The Instigator
IrrationalArgument
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Actionsspeak
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Zoo's are inhuman

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...
Actionsspeak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,869 times Debate No: 48234
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

IrrationalArgument

Pro

Zoo's are inhuman. Animals are held in undersized containment areas for their entire life (just like a jail) when they have done nothing to deserve it. The animals can't escape the attention of hundreds of people a day and many have no-where to hide. Some of these animals ARE allowed back into the wild but many no-longer have the ability to survive on their own after a lifetime in captivity, and what is this besides torture?
Actionsspeak

Con

I'm in favor of zoo's and look forward to debating this topic, however definitions are needed before I may begin.

Inhuman
: very fierce or cruel [1]

Cruel
: causing or helping to cause suffering [1]

Fierce
: very violent [1]
: eager to fight or kill [1]
: having or showing a lot of strong emotion : very strong or intense [1]

This definition doesn't apply to your usage of inhuaman, you said zoo's are just like a jail to back your case that zoo's are inhuman, however saying a jail is fierce doesn't make sense meanwhile cruel does. Therefore we're debating whether or not zoo's are cruel.

Why are zoo's good for animals? Well I took the liberty of listing a few reasons below

1. Zoo's allow a safe home for endangered animals. [2] [3] [4] [5]

2. Zoo's provide a safe and secure environment for animals in which they are well fed often with a nutritionist monitoring the diet alongside visitors using feeding stations, as in the wild animals go through constant hardships to avoid starvation and dehydration and even if they handle the harsdships they must then handle reaching the carrying capacity. [6] [7] [8]

3. Animals require vast amount of space for example seven female tigers and two male tigers requires an area the size of the District of Columbia. Meanwhile in a zoo the animal is eating(almost always) food grown quickly using fertilizer that takes up much less land, and the animals roams much less land allowing more space for usage. [9]

4. You said "Some of these animals ARE allowed back into the wild but many no-longer have the ability to survive on their own after a lifetime in captivity"

However animals are taught survival skills before heading into the wild, in fact they also enter the wild healthy whereas animals that are born in the wild must struggle against starvation, malnurishment, and learning traits in the wild while it's still developing/young. [10] [11] [12]

I hope you now understand why zoo's are not at all cruel and actually aid animals whether in be in the battle against extinction, starvation, dehydration, land available, or developing in the wild.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://zoo.sandiegozoo.org...
[3] http://nationalzoo.si.edu...
[4] http://www.theguardian.com...
[5] http://www.waza.org...
[6] http://www.wou.edu...
[7] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[8] http://www.lowryparkzoo.com...
[9] http://www.mnh.si.edu...
[10] http://www.conservenature.org...
[11] http://www.pbs.org...
[12] http://www.greenfudge.org...
Debate Round No. 1
IrrationalArgument

Pro

First off I feel like I should point out that inhuman has multiple meanings (both of which do have relevance to the topic, they were just used in the wrong context).

1.) Lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric.
2.) Not human in nature or character.

I may have got the word wrong as what I meant was inhumane which means:

1.) without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.
and the example off the online dictionary for this is:
"confining wild horses is inhumane"
This is the correct word and I apologize for my mistake.

Now to the for real debate... I will attempt to rebuttal all of you points above.

1.) Zoo's allow a safe home for endangered animals.

This is a good point as it is true physically but how psychologically safe are they is another question? Based on the statistics "only 1000 out of 6000 species contained in zoos are endangered" why do we need to have the other 5000 species in zoos if zoos are "helping" the endangered ones?

What we have to take into account is the fact that animals are locked in a small containment area like a prisoner. Being in the same place for majority of these animals lives will most definitely take toll. What if you were the animal? What if you were in this small containment area for your entire life? Do you not think that there would be a psychological toll on your state of mind from the everyday routine and torment from people everyday? What we have to consider is the conditions it is done under. People come to zoo's every day to look at these majestic creatures. People are loud pointing and screaming around the containment area everyday. Don't you think that every day getting woken up by screaming and being surrounded everyday wouldn't make you feel trapped?

