The Instigator
DebateBatman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Defro
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Zoos

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...
Defro
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,689 times Debate No: 54706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

DebateBatman

Con

Here are a couple of reasons why zoo's should not exist. One, zoo's can not provide the amount of space that will be given to the animals in the wild. Did you know that wild cats have about 18,000 times less space in zoos than they do in the wild? And that Polar Bears have about 1 million times less space than in the wild? My second reason is that animals die much more frequently in zoo's than in the wild. About 5000 animals per year die in zoos. Also, about 7,500 animals die per year because they are killed by the zookeepers? And that the only reason that they are killed is because there is 'too much' of that species? Talk about animal cruelty!!! My last reason is that the animals have no say in what is going on. Yes I know that animals can not talk, but that is just the reason. You see, no one can ask them if they want to mate, or what they want to eat. So because they can not tell you, why not just leave them alone? They didn't ask for this!! So do me a favor and vote no on zoos.
Defro

Pro

I accept this debate.
I shall provide a rebuttal before presenting my main arguments.

Zoo (noun): an establishment that maintains a collection of wild animals, typically in a park or gardens, for study, conservation, or display to the public. [1]

======================================================================

Rebuttals:


"Zoo's can not provide the amount of space that will be given to the animals in the wild."

-On the contrary, they can. In certain cases. Now I assume that in this statement, Con is implying that "the amount of space given" means the space in which animals live and usually do not venture out of.

-For an example, fish and ducks usually live in a swamp or a lake. The never venture out of this lake. If they do, they will likely die. This lake is the given amount of space to those fish and ducks. Zoos are easily able to provide a lake just as big or even bigger than the lake they previously lived in should zoos decide to keep ducks and fish in a lake. Below is a picture of a Zoo's duck lake. [2] Should the image not appear in the debate, refer to the link provided in my sources. I'm sure most would agree that this lake is as big as any other in the wild.

-Therefore zoo's certainly can provide the amount of space that animals recieve in the wild.
s://ci3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" />



"Did you know that wild cats have about 18,000 times less space in zoos than they do in the wild?"

-Con has not provided a source to confirm the validity of this claim. As a matter of fact, this is a lie.

-I shall attempt to disprove this claim with an example using Ocelots, which are wild cats.

-According to my 3rd source [3], the territory of female ocelots is 9 square miles large. Now let's say a reasonable space that Zoos would provide ocelots is 100 square meters. 9 square miles is equal to 130,357 square meters. Therefore, divide 130,357 square meters by 100 square meters and you get
1,303, which means a wild cat like the ocelot has 1,303 times less space, which is still a significant difference in space. My purpose in proving this was simply to show that Con's claim has no validity.

-I concede that wild cats live in much smaller spaces in the zoo than in the wild, but Con has yet to explain why this is bad. Wild cats like ocelots need so much space because they hunt, and food does not grow everywhere. They need a large territory so that they can search for prey. If they confined themselves to a small area, they cannot aquire sufficient food to survive. They don't do it to have fun. They are doing it to survive. And in many cases, they die of starvation. However, if they are fed food everyday in one place, that defeats their purpose to hunt, which defeats their purpose to have a large territory. They are guaranteed survival until old age or disease.

-Therefore, having them live in smaller spaces is certainly justified.


"And that Polar Bears have about 1 million times less space than in the wild?"

-This is another baseless assertion. I understand that Con is trying to exaggerate to prove his point, but the basic idea behind his exaggeration is false.

-As climate change develops, the temperature of the Earth rises, and the polar ice caps have melted significantly. The ice caps are essentially the polar bears' homes. They sleep on them, make shelter on them, and hibernate on them. [4] As the ice keeps melting, the polar bears' homes keep shrinking. In fact, many polar bears don't even have homes anymore as they have melted completely and they have begun entering europe for refuge. Without ice caps, they have to keep swimming in the ocean, which woud likely exhaust them to death if they don't reach land in time. Below are some images of polar bears and the very little space they have compared to the larger space they have in a zoo. [5][6][7]



s://spaces.usu.edu...; alt="" />



-In a zoo, a polar bear would likely have more space and would not have to worry about their homes melting down, which might kill them if they can't swim to solid land in time. They are fed adequately and they have health care.


