The Instigator
Switchlapse
Pro (for)
Losing
20 Points
The Contender
debater777
Con (against)
Winning
43 Points

Zoos do more harm than good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 10 votes the winner is...
debater777
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,719 times Debate No: 11376
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (10)

 

Switchlapse

Pro

I'm challenging debater777 to the motion "Zoos do more harm than good"
72 hours time to post arguments, 4,000 characters max
thanks
debater777

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for requesting me for this debate on the topic 'zoos do more harm than good.' First I would like to state some organizations (neither proposition or opposition) that campaign on environmental issues. Greenpeace is concerned for the welfare of animals deriving from a commitment to the value of nature and the earth.
Now, I would like to stress one topic especially in this debate- zoos exist to protect endangered species. One of the reasons animals are taken into captivity in zoos is because they are under threat if they were to stay in their natural habitats. I would like my opponent to state at the most three zoos that do not keep the animals well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings. Zoos CAN and DO exist without cruelty to animals, with leading sources from animals.howstuffworks.com and wikianswers.com
I will state some other points in the rounds following this.
Debate Round No. 1
Switchlapse

Pro

I'd like to refute my opponent's points
First off, my opponent stated that animals are taken into zoos because they're endangered- Even if these zoos DID help the animals, imagine what would happen when they got put back into the wild? They probably wouldn't be used to the danger, because they're so used to the environment where they're fed food! This makes the help from zoos completely pointless, because the animals will most likely die in the end anyways. Only 1% of those animals are put back into the wild
Source-Born Free Foundation
Also, the animals that are usually saved are animals that are clich�d or have immense popularity over other animals. The zoos often don't take in animals that are as popular, because they're afraid that they won't make enough money or attract enough visitors.

Definitions: zoo-the facility where wild animals are housed for exhibition.
exhibition-organized presentation and display of a selection of items
S:wordnetweb.princeton.edu
Right in the definitions, it clearly states that zoos are the facility where wild animals are housed for presentation and display. They are basically items used for display.

To start off my own arguments, I would like to have you picture something, judge.
Imagine going to the zoo on a class field trip as a little kid. Now you may be thinking that it is a very happy situation, but think of it in the animal's points of view. They are trapped in metal cages, usually without enough room, in an unreal environment. Since my opponent brought up that this is for the animal's own good, then I'd like to take that point to my own side. See, if my opponent is really THINKING about the animals themselves and how the animals would feel being taken out of the wild and away from their families, then they would leave them be. The guarantee rate of these animals actually surviving with the zoo's care is not 100%, and wouldn't it be better to die with those you love, rather than die in a care center or a zoo by yourself?
Now I will resume onto my own points

I'd like to start with my first point, that although the animals are being put in zoos for educational purposes, this is not an effective system to do so
Source:J.Whyville.net
First off, animals do not behave naturally or act as they would in their natural habitats. This is often due to stress and hunger. The stress of being photographed all the time, or having to stay in a cage that is woefully undersized is HUGE.
The opposition may also state that there are descriptions of each animal in front of the cages, but how many little kids do you know that will stop to look at the tiny description box in front of them, rather than seeing the animals themselves?
Another effect of the unnatural behavior is that it gives the wrong impression to kids and adults alike.
The animal may be more aggressive, since they're under stress, which may lead them to attacking the visitors.
This gives the visitors a false impression of the the animals, that they're too aggressive and they're really dangerous. Wouldn't it be easier if the person read the information online or on the TV than to have these false impressions/

That leads me to my second point, that there are better options than zoos
Source for this argument : European Captive Breeding Programs;Born Free Foundation;Wiki.answers.com
According to US Television Households as of December 2006 - 111,300,000 people have/own TVs in the US. Imagine how much greater this number has grown in a 3-4 year time period! HD (High Definition) TVs are currently sold throughout the US and feature realistic and great videos of these animals in their NATURAL habitat. I'm stressing the word NATURAL because the animals BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY as I have said before in my previous argument. There is a far greater number of people that would watch a documentary like Planet Earth in stunning HD and great video than people who want to go to the zoo! TV's nowadays give the real impression of the animals.
debater777

