It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

FRAMEWORK:The debate should be measured by the balance of which side provides the better points. The BoP is shared, so the debate should be judged by who provides the best explanations of arguments.PREFACE:Before we continue the debate, it is imperative to initially note there are two types of zoos; good zoos and bad zoos. This fact is recognizable, but shouldn’t carry much weight in the debate for two reasons: (1) the debate is measured on balance, not singular particularities, and (2) the simplistic case for keeping zoos, as explained by The Guardian, “Just as the fact that some police are corrupt does not mean we should not have people to enforce the law, although bad zoos or exhibits persist does not mean they are not worthwhile institutes.” [A] Good and evil exists, but just because some generally good positives in society are negatives doesn’t necessitate the ban or removal of the existing positives. This is why it’s not “cruel” to keep animals in zoos; because most of the time, zoos are not cruel.ARGUMENT I: ECONOMIC STIMULATIONMore than virtually any other benefit, zoos bring in revenue to be used for educational efforts, infrastructure improvements, among other internal improvements to the economy. Combined with aquariums (which are essentially aquatic zoos), zoos contribute an annual benefit of $16 billion to the GDP. [B] Likewise, these animal care facilities also supply jobs to 82,332 individuals nationally and locally. [C] Undoubtedly, both of these factors are of great importance. The advocacy for Pro can only be to ban zoos, which will remove both of these benefits, which will severely dent the economy not only immediately, but long-term as well.ARGUMENT II: EDUCATIONAL MERITZoos have strayed from traditional purposes of entertainment, and are now being used as devices for education. Biologist John Nightingale notes this issue, “Today, with well over 50 percent of our populations living in cities, we are rapidly becoming divorced from the realities of the animal world.” [D] The substantiating claim here recognizes the disparity between animal life and human life. The knowledge of these creatures and their functions is becoming increasingly scarce. As our world sits on the brink of environmental degradation, it’s essential to understand the importance of animal knowledge. This can be used in the future to prevent future extinction, leading towards my third point.ARGUMENT III: ANIMAL PRESERVATIONIt’s imperative to support wildlife, and the way we are most capable of doing so is providing a safe environment while simultaneously promoting education. When the habitats in which animals naturally live become dangerous and uninhabitable, organizations can step in to preserve the animals. [F] This is exemplified by the scenario of the pygmy hippo. According to Richard Coniff, “Zoos now sustain about 10 percent of the total pygmy hippo population, and they are essential too. They provide what Flacke called “a safety net population” in case the species vanishes from the wild.” [E] These species are not the only ones to be saved by zoos, there are others. [G]ARGUMENT IV: RESEARCH ENDEAVORSWhen animals exist only in the wild, it can be difficult to observe their characteristics. However, the less obstructive and safer environments of zoos can assist in the research of animals. [H] Instead of focusing on going into deep wildlife to observe animals and their actions, these can be more closely examined in zoos.PRELIMINARY DEFENSE: ALL ZOOS AREN’T BADAs mentioned in the preface, not all zoos are bad. In fact, the majority of zoos are actually safe; and even if bad zoos are found, we shouldn’t reject the concept as a whole. [A] However, there is still evidence demonstrating zoos are productive, conducive to public good, and safe for animals as well. [X]CONCLUSION:The resolution poses a specific question that can be answered a variety of ways, and I believe I’ve done so effectively. Zoos are not, on balance, cruel, and the advocacy for Pro can only be a ban of zoos. I’ve shown how they actually help endangered species, assist the economy, promote education, facilitate research, and aren’t all bad. That can’t equate zoos being “cruel” with all of those net positives. Insofar as this debate has gone, vote Con.SOURCES:[A] http://www.theguardian.com...[B] https://www.aza.org...[C] https://www.aza.org...[D] http://www.cnn.com...[E] http://www.takepart.com...[F] http://www.scientificamerican.com...[G] http://nationalzoo.si.edu...[H] https://www.aza.org...[X] https://www.aza.org...