Zoos do more harm than good

I will go straight to refuting most of my opponent's case: //Me, my friends, and my family // Proper grammar, please? Like the note says, 'it is important to check your grammar and spelling...' Although this is not the main idea of the debate, I would like readers to note this grammatical error. (To add to the grammar problems, my opponent keeps writing "I" as "i") //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.// It is human nature to be LAZY and stay where you are already? I will let the voters decide on this statement //she stated that zoos are very safe,but i have evidence stating otherwise// When I went to visit my opponent's sources to see the evidence for myself, I noted that in some recorded cases, the victim was being completely careless and was FORCING his fingers into the cage of the animal (boy gorilla case) //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.// Have there ever been cases where a fence/cage was broken or taken down? No. The cages will do what they are supposed to do- create a barrier between the visitor and animal. Thus, the safety issue(s) my opponent has been repeating is up to the visitor's common sense. (Boy gorilla- boy carelessly shoved his fingers into the gorilla's enclosure) //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?// The little description box in front of the animal's cage is a plaque on the animal's known facts. The 'kids' reading the box can look up and see the animal itself. Also, my opponent stated in an earlier submission these exact words: //There is a far greater number of people that would watch a documentary like Planet Earth in stunning HD and great video than people who want to go to the zoo// This proves that my opponent contradicted himself by first stating that there are MORE people wanting to WATCH animal documentaries than there are people who want to go to the zoos, then asking about the number of kids who would rather read a description box than see the animal in person. ??? //Like i said,zoos underfeed animals and make them stressed. I think you can tell if that is "cruelty-free" or not!// Well, switchlapse, like I stated, zoos do NOT underfeed animals, therefore creating no stress relating to that matter. Now that we are on the stress topic, zoos do not cause any stress to the animals that are noted. I believe that I have spent enough time (and characters) refuting my opponent's case. Now, I will strengthen my arguments, and later state my sources. I would like to stress my main point for this debate: Zoos exist to PROTECT endangered species. My opponent keeps repeating that animals are better off in their natural habitat, but in their natural environments, the animals are being POACHED and skinned, lessening their chances of survival. Zoos take in the creatures, feed them, give them large enclosures that are EXACTLY like their homes, and breed them, thus creating more of the animal species. What would be the point of studying the animals in their natural homes when the endangered ones could very well be extinct by the end of the century? Our future generations would be in the dark about magnificent creatures like the polar bear and rhinocerus, their only insight being simple books with mere pictures. Zoos are here to prevent the extinction of the animals that, like us humans, roam this earth. Think about this for a minute, readers, voters, and judge(s)- Without zoos to protect and LOVE animals, to place them in replicas that are EXACTLY like their homes along with others of their species, where would these animals, endangered or not, be right now? SOURCES: middleschooldebatetopics.com animals.howstuffworks.com