Team Debate: All Animals Should be released from zoos

We will now present our defense of our arguments. Overview: We would like voters to take note of the comparison of arguments by the opposing team and the resolution. The debate topic is not about whether animals are harmed in zoos, which seems like the argument they seem desperate to cling onto, but it is about whether animals in zoos should be released into the wild. Badly treated animals can easily be moved to better and safer zoos rather than into the wild. Release into the wild would only spell disaster for animals who have been in zoos their entire lives. The only plausible solution would be to move them to zoos with greater financial resources so that they are ensured the care that every animal deserves. On Animal Treatment The opposing team continues to bring up claims about the deplorable conditions suffered by animals. We have supplied evidence that shows the credibility and dedication of those in charge of ensuring the health and well being of animals in zoos, and yet that information is continuously ignored by the opposition. At the Smithsonian National Zoo, there are specialists dedicated to zoological medicine, animal cognition, pathology, enrichment, and nutrition. Combining these things, veterinarians and scientists alike at the Smithsonian National Zoo are able to learn more about the animal under their care and ensure the well being and safety of those animals. (2) At the London Zoo, the Zoological Society of London ensures the "well-being and conservation" of animals by providing pathological and clinical facilities to learn more about animals and make sure that their health and safety is of the utmost importance. If the previous evidence did not suffice in explaining the adequate treatment of animals, the London Zoo staff includes veterinary specialists, pathologists, and microbiologists. "The vets maintain a comprehensive database of written and photographic clinical records, which can be used to pre-empt future illness and as a reference for vets treating animals at other zoos and in the wild. " Not only do the highly qualified staff at the London Zoo work towards maintaining the health of their animals, but their discoveries and treatments go to zoos and sanctuaries around the world so that animal treatment is a highly informed subject, and animals are taken care of adequately. This is tangible, real-world evidence that the care of animals is in the hands of highly qualified specialists, and it is of the utmost importance of zoos to ensure that their animals are safe, healthy, and in a state of happiness. Zoos have room to improve, and with programs like the one established by the London Zoo, animal care methodology can be spread around the world to ensure the safety of animals and establish a healthy climate in zoos. Providing exceptional care for animals in zoos not only avoids the harms of releasing animals into the wild, but individual zoos such as the Smithsonian or London Zoo provide benefits not just limited to their specific location. In regards to economic gains, all of our previous sources provide empirical evidence to support those claims. Zoos generate money while providing exceptional treatment for their animals, therefore we have rebutted your substance lacking assertions. Our opponents continue to bring up the subject of animal culling. While animal culling provides a significant problem (the surplus of animals in zoos, and zoos putting them down as a solution), there are alternatives, such as transferring them to other zoos and putting them in the hands of more capable caregivers. You are just trying to use the tip of the iceberg as a significant argument; animal culling is not the sole reason animals should be released into the wild. In ALL of our arguments, we have provided tangible reasoning as to why animals should not be released from zoos, and why they are fine where they are. If you are to immediately use animal culling as a reasoning to release animals from zoos, you might as well be saying that you are not eating any other legumes because you do not like peanuts. The rebuttal about endangered animals provided by the opposition is, in terms of this debate, irrelevant. They say that we have not provided any reasoning as to why endangered animals should be kept in zoos, yet we continue to supply evidence suggesting that medical care and veterinary treatment is the top priority of zoos around the world. Ignorance of our arguments is not the correct way to approach this debate, let alone provide resolutional significance. Another argument that the opposing team accused us of "insubstantiating" is the injured animals point. Our provision of empirical evidence that shows the renowned veterinary care and medical treatment for animals in zoos around the world shoots down this claim, and they continue to ignore our evidence and proceed blindly into the fray/ Throughout this portion of their argument, the opposing team continues to make one-sided arguments without really thinking about plausible solutions. Voters should take note of this, because not only do they provide arguments of little resolutional significance, they are just taking on the face of the topic, without delving into the intricacies of each proposed problem. On Education My opponent continues to claim that our arguments lack substance but fail to sufficiently justify this and I will now explain why. My opponent begins by making a mistake that has already been disproven. They claim that there are few opportunities in zoology. Contention 4 in R1 clearly show that in America alone 142,000 jobs are created from zoos (3). This argument was not responded to and therefore it still stands and has an impact upon the resolution. It cannot be dismissed. Our claim that our opponent"s are criticizing is: Limiting our youth to certain aspects of education and degrading others is absurd. We thought that this was self explanatory but apparently it wasn"t so we will expand upon it. Being taught zoology in schools is also important. My opponent even goes to the extent to claim that teaching zoology in schools is pointless. He makes the following analogy: "Certainly, most (if not all) schools do not teach courses about how deodorant is manufactured, for example, because that is useless knowledge. With few opportunities available in zoology, knowledge of different animals is useless. " This means that children with no knowledge of animals at all. What my opponent is advocating is the release of all animals in zoos to be returned into the wild and for school to not teach children about zoos and animals because it is pointless. The study of zoology is "the scientific study of the behaviour, structure, physiology, classification, and distribution of animals (4). " If my opponent still believes that there are few opportunities in zoology then they are on the wrong side of this debate. We are pro zoos and therefore we wish to expand and create more opportunities by expanding zoology and bringing in more scientists to improve animal care. Meanwhile, any scientists that are working now will be forced to leave their jobs by pro"s position. I believe that it is evident who is presenting a net benefit in jobs and who is presenting the harm. On rebuttals in R2 It is evident that this was a rebuttal not an argument. In R2 (for arguments only), after we presented a contention on education they present a contention on it too. If that was a rebuttal round then I wouldn't have been surprised to see that argument. It would have been valid in a rebuttal round, not a round dedicated to arguments only. The original argument made by us in education was that children are naturally curious about animals and that zoos have signs up about animals; their lives and where they live. Our opponents (in the following round) made the following argument and even quoted from our argument regarding the economy. They quoted regarding our 142,000 job statistic and responded to it. They quoted from our $16 billion boost to the economy. Yet they continue to claim that they "never" made any rebuttals in that round. On logic We never argued that logic is irrelevant to this debate. This is completely false and is contradicted by our opponents themselves. Very shortly after they claim that we stayed that logic is irrelevant they quote directly from our arguments. Their quote states that we said ". .. logically and morally right" to "preserve endangered species "" This means that we did not dismiss logic, in fact we incorporated it into our argument as cited by pro themselves. Conclusion In this round we have proven why our opponents arguments do not stand and why ours do. Due to this fact our burden is being met and our opponents is not. therefore you ought to vote con based on the violations of Rule 2. Our opponents continue to ignore our evidence and counter our arguments with their own; of little resolutional value. We have also proven that our opponents R2 arguments contain rebuttals as well as arguments when rebuttals were only required for the following round. Our opponents have interconnected rebuttals and defensive together so this increases their unfair round advantage over us. We hope that you have enjoyed this team debate as much as we did and we urge voters to vote con! Sources: (1) . http://nationalzoo.si.edu... (2) . https://www.zsl.org... (3). http://www.statisticbrain.com... (4) . https://www.google.co.uk...