Team Debate: All Animals Should be released from zoos

If these rules are not to be abided by, then the voters should take into consideration the violation of conduct. Secondly, the second contention failed to provide much substance to support their side of the resolution, and the claims they made were derogatory and degrading towards education and the preservation of species, which benefits the world and humanity as a whole. Rebuttal 1: Zoos create unhappiness in animals My opponent begins their arguments by showing that animals can become depressed in circumstances where socialization isn’t provided. Whilst their sources may be reliable my opponent must remember that this argument is severely mitigated due to the fact that we are arguing that all animals should be freed from zoos, not just the badly treated ones. My opponent has also failed to provide examples of when this happens. This is problematic because it doesn’t tell us vital information regarding the debate. It doesn’t tell us how often this happens. With 175,000,000 (1) visitors to zoos annually, it is evident that mistreating these animals and not being caught can be difficult. The U. S helps 1041 endangered species of animals through zoos! Do you suggest that we release all of these animals because some animals are mistreated? Again, you have continued to use arguments that do not cover the full resolution of the debate. The word: ‘all’ doesn’t just mean badly treated animals. My opponent has shown one instance whereby animals have been mistreated in zoos. I still disagree that the animals should be released from zoos in the scenario provided. The definition (for this debate) of released is: “returned to the wild”, these animals have been mistreated and this provides an even greater need for zoos in society. Returning injured animals to the wild is a death sentence. As demonstrated in our R2 argument, many animals are born and bred in zoos. They do not know any life other than the life in a zoo. They are dependant on human intervention and if they are injured this only raises more cause for concern (2). My opponent continues to list the possibilities of what can happen in zoos. This is very similar argument to the slippery slope argument that can be used. There is a chance of something bad happening in every circumstance. People murder. Just because they murder, should we abolish laws against murder? The same can be said for zoos. Just because in some cases bad instances occur in zoos, should we abolish all zoos? No. Zoos protect endangered animals, benefit the economy and educate children, as stated in our previous arguments. An assumption based argumentation is irrelevant in correlation to the resolution. As far as adequate treatment of animals in zoos, the Smithsonian National Zoological Park (3) has animal healthcare professionals; specialists in clinical veterinary medicine, veterinary pathology, and animal nutrition, to ensure that the care of all animals is the top priority for the zoo. Our opponents propose that documentaries about animals in the wild are superior to hands on education in zoos. This cannot always be true because, as addressed in our previous arguments, some animals are born in captivity or extracted from the wild, for reasons such as necessity based medical care or species endangerment. We cannot help species on the brink of extinction or injured animals if institutions such as zoos do not exist, because it is our duty to the world ecosystem to preserve species and help animals in need. Therefore your claim in contention to our education argument has been negated, because zoos exist out of a necessity to help endangered species, treat injured animals, and an added bonus; to educate our youth. Rebuttal 2: Zoos are, on balance, harmful to the well-being of human society My opponent, in the opening paragraph of the contention, brings up opportunity cost. This theory proposes the idea that for every cost incurred by one thing, the expense could have been better spent elsewhere. The opposing team tries to introduce logic as a relevant argument, but it is irrelevant. It is both logical and morally right to preserve endangered species, treat injured animals, and educate our youth. Costs will be incurred during the process (and that should be self-evident), but that should not be a deciding factor over whether or not animals should be in zoos. In their next contention, the opposing team brings in the statistic that, “The AZA contributes 16$ billion to the U. S. economy yearly, and that goes towards science education, wildlife conservation, generating jobs, and supporting local communities. ” Next, our opponents try to degrade the “relative importance” of these contributions by arguing that educating the youth about biology and animal-related fields is not effective, and efforts should be concentrated on other efforts such as math. Firstly, this claim provides little substance to their side of the resolution, and looks a lot like an attempt at a rebuttal in the opening round. Secondly, the claim attempts to suggest that educating our youth about biology and animal-related fields is, in some way, of lesser quality in comparison to another subject like math. I have no idea why the opposing team would even attempt to put forward such a claim. Limiting our youth to certain aspects of education and degrading others is absurd. Preparing our youth for the future should involve a teaching of all subjects, especially those in regard to the natural world. We would be doing our youth a disservice if we were to act otherwise. In rebuttal to your claim that zoos do not provide anything meaningful to children’s lives, we disagree. Not only do zoos provide fun, which is in fact important, but they also provide an education about the natural world. This is very important for the development of the minds of our youth. In the opposing team’s next contention, they continue to try to downplay the self-evident positives of zoos. They bring up incurred costs again, and then go into depth trying to prove that the costs generated by zoos could be better spent on “necessary public goods. ” This claim is irrelevant because helping endangered species, treating injured animals, and educating our youth are necessary public goods, if not beneficial to humanity and our global ecosystem as a whole. Seeking to downgrade youth education and endangered animal preservation is not a relevant perspective to approach the resolution. Zoos provide services that benefit the world on a larger scale than just “local communities. ” Conclusion Therefore, we stand with our claims stated in our opening arguments, and we stand by our critique of the arguments put forward by the opposing team. We thank them once again for undertaking this debate with us, and we hope it will prove an educational learning experience for all parties involved. Back to you! Sources: (1) . http://www.statisticbrain.com... (2) . http://mom.me... (3) . https://nationalzoo.si.edu...