Team Debate: All Animals Should be released from zoos

Because of the large overlap in our contentions between Pro and Con, we are combining our defenses and rebuttals into single entities; the first dealing with animals, habitat, and endangerment, and the second dealing with humans, education, and the economy.Defense/Rebuttal 1: Because animals are treated badly in zoos, their welfare is at stake. It is an impossible burden to demonstrate just how many animals are culled, as zoos are often not open about it, but it can be estimated at around ten thousand per year (http://www.bbc.com...). We have argued that multiple zoos do not take care of their animals, and have given multiple examples. Con’s argument that Zoos bring in 175,000,000 visitors and that the U.S helps 1041 endangered species has nothing to do with the argument about whether or not zoo animals are taken care of properly. Regardless of its inapplicability to the resolution, Con’s argument actually works against them.The more people observe zoo animals, the more stress it puts on them, due to the noise: [1] Anthropogenic noises heard at zoos can include... visitor noise, construction, air or road traffic, and entertainment events (concerts, fireworks). Why does this matter? Long term exposure to sound can have stress effects on health. Too much environmental noise is damaging to development and reproduction, and can have negative effects on behavior and fitness (Kight and Swaddle 2011). Con attempts to mitigate our argument by emphasizing the word all, rather than countering with the strength of their own arguments. As Pro on this debate, it is our job to argue why we should free all zoo animals. So we have, by demonstrating the cruelty inflicted upon many zoo animals. Here are some more examples. A lady went undercover to a Virginia Zoo, and discovered horrifying things, and witnessed horrible events. In China, abusing animals in zoos is also very common. Con argues that returning injured or somewhat domesticated animals to the wild will kill them. This is largely true, but with all the involuntary culling, many die anyway, and the ones that live do not enjoy happy lives. As we have provided in our previous round, animals are abused in Zoos. They are killed because Zoos don’t have enough room. So, it’s safe to say that animals should remain in their natural habitat in the first place because that is where they belong. Many Zoos choose to go out into the wild, and then capture zoos. Many of them end up depressed because they are not in their natural environment, they can’t socialize and they are sometimes even separated from their other siblings or parents. Con does not explain why it is important that zoos protect endangered animals. If anything, endangered animals are held captive in unbearable conditions, abused, not fed and become depressed quickly. They need to live in their natural environment. That is what they’re used to, and, as we have shown they also need the socialization from their natural environment. To allow their species to persist and suffer is immoral. Con doesn’t explain how we engage in “assumption based argumentation”. As we showed previously, zoos do have veterinarians, but many don’t catch an illness in time, or just don’t treat the animal. Also as we argued, many workers noticed animals being sick, but did nothing about it. Con ignores that documentaries are not a new concept; they have existed for years, so his argument that many animals can only be seen in captivity holds true for perhaps a handful of animals. Also, Con must prove that it is our “duty” to protect endangered animals. Thus far, he has not proved this. There is no rule in life, that it is a human’s duty to protect endangered species. Sources: [1] https://prezi.com... Defense/Rebuttal 2: Con argues that logic is irrelevant to this debate. If logic is truly irrelevant, then we propose that releasing animals from zoos is moral because the Snackleporker of Vemir has ordered the color blue to happily cook dinner for everyone. Clearly, the idea that logic is irrelevant is nonsense. Con argues that it is “logically and morally right” to “preserve endangered species, treat injured animals, and educate our youth”, but has provided no reason why this is the case. We have already demonstrated that the education is irrelevant, and we have shown in our first contention that it is not worth sustaining endangered animals when they largely are suffering in zoo environments. They would be much happier if they were released and allowed to die free. The claim that we provided veiled rebuttals in our opening round is untrue. The entire point of the second contention is that the money spent on zoos would be more helpful to society if spent elsewhere, and the only way to make a sound argument on that premise is to examine the current impacts of zoo spending. It is not unreasonable that there is overlap between the two opening arguments, because Con obviously has to examine the positive impacts of zoos to make their claims, while the nature of our contention necessitated the same thing, and we both happened to see the same ideas as important. Con does not explain how our thorough data from the BLS is without substance, so the argument that we don’t sufficiently support our claims is dropped. Con’s rebuttal that zoo education programs are important, on the other hand, are, in fact, without substance. We have shown in our opening that other forms of education are better when it comes to creating jobs and helping the economy, which Con agrees are positive societal outcomes. Con, on the other hand, has not shown why degrading certain aspects of education is “absurd”. Certainly, most (if not all) schools do not teach courses about how deodorant is manufactured, for example, because that is useless knowledge. With few opportunities available in zoology, knowledge of different animals is useless. Con also does not explain how “fun” is important (and also does not substantiate the claim, while we have shown that money and thus employment is necessary for happiness), nor why education about the natural world is important for development of minds. Con, again, does not substantiate their claims about education, endangered species, and injured animals. We have shown that the education zoos provide is useless, and there is no evidence provided by Con to suggest that treatment of injured animals or protection of endangered species is a “necessary public good” or that they benefit “the world”.Conclusion:Con has not provided any substantive arguments with which to counter the evidence we have presented. Their rebuttals lack both relevant evidence and relevant analysis. Our arguments stand; Con's do not.