11-C Wednesday - Debate Feebback: Zoos do more harm than good.

Okay... I've gone and made sure I've accounted for at least 5 CR's on all your blogs, as some of you did the one on English but not on religion, while some did both and others did neither.  Late assignments won't score as high, and non-existent ones won't score at all.  Mid-terms and AP have basically derailed this class for the last month, but I want to get it quickly back on track next week.

For future Critical Responses, keep in mind that I'd like you to reference the original material and include potential debate motions.  That means watching, reading, or analyzing whatever issue it as at hand - and not just quickly typing out whatever pops into your mind while ignoring spelling errors.  Critical Responses may not hold as much weight as an official essay, but they should be treated as a quality piece of writing.  Your blog is part of your portfolio towards getting an A, as is enthusiasm in class.  Right now, more than a few B's.

11C – Wednesday	CR#4	CR#5	Zoo Debate
Zerus	9.2	0.0	8.9
Paralta	9.2	0.0	*0.0
Tarsonis	9.5	9.5	9.3
Shakuras	9.5	9.6	9.1
Albion	9.2	9.2	9.0
Terran	9.2	9.0	*9.2
Halcyon	9.0	9.5	*8.9
Aridas	9.4	9.0	9.3
Cerebus	9.0	9.0	9.2
Maltair	0.0	0.0	9.2
Roxara	9.2	9.0	9.2

 ___________________________________________________________

 
DEBATE NOTE FOR NEXT WEEK:

THB: The U.S. procedure to assassinate Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan was justified.

OPP: Changwoo, Sumin, Wonhyuk
GOV: Seungchan, Seungmin, Jegug

To get us started, here are some things to read up on:

1. The raw facts - gotta love Wikipedia.
2.  Al Qaeda vows revenge here.
3. Michael Moore discusses his views here.  And here are some of his words below.  Please don't think I'm a Moore-lover (as I know some of you are Anti-Moore) just because I'm referencing him.  I just think he's a good straight-forward source when weighing certain issues, as he doesn't mince words.  Doesn't mean I agree with him.


"We put those who do evil things on trial not so much for them (though we do do it for them because, unlike their view of us, we see them as human), but we do it for ourselves. We do it because we are civilized, we are a free people, we believe that everyone has a right to their day in court, even the worst persons. We believe in the rule of law even if they don't. That makes us strong, stronger than them, and we will defeat their evil through our open and just society. If we behave like them, we will eventually become them. I do not believe in an eye for an eye. I think Jesus Christ said something about how he was here on earth to change that, to tell us to love our enemies. That's a tough thing to live by. The Nazis started a world war in which some 40+ million died. Yet we gave them their day in court, just to show them that WE ARE NOT LIKE YOU. And to show the world the evil deeds they did. Unfortunately, to put bin Laden on trial would have been problematic because he used to "work" for us in the 1980s when we trained, armed and funded his rebels in Afghanistan. Too much might come out about this Frankenstein we created -- and who would then come back 20 years later to murder 3,000 of our citizens."

____________________________________________________________

THB: Zoos do more harm than good.

Looks like I forgot to publish this post.  Good debate, especially considering the time restrictions.  The OPP clearly won, and (let's be honest) has a bit of an advantage when it comes to choosing arguments.  If you guys had read some of the stuff from the debate 11l-1 had, you might have gained some insights and ideas.  Are there more "good zoos" than "bad zoos" in this world? Probably not.  That is one way you can look at this issue.  If you've ever been to a zoo in China, you know what that means. I also came across this article at TIME Magazine which features a very sad story fresh in the news about a famous polar bear who died in a zoo.

Here is the flow sheet from our wonderful judge, Sumin.   Good work.
  

If you ever want to check out an amazing documentary that really hits "pathos" on the head with appeals to emotion, watch "The Earthlings."  Narrated by Jaquin Phoenix (the bad guy from "Gladiator"), it talks about "species-ism." breaking down how humans use animals into categories, one of them being "Entertainment," where they discuss zoos and circuses.  Here is an online link if you don't feel like downloading it. 