Con

//This makes the help from zoos completely pointless, because the animals will most likely die in the end anyways//
This statement from my opponent is clearly a shame. Like I stated earlier, zoos exist to protect the animals and make sure they don't die, in the wild or not.
//The animal may be more aggressive, since they're under stress, which may lead them to attacking the visitors.//
There are cages in zoos for many reasons, but to refut my opponent's statement I will narrow it down to one- Cages separate the visitor and animal, so the creature cannot attack the visitor.
//There is a far greater number of people that would watch a documentary like Planet Earth in stunning HD and great video than people who want to go to the zoo!//
Can my opponent state any surveys to back up this point?
Now I would like to go on to my own arguments.
II.Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education.
Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation.
Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness.
There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them.
As long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo.
Now even though this argument is short, judge, let's look at WHY zoos help the animals (summing up points)
Zoos provide up close and personal meetings, let's say, with the animals (but not in a dangerous situation)
Zoos emphasize on education- fuels our future generations to come
For these reasons and many more, zoos do more good than harm.
Debate Round No. 2
Switchlapse

Pro

Although my opponent refuted some of my points(which were minor, she failed to refute others such as: although the animals are being put in zoos for educational purposes,this is not an effective system to do so, that there are better options than zoos,and more
So now I'm going to refute some of debater's points
First off, she stated that zoos are very safe,but i have evidence stating otherwise:a Boy was attacked by a gorilla at the Dallas zoo (http://abcnews.go.com...),a man died after being attacked by white Siberian tigers at Singapore(http://english.peopledaily.com.cn...),a boy was attacked by a lynx THOUGH A METAL LINK FENCE in the Okla. zoo (http://technology-science.newsvine.com...).There are many more attacks worldwide, still occurring today. They sometimes even have shows documenting some zoo attacks, such as the show Untamed and Uncut.
Also,she stated that cages are put there to protect the visitors, but just because they're supposed to doesn't necessarily guarantee that the will do what they are supposed to.In saying so,i have disproved her point that these zoos are safe for visitors
She also asked me to state a source,so i will use myself,my peers,and my family to do so.
Me, my friends, and my family all watch TV occasionally right?Instead of having to get up and drive 30 miles or so to go to the local zoo, it's human nature to be lazy and stay where you are already,rather than to get up and go to the zoo.Therefore, all these people i know, will most likely, stay at their comfy homes and watch an animal documentary, rather than go to the zoo 30 miles away.
Another thing she stated is that "Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education"to refute this,I am going to ask you something, judge.How many kids out there would rather read a little description box in front of the animal's cage than see the animals in person?Although zoos main emphasis is on conservation and education, this is not guaranteeing that it will be giving the right impression, or education,like I stated before.It also does not guarantee that it CAN save the animals from dying. Like i stated earlier,only 1% of the animals taken in are released back in the wild!! 1%! (Source: Born Free Foundation)
she stated that "Zoos provide up close and personal meetings, let's say, with the animals."
Like i said earlier,she did not state many of the points that i have put out there that reinforce my statement that animals do not behave naturally in their environments.Although the visitor may be very close to the animals, they will only see the animal,but they will not know if they are dangerous,friendly,etc. because, like i stated, the animals do not behave naturally in these zoos.They may be more lazy since they have nothing to do most of the time,or more aggressive because they don't like being caged and want to get out of the environment to which they truly belong. (Source:J.Whyville.net)
Finally,as my last refute,I'm going to refute her statement that "As long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo."
First of all, she has not stated any sources that the zoos are not "cruelty-free."Like i said,zoos underfeed animals and make them stressed. I think you can tell if that is "cruelty-free" or not!

Now I'd just like to show where this debate is at.She has not even close refuted every point i have put out,I have refuted nearly every one of her points,and she has only stated two sources in both of her speeches so far.

Since this is my last speech of this debate,I'd just like to conclude with something to ask YOU,judge. Just look at this debate in the animals' point of view. How would YOU like it if you were taken from your home, put in a metal cage, and be stressed/underfed?It sounds like prison to me. For these points and many more,the proposition has clearly won.
debater777

