All Wild Animals SHOULD NOT Be Banned Pets

Thank you for the swift response. So, since it's pretty late in the debate, I'd like to sum up what's happening on both sides.Proposition Points1) Wild animals are just as safe as domesticated pets in the right hands.2) The demand for wild pets has grown.3) Animals Rights groups threaten domestic animals when wild animals are banned. I deem #1 as the most critical point in the Pro case. #2 as more of just a premise for the concept of keeping wild animals. #3 as the most minor of all. I'll examine each individually.1st Contention: Wild animals aren't as dangerous as many make them out to be.So the argumentation on both sides on this issue has been a lot of statistics and past events.The Pro admits that wild animals need a little more caution than domesticated animals. But he states that "they are just as safe as domestics in the right hands." It is the concept of "the right hands," the idea that the responsible owners will be found... This is the proof my opponent has failed to provide. What are the right hands? Certainly a wild animal could be safe locked up in a cage and put behind giant steel bars. Then I would agree that safety is not an issue. But that doesn't help the wild animals. Neither does the Proposition case. It seems to neglect the feelings of the wild animals, whereas the Con side does. One could say that domesticated animals are neglected when they are adopted, but that's not true. Millions of cats are euthanized everyday, and they're being given a home when adopted. Not the same for wild animals. So this responsibility is the essential information that is lacking in order for the 1st contention to hold true. In certain states where some wild animals are allowed to be kept, the responsibility tests don't seem to be working that well, considering at least two families wish to relinquish their pet primates every day (as I pointed out before), considering there have been 1610 incidents, considering people are killed, and that people abandon their wild animals. If these formal tests of responsibility have failed in the states, why would the Proposition's work? He mentioned background checks and didn't expand on what he meant by this.He mentioned tests of knowledge as if those would really help. If we make it too strict, the people who want exotic pets can't have them.If we make it too loose, the irreponsible people will have them and accidents can occur.As of the moment, it seems that the laws in states which permit them are not working all that well. There may be people who are passionate about the creatures at first, but often times, that passion is lost over time.How can one determine if you're testing a passionate animal lover or a greedy animal trafficker?Throughout the rounds, you've mentioned the dangers of cars and motorcycles which I'd like to quickly answer.The reason why we don't ban them is because they're necessary for transport. Some people prefer motorcycles to cars, especially if they live alone. Wild animals are unnecessary.2nd Contention: The demand for exotic pets has grown.Whether or not the demand has grown in the past years, I agree with my opponent that this point is trivial and has no value as to whether or not all wild animals should be banned as pets.3rd Contention: Animals Rights groups threaten domestic pets and exotic pets.This point is founded on one quote stating, "We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals." This quote was spoken in 1993 at an agricultural forum by Wayne Pacelle who blogs for the Humane Society of the US (the quote was said even before he joined HSUS). At the time, Wayne was talking about "heirloom breeds" and how he believed the extinction of those breeds was not a major issue. A representative of an extreme and now defunct organization called Putting People First, present at this forum, took this passing comment about rare breeds of livestock and morphed it into a comment about all domesticated animals. http://hsus.typepad.com...Many of his quotes have been twisted.Opposition Points1) The animals are hurt by poor owners.2) Wild animals carry disease.3) Wild animals can behave dangerously.1st Contention: The animals are hurt by poor owners.Proposition Response: Most people in the exotic pet industry are actually very responsible... I agree that not everyone will be able to [take care of them], but to say that no one can is incorrect. There are tens of thousands of exotic pets right now, living happy, fulfilled lives. This is an assertion with no evidence on the idea of responsibility. The only way the Pro could back this point is with his plan of testing for responsibility... Or rather, his ideas for testing, which I have prove don't work.The point stands because of the lack of counter-proof. 2nd Contention: Wild animals carry disease.The Pro refutes this by stating that most wild animals are captive-bred. While this may somewhat solve the problem of disease, captive-breeding introduces a multitude of problems.Captive exotic animals are abused and exploited in a variety of settings, including research and product testing, the entertainment industry, fur farms, and the exotic “pet” trade.Keeping wild animals in captivity is inherently cruel, as it deprives them of the ability to freely engage in instinctual behaviors in their natural environment.Even when bred in captivity, exotic animals retain all of their natural instincts. They cannot be considered “domesticated” or “tamed.” And a large number of even more problems. http://www.bornfreeusa.org...Just visit the site.Furthermore, there can still be issues with disease. A potentially fatal fungal disease for frogs and toads was introduced into Mallorca after a captive-breeding program attempted to release the amphibians back into the wild. http://www.sciencedaily.com...3rd Contention: Wild animals can be dangerous.This coincides with the refutations of the Pro's first point. The right hands won't necessarily be found, the tests won't necessarily work, and the animals can react violently outside of their natural environment.New 4th Contention: The allowing of exotic pet keeping can quickly escalate into an exotic pet trade.For example, in the Gulf of the United Arab Emirates, many people have exotic pets not out of love.Owning an endangered animal as a pet is illegal in the United Arab Emirates. However, the trade in endangered wildlife remains a problem in the Gulf, where owning expensive exotic pets, especially big cats, is the ultimate status symbol. A rare white lion sells for around $50,000 on the black market. "If someone buys a very expensive animal, he is boasting that he has enough money to get anything he wants," he said. "If he has a tamed wild animal like a lion, he is trying to show off that he is brave. But this is not courage; this is animal rights abuse," says Jasim Ali, a tiger owner. http://www.cnn.com...For these reasons, wild animals should not be kept as pets.I look forward to the response and thank you for an excellent debate. :)