"My second reason is that animals die much more frequently in zoo's than in the wild. About 5000 animals per year die in zoos. Also, about 7,500 animals die per year because they are killed by the zookeepers? And that the only reason that they are killed is because there is 'too much' of that species? Talk about animal cruelty!!!"

-This is absurd and obviously not true! You're making things up! How can more animals die per year by being killed by zookeepers than the total animals who died per year in zoos! You have committed a mathematical fallacy and lied!

-I don't think Con is aware of this, but there are a lot more animals in the wilderness than in zoos, perhaps even thousands of times more. If there are thousands of times more animals in the wild than in zoos, it's only logical that there are thousands of times more deaths in the wilderness than in zoos.

-Zookeepers never kill their animals! If there is "too much" of an animal, they will obviously sell them to another zoo so that they get money. What's the point in killing them if they can sell them and get money?

-In fact, animals in zoos have a better chance of living than animals in the wild. In the wild, they are vulnerable to predators, disease, starvation, and hunting. In a zoo, they are fed daily, so no starvation. Hunters are not allowed to hunt animals in a zoo. And zoo animals are separated from their respective predators. They also have health care. I know this myself because my aunt owns a zoo and I've helped her run it. I helped her put ointments and medicine on the legs of all the giraffes so that they don't get stung by mosquitoes, decreasing the likelihood of them contracting malaria, which many African animals die from.


"My last reason is that the animals have no say in what is going on. Yes I know that animals can not talk, but that is just the reason. You see, no one can ask them if they want to mate, or what they want to eat."

-Animals certainly have a say to some degree. If we want to breed two animals, we get them together, and if they breed, that means they wanted to breed and if they don't breed, that means they don't want to breed. So we can easily tell whether or not an animal wants to breed.

-Con is making the mistake of assuming animals have the same mentality as humans. As an AP Biology student, I can say with validity that all functional organisms have two objectives: to survive, and to reproduce. Zoos allow them to survive easily and reproduce easily.

-As for food, as long as it's food, they eat it. They are not picky like humans. In the wild, they can't eat what they want either, they eat whatever they can get. In a zoo, we can tell if they like something or not, and can adjust their diet plan accordingly.



Addendum:

More reasons why zoos should exist:

-Education: By having zoos, it is easier for scientists to learn more about animals, ecology, and biology and contribute to their fields. Also, it is a great way of teaching students, especially young students in grade school, about animals. People in general can also learn about the cool animals that they don't see everyday, broadening their knowledge and expanding their experience.

-Preservation: Some animals cannot live in the wild any longer and are close to extinction. To preserve their species, zoos are great.




Sources and Images:

[1] https://www.google.co.th...

[2] http://www.gauteng.net...;(Duck Pond Image)

[3] http://bigcatrescue.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://i.dailymail.co.uk...

[6] https://spaces.usu.edu...

[7] http://nimg.sulekha.com...





Debate Round No. 1
DebateBatman

Con

DebateBatman forfeited this round.
Defro

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateBatman

Con

DebateBatman forfeited this round.
Defro

Pro

Con has abandoned this debate. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gorant 2 years ago
gorant
I totally agree with Con only. Because we do not have any rights to make animals as slaves and put them in Zoo. Zoo is nothing but Jail for animals.

What they did mistake to put them into jail and harassing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Pokemonzr 2 years ago
Pokemonzr
DebateBatmanDefroTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G seemed tied, but this was a sure win to Pro. I barely had to read it. I saw pictures and sources on Pro's side. Although Con seemingly started off strong, this start was followed by two forfeits. Obviously he was overwhelmed and intimidated by Pro.