Zoo's are inhuman

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...