The Instigator
InquiringMind
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysRight12345
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Zoos

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
AlwaysRight12345
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 361 times Debate No: 73407
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

InquiringMind

Con

Zoos are not large enough to provide habitats similar to natural habitats wildlife would experience in the wild. Animals receive a fraction of the space in a zoo that they would in the wild.

Because of the limited space, zoos are also limited in the number of each species they can maintain. Many species including mice, elephants, gerbils and guinea pigs, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, horses, lions, hyenas, meerkats and penguins thrive in groups and limited access to animals of same-species is hard on animals emotionally.
AlwaysRight12345

Pro

I will start the debate by thanking my opponent for choosing such an interesting topic.

The BoP is on Con to prove that zoos are inherently bad.

My opponent has made one main point: zoos are too small and they therefore limit the species possible to contain. My response to this is that although the containment areas are small, they are usually large enough to provide the animal with the space that they need. There are biologists that look into this and agree. [1] (Also, zoos typically don't keep half of the examples my opponent provided.) The rare cases of this not being true are illegal and outweighed by the many instances of it being true and by the benefits below:

Now I will go on to prove why zoos are good. Zoos have prevented many species from being driven extinct by humans, such as the tuatara, amur leopard, and even species that could potentially become endangered, such as bats by the white nose syndrome. [2] People are also educated by zoos. "Many children and adults, especially those in cities will never see a wild animal beyond a fox or pigeon, let alone a lion or giraffe." [1]

In conclusion, we must continue zoos for the good of society and for the welfare of the species my opponent claims to protect.

Back to you, Con!

Sources:
1. http://www.theguardian.com...
2. http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 1
InquiringMind

Con

InquiringMind forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
InquiringMind

Con

InquiringMind forfeited this round.
AlwaysRight12345

Pro

AlwaysRight12345 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
InquiringMindAlwaysRight12345Tied
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: Conduct within a similar range, sources used to great effect and unchallenged, BoP never established by the instigator, whereas the contender did an effective job reminding us that zoos have clear benefits for animals.
Vote Placed by Yassine 1 year ago
Yassine
InquiringMindAlwaysRight12345Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: - Conduct: FF. => Pro's win. - Sources: Con provided none. => Pro's win.