Endangered animals do deserve to survive and humans can help with this. Endangered animals are generally put in captivity breeding programs true but there are other options other than zoo's, for example; wildlife reserves and conservation facilities. Putting animals endangered or not on display like paintings at an art gallery is inhumane, it is cruel making these animals miserable from doing the same thing everyday, seeing the same blade of grass everyday. Personally that would drive me insane in itself, but then there is more. These animals are are surrounded by noise of kids running around the enclosures screaming all day long.

There are alternative ways that a zoo could operate such as; One-sided or allow small groups of people to go through at a time. Understandably this is less efficient but for the welfare for the inhumane treatment of animals I believe it is worth it. Besides it's not anyone's right to control these animals, who gave people the right to take an Elephant from its heard, a Parrot from its open blue skies, Pandas from their bamboo forest, you get the point.

In a general zoo they unnecessarily stress the animals out, stress can lead to both psychological and physical negative effects including potential death. Please explain to me how forcing these animals live in "safe" conditions is more superior to living in their own habitat with their own kind living as nature intended it? So overall my point is that animals do deserve to get help reversing their endangerment, but this should be done in a way were they would not rather die. Being in a calm enjoyable environment such as a scenic reserve can also relate to a faster reproduction rate as the animals are not constantly stressed and concerned for their young.

2.) Another good point with but with a few flaws.

You are completely right in saying that the zoo animals have their health and eating closely monitored by experts, but this brings me back to my last point about stress. If the animals are being constantly being poked and prodded by people, being watched by others majority of the day this causes stress, and stress can cause animals to go off their food which no expert nutritionist can force them to eat (unless they shove it down their throats" Inhumane). Your other point about a safe and secure environment is also only partly true as stress makes an environment unsafe as the animals can cause harm to themselves trying to escape the vision of spectators or escape in general. Also as another one of my links above states, animals in zoos are much more likely to catch diseases and sicknesses which even with being monitored constantly can be fatal .

This is a quote from that website:

"Most zoo exhibits provide animals with little, if any, opportunity to express natural behavior or make choices in their daily lives, and this can lead to boredom and neurosis. With nothing to do, animals in zoos sleep too much, eat too much, and exhibit behavior that is rarely, if ever, seen in the wild. Primates throw feces and engage in "regurgitation and reingestion""vomiting and then consuming the vomit."

Wide-ranging animals such as bears and big cats pace incessantly. Primates and birds mutilate themselves, and chimpanzees and gorillas become overly aggressive. Hoofed animals lick and chew on fences and make strange lip, neck, and tongue movements. Giraffes twist their necks, bending their heads back and forth repeatedly. Elephants bob their heads and sway from side to side. Captive animals might show no interest in mating or alternatively become obsessed with sex.

Marine mammals repeatedly swim in the same repetitious patterns in their tanks. Fish suffer too if not more. A study conducted by the Captive Animals" Protection Society concluded that 90 percent of public aquariums studied had animals that showed stereotypic (neurotic) behaviors, such as interacting with transparent boundaries, repeatedly raising their heads above the surface of the water, spinning around an imaginary object, and frequently turning on one side and rubbing along the floor of the tank.

3.) Animals require vast amount of space for example seven female tigers and two male tigers requires an area the size of the District of Columbia. Meanwhile in a zoo the animals is eating (almost always) food grown quickly using fertilizer that takes up much less land, and the animals roams much less land allowing more space for usage

Sorry but i am partly confused by this point / statement whether it didn"t make sense or i simply didn"t understand what you meant. Are you trying to say that it would be more efficient for all animals to be in small containment (Or concentrated) areas so that we can grow food for both us and these animals? That would cause even more problems with inhumanity of animals, the only difference to before is that it would be on a much larger scale.

