Zoos do more harm than good

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.