's only natural imperative is survival. Zoos provide this survival. Animals do not get bored. They do not have an innate desire to roam free. Survive is all they want, and zoos give it to them on a golden platter. Zoos are paradise for animals.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
NicKnows85StupidapeTied
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: Con conceded in the 3rd round: "OK, Ok I get it. My way is a bit fantastical...I'm just gunna throw in my towel, you went to such a realistic place I can't even keep up." I view this as a concession. Arguments to Pro. Conduct and S&G tied, Pro provided sources, but I struggled to see their relevancy to the resolution, so I won't give source points.