Con

I will go straight to refuting most of my opponent's case:
//Me, my friends, and my family //
Proper grammar, please? Like the note says, 'it is important to check your grammar and spelling...' Although this is not the main idea of the debate, I would like readers to note this grammatical error. (To add to the grammar problems, my opponent keeps writing "I" as "i")
//Instead of having to get up and drive 30 miles or so to go to the local zoo, it's human nature to be lazy and stay where you are already,rather than to get up and go to the zoo.//
It is human nature to be LAZY and stay where you are already? I will let the voters decide on this statement
//she stated that zoos are very safe,but i have evidence stating otherwise//
When I went to visit my opponent's sources to see the evidence for myself, I noted that in some recorded cases, the victim was being completely careless and was FORCING his fingers into the cage of the animal (boy gorilla case)
//she stated that cages are put there to protect the visitors, but just because they're supposed to doesn't necessarily guarantee that the will do what they are supposed to.//
Have there ever been cases where a fence/cage was broken or taken down? No. The cages will do what they are supposed to do- create a barrier between the visitor and animal. Thus, the safety issue(s) my opponent has been repeating is up to the visitor's common sense. (Boy gorilla- boy carelessly shoved his fingers into the gorilla's enclosure)
//How many kids out there would rather read a little description box in front of the animal's cage than see the animals in person?//
The little description box in front of the animal's cage is a plaque on the animal's known facts. The 'kids' reading the box can look up and see the animal itself. Also, my opponent stated in an earlier submission these exact words:
//There is a far greater number of people that would watch a documentary like Planet Earth in stunning HD and great video than people who want to go to the zoo//
This proves that my opponent contradicted himself by first stating that there are MORE people wanting to WATCH animal documentaries than there are people who want to go to the zoos, then asking about the number of kids who would rather read a description box than see the animal in person. ???
//Like i said,zoos underfeed animals and make them stressed. I think you can tell if that is "cruelty-free" or not!//
Well, switchlapse, like I stated, zoos do NOT underfeed animals, therefore creating no stress relating to that matter. Now that we are on the stress topic, zoos do not cause any stress to the animals that are noted.
I believe that I have spent enough time (and characters) refuting my opponent's case. Now, I will strengthen my arguments, and later state my sources.
I would like to stress my main point for this debate: Zoos exist to PROTECT endangered species. My opponent keeps repeating that animals are better off in their natural habitat, but in their natural environments, the animals are being POACHED and skinned, lessening their chances of survival. Zoos take in the creatures, feed them, give them large enclosures that are EXACTLY like their homes, and breed them, thus creating more of the animal species. What would be the point of studying the animals in their natural homes when the endangered ones could very well be extinct by the end of the century? Our future generations would be in the dark about magnificent creatures like the polar bear and rhinocerus, their only insight being simple books with mere pictures. Zoos are here to prevent the extinction of the animals that, like us humans, roam this earth.
Think about this for a minute, readers, voters, and judge(s)- Without zoos to protect and LOVE animals, to place them in replicas that are EXACTLY like their homes along with others of their species, where would these animals, endangered or not, be right now?

SOURCES:
middleschooldebatetopics.com
animals.howstuffworks.com
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by i8JoMomma 6 years ago
i8JoMomma
this corrupt government of tea bags are doing more harm than good
Posted by debater777 7 years ago
debater777
Yay! Great job debating jason (i looked @ ur name) maybe we can debate another topic sometime
Posted by Switchlapse 7 years ago
Switchlapse
lol
Posted by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
I don't know either
Posted by debater777 7 years ago
debater777
O btw...who are you, BlackEyedPeas? I wanna friend you =)
Posted by Switchlapse 7 years ago
Switchlapse
oh yeah btw the source about the gorilla boy, he wasn't forcing his fingers into the cage, the gorilla escaped...
Posted by Switchlapse 7 years ago
Switchlapse
haha you too
Posted by BlackEyedPeas 7 years ago
BlackEyedPeas
I'm sorry for MY incorrect grammar. I meant to say that debater777 nailed switchlapse for his/her grammar. Excuse me :) :)
Posted by BlackEyedPeas 7 years ago
BlackEyedPeas
I guess it was an okay debate.....debater777, I suggest you place your sources in between your points, like switchlapse. Also, you stated that you visited one of switchlapse's sites.... you can't really do that. switchlapse, I suggest you work on your grammar because you will get nailed for that, and debater777 did. For both debater777 and switchlapse, I believe that you both did a great time debating.
Posted by debater777 7 years ago
debater777
HAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!! *coughs into sleeves* I mean, great job switchlapse!
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Switchlapse 7 years ago
Switchlapse
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by BlackEyedPeas 7 years ago
BlackEyedPeas
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by debater777 7 years ago
debater777
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by chaskins 7 years ago
chaskins
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Pulling_The_Brad 7 years ago
Pulling_The_Brad
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by emmalmalcolm 7 years ago
emmalmalcolm
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sidobagga 7 years ago
sidobagga
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
Switchlapsedebater777Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33