4. You say they are taught survival skills, but essential ones? I believe not.

As you said earlier they enter the wild healthy, but how long will that last? training can only go so far. How do they cope when they do begin to starve? How do they cope when they are being hunted? How do they cope when they are being chased, after being in a containment area trying to sleep through the psychological torture of the everyday life of being a prisoner of the zoo. Part of surviving in nature is gaining the experience from growing up in nature. These animals may get a head start, but nature will catch up with them sooner or later. Also, do they have 'tests' to make the animals run for their lives? If they don't then I don't see how teaching them to get their own food is helping when they can't even escape a predator.

Sources:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...
http://www.theguardian.com...
These links above are very important as it shows that animals in zoos have a lower life expectancy(Not all animals obviously do but the point is still there). How is this beneficial at all to saving the animals? These animals could live twice as long in their natural home enjoying themselves and potentially being more reproductive.

http://www.peta.org...
This is less related to stress but is still very important at showing some zoo problems.

http://books.google.co.nz...
This link proves that stress decreases reproduction rates in animals, which zoos can cause.

http://nique.net...
This article here has the interesting stat showing that only 1'000 of the 6'000 animal species in zoos are actually endangered. Why are we causing unnecessary stress for the other 5000 species?

http://www.peta.org...
Some more points.

Thanks for reading, sorry for the slow reply but life has ways of getting in the way...
Actionsspeak

Con

Since my opponent is using a fallacy to swing the debate in his favor, I feel I have no option but to make this round for refutation.[1]

You said:
"I may have got the word wrong as what I meant was inhumane which means:

1.) without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.
and the example off the online dictionary for this is:
"confining wild horses is inhumane" "

"(unless they shove it down their throats" Inhumane)."

This is moving the goalpost fallacy to aid you in our debate "confining wild horses is inhumane", our debate is clearly "Zoo's are inhuman" you can have another debate named "Zoo's are inhumane" if you wish but that doesn't apply at all to this debate. Therefore your points above should be ignored and poor conduct should be noted. [1]

In round one you said:

"Some of these animals ARE allowed back into the wild but many no-longer have the ability to survive on their own after a lifetime in captivity, and what is this besides torture"

I'll list three links showing examples of torture and three links showing animals in a zoo, and let the voters decide. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Miserable links

- PETA, not hard to find a reason why PETA is bad, they even have a history of killing animals.[8] [9] [10]

- Another link was a google book that I cannot view, so I researched it and alot of what is said is out of date in fact the book was written june 1st 2000. I also can't help but feel that you used it for your entire round 2 arguement about stress.

- In the guardian, it didn't support your argument that zoo's are inhuman. It simply admits that
stress+disease = a shorter lifespan

- Although chinadaily was a source it gave no credibility or logic, just pathos appeals

- Nique just emphasized on why the animals are best suited for a larger environment, while ignoring that the environment's are often destroyed/being occupied by humans, I believe that source would approve of zoo's protecting endangered species.

What is the point of even making an argument if you have no credible sources to back it up?

Pathos appeals

Your entire argument you have simply used pathos appeal after pathos appeal, however you are lacking logic and credibility, below are a few quotes of your desperate emotional appeals.

"Animals are held in undersized containment areas for their entire life (just like a jail) when they have done nothing to deserve it."

"Some of these animals ARE allowed back into the wild but many no-longer have the ability to survive on their own after a lifetime in captivity, and what is this besides torture?"

"animals are locked in a small containment area like a prisoner."

"it is cruel making these animals miserable from doing the same thing everyday"

It seems the only points you have that show some effort are questions, so i'll answer them:

"why do we need to have the other 5000 species in zoos if zoos are "helping" the endangered ones?"

A. They help fund the zoo which protects endangered animals

B. The animals have protection from nature(predators).

C. They are used to educate zoo visitors about animals, this is also results in funding for endangered animals.

Example: A school trip to the San Diego Zoo for educational purposes will give the zoo money which allows it to afford a better staff(such as nutritionists), pay off debt resulting from purchasing a huge amount of land and building on it, teaching survival traits to animals that will be reintroduced to habitats, and expanding allowing more animals safe and secure homes (obviously including endangered species and possibly getting endangered species off the endangered list)

What if you were the animal? What if you were in this small containment area for your entire life? Do you not think that there would be a psychological toll on your state of mind from the everyday routine and torment from people everyday?

