Team Debate: All Animals Should be released from zoos

IntroFirst, in response to Con’s overview, we would like to note that we have, in fact, demonstrated why animals should be released from zoos--their captivity reduces the happiness of both animals (shown in our first contention) and humans (second contention). We have repeatedly shown that a life of unhappiness is not worth living, and Con has not contested it at all, merely attempting to dismiss it with the buzz-word “irrelevant”. The fact that Con is still alleging irrelevance in our argument demonstrates a lack of understanding of our arguments, and nothing more. On the Subject of the Opening RoundBefore we do anything else, it is imperative to address the allegation of rule-breaking by opponents. Our opponents claim that we rebutted their argument in round two, and that it was against the rules. 1. We did not, for reasons we have explained and shall reiterate, and 2. There was NO rule set that said we couldn’t otherwise. We would like to note that there is no restriction against it that Con set forth. However, we already addressed why this isn’t the case; the nature of the resolution lends itself to overlap in arguments. Consider another resolution, for a moment: “On balance, zoos contribute positively to GDP”. GDP can be broken down into 4 parts: consumer spending, government spending, investment spending, and net exports. Any reasonable debater on either side is going to address all four of those points. Similarly, with the given resolution, there is a very finite subset of points that can be made for or against the morality of zoos within the context of benefits to animals and humans that both parties have used. One cannot substantially explore the effects of zoos on humans without exploring the economy and education. To call it a rebuttal is to substantially restrict our opening round, because it makes us unable to address the most significant issues in the debate just because our opponents happened to mention them first. We quoted from the same source simply because it was the first and most reliable source that anyone would find when looking up “the effect of zoos on the economy” (A). Note that, if we were rebutting within our opening round, we would have addressed the notion that some people would be rendered unemployed by the closure of zoos, for example. While we did say that the economy would be better off for closing zoos, we did not address this specific point made by Con. Similarly, while we did mention that education was not beneficial when directed toward animals, we did NOT argue that school children weren’t curious about them or that zoos couldn’t be an “amazing experience” for them or that they didn’t raise important issues about animals to them. Note that we derived our arguments for contention two, point two DIRECTLY from the AZA’s quote, which, I will repeat, are “science education and wildlife conservation, [generating] jobs and [supporting] local communities”. As such, given that the entire point of the argument was to demonstrate that the opportunity cost of achieving these goals was unreasonably high, and thus aiming to fulfill them is immoral, the overlap is clearly not rebuttals, but the result of an independently-framed argument that happened to touch on some of the same issues. Regardless, the fact that no such rule exists makes Con’s accusation void. A. . https://www.google.com... On Animal TreatmentWe never ignored this part. We agree that zoos have veterinarians, but disagree that their services were being utilized. Our arguments have proved that many of the animals are not being taken care of regardless of the credibility or status of veterinarians. Con claims that a zoo in London takes proper care of their animals. This does not mean that all or most other zoos do the same. As we have demonstrated that zoos on balance create unhappiness in animals, they are immoral, regardless of any “protection” of a species. On the EconomyWe have provided empirical evidence to show that the economic benefits of zoos are minimal, by demonstrating the effects of spending on infrastructure. The money spent on zoos can be better spent elsewhere. Zoos aren’t a necessity, but a want, and Con has not demonstrated why it is necessary to save endangered species. Spending on this want wastes societal resources, as money coming into the zoos does not give society a substantial benefit, as we have shown. On Culling and Endangered AnimalsCon agrees that animal culling is an issue. Animals are culled regularly, because they are not wanted by the zoo anymore. From the examples provided, zoos DO NOT transfer unwanted animals to other zoos. Our opponent rebuts with what should be done, rather than what is actually in practice, for evidence. Yet, we cannot simply ignore reality. The zoos have made their choice. There is no proof provided by our opponents that unwanted animals (instead of being culled) are transferred to other zoos. The “legume” simile is nonsensical. As humans, we have no obligation to protect endangered animals that Con has shown. As we have argued before, this is based on personal belief. Protecting endangered animals is not a moral necessity; protecting the overall happiness of all animals and humans is, as we have shown. Con never demonstrated anywhere how extinction harms society as a whole, the claims are unsubstantiated. Con repeatedly accuses us of arguments irrelevant to the resolution, yet never expounds upon why our points are in any way irrelevant. It is wrong to hold animals captive and raise them in a zoo when they will be mistreated and uncared for, and shortening their individual lives. [1] A study by the journal Science in 2008 found that 'Asian elephants in European zoos had a median lifespan of just 18.9 years compared to 41.7 years for [wild elephants]'. (. http://www.animal-rights-library.com...) On Education Here, Con drops our alternative. We showed that children are quite capable of watching documentaries of endangered animals. More importantly, though, Con never demonstrates why animal education is important, while we have advanced an argument that it is not. Con claims, “[b]eing taught zoology . . . is also important”, but does not explain why this is the case. Therefore, without any substantive argument, this point goes to Pro. On logic Con claims, “We never argued that logic is irrelevant to this debate. ” In Round 3, Rebuttal 2, Paragraph 1, Con states: “The opposing team tries to introduce logic as a relevant argument, but it is irrelevant. ” Clearly, Con is stretching the truth, to say the least. Conclusion We have conclusively demonstrated that it is immoral to waste money on zoos, and that the money should be spent on infrastructure or other educational endeavors instead, as it is immoral to let humans suffer while wasting money on animals. Con’s arguments have repeatedly been little more than talking points with little reasoning behind them, while ours are substantive and present a compelling alternative to keeping animals in zoos. We have shown that it is far better to let endangered species die happy than live in misery.