 

MOTION: THB: Zoos do more harm than good. (WINNER - OPP)
Date:4/27/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Seung Min		Seungcheul
Delivery	8.9 /10	More flow and clarity needed.	9.1 /10	Much improved.  Pretty good map and clear presentation.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Before we start – define zoos.  Displaying animals for entertainment.  Quesiton: Have you been to zoos?  Have you ever put yourself in the animals shoes?  So we should consider what is wrong with them.  Zoos abuse animals, animals have limited experience, and they enforce harmful methods to people(?).  (Pretty good intro, but last point unclear). Arg 1: Zoos lead to inbreeding and limited diversity.  Genetic diseases result.  Animals are limited in number.  Zoos harm animals this way. (Of all the arguments to choose from, not sure why you guys went with this.) Arg 2: Zoos are abusing animals.  In poor countries, zoos do illegal things and capture protected animals.  Recently, North Korea’s zoos have been harvesting animals for profit and selling their parts.  Zoos enforce poor education.  Are dolphins happy doing shows?  We are forcing animals to do these things. (Actually, dolphins might be happy.  Need more specific examples and not mistake zoos for circuses. Is a zoo and an aquarium the same?) Arg 3: Zoos prevent animals to live in nature.  We should see them in their native lands, not cages.  (Good, but the OPP should point out how impractical that is. ) TIME: 4:19	9.2 /10	Rebuttal: Gov claims that genetic diversity is prevented and leads to disease.  We oppose this, because in reality, zoos have programs where animals mate with animals in other zoos.  It might seem there are only two tigers in a zoo, this is not always the case. (Decent rebuttal - but a specific example of pandas might help.  Pandas don't reproduce well in the wild.)  Rebuttal: Zoos abuse animals.  Gov claims shows are a form of abuse.  We believe animals can provide BETTER places for animals to live, and these “shows” are like a job animals perform to pay the rent. (Uh, that's kind of a stretch.  I'd have opted for utilitarian argument - zoos effect few animals compared to the thousands of people they benefit.) Arg 1: Zoos provide protection. Arg 2: Zoos provide healthy entertainment. Arg 3: Zoos  (Good map!) Arg: Environmental conditions demand that we create zoos to protect and preserve these species.  The example of the Korean tiger.  Pandas as well.  Illegal hunting threatens animals.  Zoos create protection and chances to continue species (True). Arg: Zoos create healthy entertainment for people and benefit families.  Much better than watching TV.  Kids can develop understanding and profits from zoos benefit local economy. (Good point, and you could use this further with stats etc. and examples of positive zoos). TIME: 4:41
Notes	Tot 17.8 /20		Tot 18.3 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jack	Pts	Seungchan
Delivery	9.0 /10	Need more flow and clarity.  Decent emotion, volume.	9.3 /10	Good and solid.  More flow.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Rebuttal: Abusing animals – zoos can offer a better place to live?  Yes, nature is suffering, but the alternative is better:  offer a better place for animals that is natural.  Amazon is disappearing –however…..  (not sure where this is going or went.  Be clear and to the point). Rebuttal:  Zoos can be healthy entertainment?  OPP argues that people play video games and watch TV, but is a zoo a healthy entertainment?  No.  The average zoo is not doing well.  Example of Korean one that is suffering.  IS this healthy to see? People don’t go to zoos as often. (Need stats - OPP should POI). Third Argument:  Harmful effects to people:  Animals are trained to do things that aren’t natural (In a zoo?  This is limited.  We aren't debating about the circus).  People learn that they can control and be superior to animals.  It teaches that we can dominate animals.  It is immoral.  TIME: 6:10	9.3 /10	Burden of proof of Gov to prove that zoos do more harm.  They haven’t done that.  This is why zoos are more beneficial: Rebuttal 1: Genetic diversity – scientists are trying to solve this continually.  Rebuttal 2: Zoos do illegal things – but this is an exceptional case, and not happening in most zoos.  We can’t say all zoos are like this.  They say training is wrong – but it promotes the zoos and does more good than harm.  We can justify this.  Zoos can provide safer places for animals to live. (GOOD) Arg 1: Protection will occur.  Destruction of environment requires us to protect and preserve.  Arg 2: Entertainment for many people.  We feel GOV didn’t rebut this.  Zoos DO entertain.  Stat: 10 million people visited Disney zoo last year.   (Good!) Arg 3: Children can’t see animals without zoos.  Kids can learn about animals.  Lions, tigers, birds, etc.  Better than watching TV.  This educates us to be aware of these animals and seek to protect them.  (Getting a bit repetitive.  Not sure we need your summary as long as it is.) TIME: 6:45