A. Simple I would enjoy my life in which I was fed well and could possibly interact with other animals meanwhile wild animals are malnurished and constantly facing predators, I see no problem with having a life of relaxation.

"Don't you think that every day getting woken up by screaming and being surrounded everyday wouldn't make you feel trapped?"

A. I assume when you say woken up by screaming and being surrounded everyday, you mean that people viewing me and learning about me from a fence/rail far away? I've never seen people screaming at the animals or surrounding them, I believe I would get use to being viewed however.

"You say they are taught survival skills, but essential ones?"

A. I believe any survival skill that determines life or death is essential.

Your final paragraph:
"As you said earlier they enter the wild healthy, but how long will that last? training can only go so far. How do they cope when they do begin to starve? How do they cope when they are being hunted? How do they cope when they are being chased, after being in a containment area trying to sleep through the psychological torture of the everyday life of being a prisoner of the zoo. Part of surviving in nature is gaining the experience from growing up in nature. These animals may get a head start, but nature will catch up with them sooner or later. Also, do they have 'tests' to make the animals run for their lives? If they don't then I don't see how teaching them to get their own food is helping when they can't even escape a predator."

A. Health can last as long as the animal is alive for example the body or let's say even bone structure of a wild animal may be deformed due to lack of a healthy diet when developing in its youth. [11]

B. When they begin to starve they cope the same way any animal would, they look for food (instinct).

C. When chased they cope the same way any animal would, they try to survive (instinct).

D. They are far from prisoners they live a life of luxury, have the best food given to them, and even have nutritionists who make sure they develop well.

E. They obviously have a much better chance of survival than a baby animal considering they enter the wild fully functioning, healthy, and trained to survive.

I hope you now understand why zoo's are not at all inhuman/cruel and actually aid animals.

Sources:
[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
[2] http://coto2.wordpress.com...
[3] https://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com...
[4] http://www.medievality.com...
[5] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
[6] http://comozooconservatory.blogspot.com...
[7] http://suburbanmamas.wordpress.com...
[8] http://www.freerepublic.com...
[9] http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
[10] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[11] http://www.anapsid.org...
Debate Round No. 2
IrrationalArgument

Pro

Hello again

I said Inhuman, yes I know. Do you know what "inhuman" means? I think not.

"Lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric"
"lacking qualities of sympathy, pity, warmth, compassion, or the like; cruel; brutal: an inhuman master."
"Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel."
"very fierce or cruel"

Sources:
Definitions of inhuman in the english language:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

The link below is a forum which although not fact is debating our current predicament with the word inhuman:
http://forum.wordreference.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
http://www.vocabulary.com...

An example is:
If someone behaves in a way that shows no compassion, you could describe that person and his or her actions as inhuman. A teacher who assigns six hours of homework every night might be seen as inhuman.

Are zoos showing compassion to these animals? No they simply are not...

Definitions of cruel:
-Willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
-Used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it
-Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it: 'people who are cruel to animals'

Sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
http://www.macmillandictionary.com...
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org...

So as I hope you can see every definition of the word inhuman I have found has the word cruel in it. So as you said in post 1 "This definition doesn't apply to your usage of inhuaman, you said zoo's are just like a jail to back your case that zoo's are inhuman, however saying a jail is fierce doesn't make sense meanwhile cruel does. Therefore we're debating whether or not zoo's are cruel." you are correct however since cruel is a main part of the word inhuman, we are debating about the word inhuman AND cruel, because they are the same thing.

1. I'll list three links showing examples of torture and three links showing animals in a zoo, and let the voters decide.
Well, we are not talking about animals in the zoo are we? We are talking about animals that have been released back into the wild. Here are some pictures of animals unable to escape predators:

(Viewer warning, some of these images contain gore)
http://www.google.co.nz...
http://www.documentingreality.com...

Both are penguins of which many are endangered, and therefore relevant.

Do animals go through a 'run away from predators trying to eat you test? NO, they are therefore not prepared for the wild.

