Marine Mammals under human care.

As requested by my opponent, I have waited as long as possible before posting this debate round.Clause 1:"Assumption #1Scientific research is a good thing."My opponent states that I assume that scientific research is a good thing. My opponent is correct. I do assume that scientific research is a good thing. I will go into this in detail shortly."The reality of this particular assumption is that scientific research is incredibly ambiguous,"I am slightly confused by my opponents assertion here. Scientific research is the most unambiguous, systematic, and reliable method of obtaining knowledge known to mankind. I hardly need to back up this claim, as my opponent herself is relying on scientific research done by AZA accreddited institutions for her own arguments. Everything we know about marine mammals today comes from AZA funded research. "and there have been many people who have questioned the methods of scientists in regards to mammal research." Here my opponent appeals to the masses to support her argument. This is arroneous in two seperate ways.1. This is a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Populum, a well known logical fallacy. This point cannot stand.2. Following my opponents logic, many people have questioned the fact that man walked on the moon, many people have questioned that Obama is American, Many people have questioned that airplanes ever hit the twin towers. I do not need to explain this point any further."Scientific research based on animals in captivity isn't really scientific at all"In order to support this argument, my opponent must provide well respected sources and cite her own background in science in order to demonstrate that she has some sort of basis for this apparently baseless assertion. As it stands, her support and logic is "Because I said so" and there is no way for me to argue this except to say "I say otherwise". "scientists cannot assume that their observations of animals in captivity will be of any use to being able to figure out the behaviors of animals in the wild." I will tackle this argument from two different angles.1. My opponent again must provide something to support her claim. Does she assert that the DNA of captive animals is somehow different from that of wild animals of the same species? Does she assert that the anatomy, blood chemistry or brain function of animals under human care does not reflect that of their wild counterparts? There is no evidence to support this claim, rather there are mountains of evidence, coupled with common sence, that indicate otherwise. My opponent has failed to support this assert even with Pathos, much less Logos,Ethos, or evidence. This argument is baseless and cannot stand.2. My opponent assumes that the AZA funded research occurs in the AZA institutions themselves. This is highly erraneous, and I assert that the research in question does indeed occur in the wild, funded by the AZA. I have personally participated in this research. Since the end of the World Marine Census in 2010, the AZA institutions have been the worlds largest fleet of in-the-feild researchers. My opponents point is then rendered utterly baseless.Clause 2:"Assumption 2-If "conservation" to you simply means to keep a species alive, then yes, AZA aquariums are helping to conserve marine mammals. However, I think conservation has a much bigger meaning than that. Instead of just keeping species alive in captivity, I believe that humans who really want to help conserve species need to help conserve them in the wild. After all, it isn't really "conservation" if a species is only being kept alive through the care of humans."My opponent again makes an assumption about an assumption. My opponent erraneously equates "Conservation" with "Breeding Program", and then proceeds to make another assumption about said "Breeding Program". I will explain.1. Conservation in the AZA is defined as "Directly contributing to long term survival and well-being of species in their natural ecosystems and habitats". This is a crucial aspect of the AZA, and an institution cannot in any way bacome a member without fulfilling this requirement. 2. Breeding programs are indeed a part of some conservation programs. My opponent assumes, however, that breeding programs in AZA accredited institutions produce offspring for the purpose of exhibiting the animals. This is erroneous, and I assert that the primary purpose of breeding programs in the AZA, like the GAQ's Small Clawed Otter program and MBAQ's Sea Otter program, are specifically designed for realeas into the wild. Contributor to these programs go as far as to disguse themselves from the animals, so that the animals do not lose their natural apprehension of humans, in preperation for their release.Clause 3: Dolphins in the wild may swim up to 40 or 50 miles in a day and can dive to depths of hundreds of feet. Even in the largest captive facilities, dolphins have access to less than 1/10,000 of 1% (0.000001%) of the space available to them in their natural environment. I have already addressed this contention in my previous round. My argument stands. My opponent has attempted to discredit my source, an scientific paper published by respected scientisists and experts if this feild, by providing her own source to contradict my argument. See her qoute below."You said that "according to experts" dolphins only swim in order to avoid predators or hunt their prey. However, I noticed that the source you referenced is from nearly 20 years ago.Note that I have found information from a much more recent source that seems to say otherwise:"Not only does my opponent have to jump through logical hoops in order to construe this as a direct contradiction to my source, but she proceeds to do so by citing an article meant for children and written by a musician who has absolutely no background in science. No further wxplanaition is needed to illustrate to the voters that my opponents argument collapses under scrutiny.My opponents other source, the WSPA, is horrendously unreliable, as it is incredibly biased. In simply reviewing the FAQ's page, I found countless deception, misrepresentation, and bold-faced lies. This source is shameful.