Notes	Tot 17.9 /20		Tot 18.6 /20
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Dayeon	Pts	Kwonsok
Delivery	9.3 /10	Good, but could get to the points more effectively and less repetitively.	9.2 /10	Need more emotion, but the basics are intact.  Good calm delivery and nice analytical approach to debate.
Arguments	9.1 /10	Define three clashes: 1st Clash – animals rights.  Our PM stated this – gender diversity and abuse.  These go against animals rights.  OPP says programs facilitate diversity with other zoos – but this is still depriving animals of choosing their own mates.  If humans were forced to do this, how would that be?  Clash – Zoos protect and educate and shows can be justified.  Did these animals volunteer for these roles?  No.  It is ridiculous to use this as an excuse to lock up animals.  Clash 2- Zoos do good for humans – We don’t think so.  GOV made two points: Entertainment – it is only short term (unclear? Does short or long matter?).  Harmful message.  It is jail.  Education wise – our kids should see these animals in nature (How practical is that?).  If a kid draws a tiger, will he draw it in a zoo or a jungle?  A cage.  That’s not right (Speculation at best).  Clash 3 – Rights of animals.  OPP says we can justify these exploits to entertain people.  We can’t believe we are superior.  Animals can’t speak out what they want, so we need to respect them (This clash was already stated - repeating the same clash). TIME: 7:26 (too long considering the lack of new argument)	9.3 /10	Animal rights – GOV kept saying we are depriving animals the right to choose who to mate with, and they are being abused.  You are saying animals have equal rights to people, and they can’t talk, so we should allow them the same right? (Good questions!).  The problem with this logic is that we never defined animal rights (TRUE). Re. diversity, your rebuttal doesn’t stand.  How do we know animals claim rights to choose their mates? We don’t know.  Maybe they don’t care.  Maybe they will do it with anyone.  (I’d have said, who says they have this luxury in a disappearing rainforest? Pandas example.)  We have to define what animal rights are.  (Good points).  Entertainment – we said zoos entertain, they said they didn’t.  Zoos are facilities for entertaining people.  You guys defined zoos as such – so how can you say otherwise?  You say zoos aren’t the same as nature – so animals should never be in zoos.  Endengred species will die off if left alone in nature. Zoos help them.  We should try our best to recover nature, while also helping animlas.  So, we take these points (Good - but waiting for arguments that really stick it to the GOV regarding practicality of "nature preserves.").  TIME: 6:18
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20		Tot 18.5 /20
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Jiyeon	Pts	Jegug
Delivery	9.4 /10	Good as always.	9.2 /10	Pretty good, and interesting approach.  Use of humor is good.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Do zoos have a beneficial purpose?  What are the benefits?  The OPP’s three benefits are actually harmful (really??) .  Zoos protect animals – reply – This kind of conservation is not conservation.  Animals in zoos are not pets.  They need miles and miles of space and choice of mate.  Zoos don’t provide this (TRUE).  Despite programs, many of these fail.  (Should have a source).  We shouldn’t sacrifice rights of animals for people.  We should value life.  Why zoos?  We never got an answer.  Animal reserves are more efficient (Why no POI?  These are good but impractical).  More realistic, more conservation, and more benefit.  Zoos are not the right kind of conservation.  Entertainment and education are not effective or essential.  We don’t need zoos to learn about tigers.  We can watch docos (Yes, but really?).  The harms outweigh and zoos harm not only animals, but people.  Alternatives exist and we should take advantage of them.  Time: 7:10	9.3 /10	Let’s consider zoos as pets for the public. (Interesting - but opening yourself up to POI)  We give pets food and love, and we do this for zoos.  Pets on a larger scale.  (Good humor here – always nice). What’s the difference between animals in zoos and the wild?  There are many, but lets consider the threats out there.  A dolphin in a zoo versus a dolphin in an oil slick.  Re: Harmful messages of zoos – generally, GOV has failed to prove more harm than good.  (Good movie analogy).  Zoos protect from many threats – and entertain and generate economy.  They create education.  These are all good.  The harms are small compared to this (TRUE).  Even if we deprive some rights from animals, we have to admit that humans are superior to animals (Really? Perhaps).  TIME: 4:20 (too short).
Notes	Tot 18.6 /20		Tot 18.5 /20