2. As for PETA this was 1 example, although it may be incorrect as I did not know their 'apparent' background.
But in saying that your sources do not prove a point.
http://www.theatlantic.com...

I see no proof on this page of any wrong-doings, besides an opinion, backed up by some questionable stats.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com...

This does have some proof, but really? petakillsanimals.com? their website is sure to say good things about peta.
http://www.freerepublic.com...

Also includes questionable stats, with nothing to back them up.

About the book 'the biology of animal stress' since when have we been debating about just the present? we are debating about zoos as a whole, which means since they started to now. Besides many of these points are still valid, do zoo's protect the animals with sound proof walls? do zoos protect the animals with one-sided glass (or a similar material), do zoo's provide the animals with large spaces? I think not!

As for the guardian, zoos cause animal stress this is a fact:
http://censhare.umn.edu...
this is research from the university Minnesota.

For these examples we will use tigers. These links below are from normal zoos, look at them and tell me how many of the 'cat' stress symptoms you see. These symptoms are for cats in general therefore affect tigers.
https://www.youtube.com...

Another link. Why would a lion attack for fun? It wouldn't! it was stressed, if these animals lived in luxuries they would not need to kill.
http://www.stuff.co.nz...

So, showing that zoo's cause stress, which decreases life expectancy means you are in some cases halving their possible life span! This is cruel!

As for chinadaily, is seeing something with your own eyes fake? no, the evidence to back it up is in the text, a gibbon nearly seriously hurting itself to escape the people staring at it? That is stress.

and Nique. The whole point of this debate! animals are best suited for larger environments? yes, environments that are bigger (easy enough to do if you remove all the concrete and walkways in zoos) and environments without people staring constantly. Zoo's should remain, but should change to be A) bigger B)Private and C)Should only be for endangered animals.

As for our 'only points'
A) People pay to see the rare and endangered animals, all the other animals are simply time wasters. I personally (Yes, I know, personally) went to a zoo specifically to see a white tiger, a rare animal that is endangered. I didn't care about any of the other animals there.

B) They don't need protection and are wasting space for the animals that do! If the animals aren't endangered then they probably are well adapted to surviving.

C) Educate about animals?" http://rt.com...; This educated about animals! This is cruel! This is what some zoos do about 'extra' animals when they can't be bothered moving them to another zoo, or at even put them down simply because they do not have the correct genes (this sounds a lot like world war II when hitler only wanted specific types of people).

As for you example, I have already explained that 90% of people go to zoos to see the rare animals.

A.) I assume when you say woken up by screaming and being surrounded everyday, you mean that people viewing me and learning about me from a fence/rail far away? I've never seen people screaming at the animals or surrounding them, I believe I would get use to being viewed however.

Is this a Pathos appeal? or a personal appeal to me? Where are the facts?

Finally, for your last facts.

A) Health can and will last, you simply misunderstood me. What I meant was how are they going to cope with 'a new enemy', starvation.

B) This is true but zoo animals have generally not been starved before and will not know how to cope after being in zoo, conditions all their life.

C) Also true, but do they have a 'run for your life' 'test' in zoo reintroduction programs?

D) They have a life of luxury besides maybe being confined in a room their whole life? They may get the best food, but they are also stuck in a tiny area with little chance to burn the energy gained by that food.

E) Many animals are from packs, and many packs/herds do not accept new odd animals (if the animal can even find a herd/pack) meaning they will be left out and possibly have no protection whereas other animals of the same type would.
Other animals that survive alone, you have a point for, BUT these animals survive on their own for a reason (they can hale it)

Good Debate and I look forward to the outcome :)

(Sorry if their are any mistakes, I am tired :/)
Actionsspeak

Con

Is this debate a joke to you, you didn't even make an effort to refute anything I wrote.

You said:

"I said Inhuman, yes I know. Do you know what "inhuman" means? I think not."

When I started this debate(round 1) I immediatly said:

"I'm in favor of zoo's and look forward to debating this topic, however definitions are needed before I may begin.

