All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

Thanks for sticking through all the way to the end, Splashstorm. I appreciate your passion about this topic. Refutations 1. The issue of permits Con states that permits are extremely effective and that we should keep the permits and remove the bans. However, this cannot work for every state, for in some, there only exist the bans. In other states, there already are no bans, just permits. So the Con is advocating a system in which most of the states already function in today. Furthermore, will these permits find the right owners? Previously, the Proposition offered suggestions as to how to find the correct owners. If the Pro had to do this, then the permits are not working. Now, the Pro is stating that the permits are nearly perfect and they work. Con stated previously that Wisconsin, which has neither a ban nor a permit, does not have a larger amount of animal abuse than other states. This claim was not backed by evidence or sources. However, if Wisconsin, one of the few states that does not require a license, permit, or has a ban, does not have a higher amount of abuse, then essentially, we don't even need any piece of legislation AT ALL. This is the contradiction I pointed out last round. Con advocates permits but says that Wisconsin does not have a larger amount of abuse. It also does not have permits. So, in conclusion, either the permits DON'T work or the Con is making up evidence. And you can't have a ban AND a permit, just a piece of legislation that requires a permit or just a ban. 2. The issue of responsible ownersPro refuses to offer any actual evidence for many of his points, including this one. He claims that the majority of exotic pet owners are responsible. No evidence. No statistics.Pro believes the media makes wild animals look bad. Well, that's because they are. And it's not like the media is a "bad thing." Sure, the media might not report on the few good owners, but that doesn't mean everyone IS good. I've offered plenty of statistics about released animals, animal incidents, etc. The Pro has offered nothing to prove his claim that there are responsible owners. He even dropped his ideas of "testing" for responsible owners. 3. The issue of suffering animalsThe Pro responds to my argument by copying and pasting a paragraph from some blog-like page. "If an animal is being fed, housed, and properly cared for, if the animal appears content in captivity, on what grounds do you have to assert that such an animal is suffering?" That's a ton of 'if's.' If fed? If housed? If properly cared for? If appears content? I assert that an animal is suffering because those 'if's' are not always fulfilled. He continues to copy and paste the paragraphs. Instead of actually formulating an argument, I suppose copying and pasting works, too. It is not "incredibly unreasonable" to hold exotic pet owners to a higher standard than domestics. We don't expect there to be zero rates of cruel situation, but a lot fewer than the modern rates. 4. The issue of domestic vs. wild animalsThe Pro seemingly can't stop comparing wild animals to domestic animals. I stated that wild animals cannot use their natural instincts in captivity. He compared it to domesticated animals again, which I see no relevance in at all. I stated that they are two different beings and the comparisons cannot be used, but he says they're not that different because domesticated animals, when put back into the wild, can quickly adapt. Incorrect.Dogs, birds, rabbits, most farm animals, and tropical fish cannot survive in the wild (when domesticated). Only cats can. http://thepetwiki.com...The comparison is irrelevant. Extend the Opposition's point.5. The issue of the exotic pet marketPro says there is not a problem with the exotic pet market becoming bigger. As I stated before, most exotic pet purchases occur through the black market (http://www.animallaw.info...). So the black market is getting bigger and more illegal purchases will be occurring. People buy on the black market because the prices are cheaper. So you a bigger exotic pet trade in a black market that is illegal. This is bad.Also, as I stated before, as the exotic pet trade got bigger in the UAE, people desired exotic pets less and less for compassion, but for a sign of wealth or courage.6. Refuting the affirmative closing statementPro believes his statistics refute all of mine. Please remember that my statistics are taken from various animals rights groups or more formal sources like National Geographic. His statistics come from himself. His evidence comes from blogs. His arguments come from unreputable webpages. His evidence is not reputable, and I believe my cited evidence is stronger than his own statistics. Tigers aren't dangerous at all, I agree... If put in the right hands and provided every bit of care. And the Pro has backed off of his own ideas of finding the right owners. By relinquishing his proposed plans, then wild animals will be put in the wrong hands. In the wrong hands, wild animals can be dangerous. When dangerous, people can die through disease or an attack. The animal will suffer as well. I do not care if a car or a motorcycle poses a threat. They are necessary, and it's entirely irrelevant to debate on the usage of vehicles when this debate is about wild animals. It's a flawed comparison. He makes ANOTHER comparison to extreme sports. Why aren't they banned? I don't know, but it doesn't matter because it's ANOTHER flawed comparison. There HAS been discussion concerning the banning of extreme sports. Save it for another debate elsewhere. The comparison is entirely irrelevant and does not work. 7. Why aren't wild animals banned everywhere?This is strange. The Pro has added a point in the final round of the debate.Anyway, the reason why they aren't entirely banned is because some lawmakers view the situation differently. Some believe we should have the freedom to have wild animals. Some are misinformed about wild animals. Some may even HAVE wild animals. It's just up to the state legislature. In some states, especially rural areas, the wild animal is necessary like wild turkey, for example. This is the reason why they are not banned everywhere, but realize that they are banned mostly everywhere. A few states require permits. Very few have no law regarding wild animals at all.Summing up the DebateThe Proposition has made multiple, uncited, major claims throughout this debate. He brings in little evidence, but constantly reverts back to the statistics that he made. I have shown instances of wild animal attacks, statistics concerning animal incidents, facts and figures about disease, evidence of the wild animal itself being hurt. If you compare the vast amounts of proof, it completely favors the Opposition.The Pro does little to directly refute the accidents, but does three things.1) Compares to domesticated animals2) The right owners will be found through permits, so nothing bad will happen3) Ignores it and makes more claims1 and 3 have already been refuted. 1 is irrelevant. 3 is not factual.It is #2 that is the main core of the Proposition case. He has never proved how the right owners will be found. He has offered his ideas on the matter, but I have shot down all his proposals, all of which he drops. He then turns to permits. If permits were working, then there would be fewer incidents. If they were working, the Pro wouldn't even have had to make up ideas on how to find the right owners. The right owners will not be found. They are not the right owners if they are buying through the black market. Without the right owners, the black market will flourish. Without the right owners, people will be hurt by dangerous wild animals.Without the right owners, people will get diseases from wild animals. Without the right owners, the wild animals will suffer tremendously.Without the right owners, the possession of wild animals cannot be allowed.Thank you.