Inhuman
: very fierce or cruel [1]

Cruel
: causing or helping to cause suffering [1]

Fierce
: very violent [1]
: eager to fight or kill [1]
: having or showing a lot of strong emotion : very strong or intense [1]

This definition doesn't apply to your usage of inhuaman, you said zoo's are just like a jail to back your case that zoo's are inhuman, however saying a jail is fierce doesn't make sense meanwhile cruel does. Therefore we're debating whether or not zoo's are cruel."

I literally have inhuman defined already, so the first 1/3 of your third round is ignorant and unnecessary.

You said:

"1. I'll list three links showing examples of torture and three links showing animals in a zoo, and let the voters decide.
Well, we are not talking about animals in the zoo are we? We are talking about animals that have been released back into the wild. Here are some pictures of animals unable to escape predators:"

This is also completely unnecessary since obviously no amount of training can ensure survival. The same thing occurs to animals who have not been trained, as you should know (Atleast I believed you should have known) the predator eats the pray.

You said:

"I see no proof on this page of any wrong-doings, besides an opinion, backed up by some questionable stats."

The proof is obvious and if you believe otherwise it's your job to refute it, not the voters, just another instance of your massive lack of effort in this debate.

You said:

"This does have some proof, but really? petakillsanimals.com? their website is sure to say good things about peta."

Just another instance of your massive lack of effort in this debate, you literally pointed out the obvious and used sarcasm, with a non-existant refutation.

You said:

"Also includes questionable stats, with nothing to back them up."

These statistice are backed by 2 sources that you didn't even refute, what do you mean "with nothing to back them"?

You said:

"do zoo's protect the animals with sound proof walls? do zoos protect the animals with one-sided glass (or a similar material), do zoo's provide the animals with large spaces? I think not!"

Just another instance of your massive lack of effort in this debate, my point was the animals are completely protected from predatprs which you didn't even attempt to refute.

You said:

"So, showing that zoo's cause stress, which decreases life expectancy means you are in some cases halving their possible life span!"

Zoo's cause stress which may lower the possible life span, however most animals won't life near the max possible lifespan in the wild, due to predators and the effects of aging(slower, weaker, etc.). In fact animals are lucky to even survive to adulthood, sea turtles have a mere 1 in 1,000 chance to survive until sexual maturity however in zoo's they are fully protected from predators[1], saying they can't a safe home is cruel. While providing safety to an endangered animal with a result that they could possibly have a shortened maximium lifespan is not cruel (I would rather have a 90% to live 75 years, then have a 0.01% to survive to reach sexual maturity and a 0.0001% to survive until my 76th birthday). Besides who is to say being hunted would be less tramatic than being in a zoo and having your every need granted. Also elephant stress is already being monitored, based offf of the chemical interleukin-6, in addition the small sample size of elephants proves its inaccuracy, meaning you have yet another failed source.[2]

Here is a paragraph from my listed source[1]:
"Watching a baby sea turtle (known as a "hatchling") struggle out of the nest and make its way to the water is an emotional experience. Everything from footprints to driftwood and crabs are obstacles, though this gauntlet is important for its survival. Birds, raccoons, and fish are just a few of the predators these vulnerable creatures face; some experts say only one out of a thousand will survive to adulthood under natural conditions."

You said:

"As for chinadaily, is seeing something with your own eyes fake? no, the evidence to back it up is in the text, a gibbon nearly seriously hurting itself to escape the people staring at it? That is stress."

That could be a multitude of thing such as fear, confusion, etc.

You said:

"People pay to see the rare and endangered animals, all the other animals are simply time wasters."

This is your opinion, and isn't backed by a source of a logical argument.

You said:

"They don't need protection and are wasting space for the animals that do! If the animals aren't endangered then they probably are well adapted to surviving."

I never said they needed it, but the debate is over whether or not this is cruel and my point for this being nice/helpful to animals went unrefuted.

You said:

"This educated about animals! This is cruel!"

Then you started ranting about hitler, P.S. your link is broken so nobody knows what you're talking about.

You said:

"As for you example, I have already explained that 90% of people go to zoos to see the rare animals."

That's quite a large statement to make without a source, that's Just another instance of your massive lack of effort in this debate.

You said:

"This is true but zoo animals have generally not been starved before and will not know how to cope after being in zoo, conditions all their life."

"What I meant was how are they going to cope with 'a new enemy', starvation."

Both of these have already been answered, the animal will resort to its instincts

Instinct: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned : a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way[3]

You said:

"Also true, but do they have a 'run for your life' 'test' in zoo reintroduction programs?"

This is just more sarcasm and another instance of your massive lack of effort in this debate.

You said:

"Is this a Pathos appeal? or a personal appeal to me? Where are the facts?"
A Pathos appeal is an emotional appeal.[4] Most of your argument involved emotional words, while it lacked logic (logos) and ethos (credibility- mostly due to poor sources).

Summary:

I understand this is a long debate, and may imply some confusion and/or frustration among voters so I will make a summary

Conduct:

Pro used the moving the goalpost fallacy in round 2 to swing the debate in his favor, this was undesputed and Pro then made a desperate act of accused me of not defining inhuman which I did immediatly when round one began. Not to mention countless instances of his sarcasm and lack of effort in round three.

Sources:

I showed source credibility, and my sources were undesputer except for some sarcasm remarks by Pro in round three. Meanwhile Pro has no credible sources unless you count the unnecessary definitions from words I immediatly defined in round one.

Spelling and Grammar:

In round three Pro ignored grammar and said the following:
" (they can hale it) "
" and Nique. " Two word sentence that started with uncapitalized and
He did have an excuse however
"(Sorry if their are any mistakes, I am tired :/)"

Argument:

Pro desperately used a fallacious argument in round two to swing the debate in his favor, used no refutations that were backed with or source, relied heavily on emotional/pathos and awkwardly relied on sarcasm for his argument.

Voter Reccomendations:

Reliable Sources- me, view summary
Spelling and Grammar- tie, but leaning me since most sentences were well typed from both sides, let Pro have a tie.
Conduct- me, view summary
Argument- me, view summary

Conclusion

At long last, I hope you now understand why zoo's are not at all inhuman/cruel and actually aid animals.

Sources:
[1] http://www.seeturtles.org...
[2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://courses.durhamtech.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Pretty solid debate. I'm unsure why pro tried to change the resolution (unless he was attempting a truthism with that listed but uncited horse example for unhumane), when the meaning are too similar for it to matter all that much. http://grammar.about.com...
Posted by IrrationalArgument 3 years ago
IrrationalArgument
Actually, both are words.
Inhuman: lacking human qualities of compassion and mercy; cruel and barbaric.
Inhumane: without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.
So the word may have been used in the wrong context but both are words that are relevant to our debate.
Posted by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
@Kc1999
I believed that also, but either way it's fine.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
*inhumane
Posted by bro20 3 years ago
bro20
I believe zoos are fine if they are used for conservation
Posted by connor121212341434 3 years ago
connor121212341434
I'm sure that we all agree that humans are - when you take away their civilisation, homes, jobs, etc - indeed animals, and in fact are very interesting ones.

One question: if we keep all of the other animals in zoos, why aren't there humans there too?
Posted by Angie1 3 years ago
Angie1
Zoo's are good as part of animal conservation, if they keep animals is as natural habitat as possible and feed them well or allow for natural hunting. Zoos for entertainment, where animals aren't looked after, are inhuman.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 3 years ago
Seeginomikata
IrrationalArgumentActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins, as he convinced me that animals in captivity live by higher standards that in the wild, and that it is not immoral to give animals a better life. I found con sourcing was superior in quantity and quality.
Vote Placed by ILL_logic 3 years ago
ILL_logic
IrrationalArgumentActionsspeakTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: im with con on this one it was a good debate all around,but zoos do shelter and breed species that close in on extinction and keep them out of range of poachers it is because of zoos that some species get a fighting chance at all