Learning English through Debating
S98
Learning Activity 4: Identifying main arguments and forming
Learning English through Debating
S99
There is a true scene in Gorillas in the Mist, showing the bodies of the gorillas who died protecting a baby gorilla. Many times, other animals die as the poacher is trying to capture one alive.
Third, it is the nature of wild animals to desire freedom. They cannot be happy with us.
Wild animals are not adapted to our society.
Taken together, ladies and gentlemen, these problems are so severe that the only good answer is to make the practice illegal. Thank you.
Opposition captain: Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent has identified two real problems and one false one. The first and second problems can be resolved by other means, and the last does not really exist.
My opponent has argued that wild animals are dangerous. Some are, certainly. There was a case in which a New York man bought a tiger and kept it in his apartment in a high-rise building. The tiger attacked him. But this case does not show that no wild animals should ever be tamed. What about rabbits? Guinea pigs? Mice? My opponent’s statement is not generally true.
Certainly, some kinds of animals are threatened with extinction. But can our opponents show that the pet trade is a real central problem? My opponent has mentioned a scene from a Hollywood movie, saying it tells a true story. But what kind of authority is a Hollywood movie? Where animals are genuinely threatened with extinction, the trade in these animals should be banned. In many cases it is already banned.
Finally, my opponent has offered a strangely circular argument that wild animals desire freedom. How do we know they desire freedom? Well, they desire freedom because they’re wild. What makes them wild? Well, they are wild because they desire freedom.
We don’t need a solution for this problem because it’s not a problem at all. Thank you.
Segment 2
Affirmative 1st speaker: My opponent accepts that two of the problems we have identified are real. I will show that a blanket ban on taming wild animals is really the only solution we have. I will also show that the third problem is real.
With the first example, my opponent is confusing categories. She brings up rabbits and mice. But these are not pets. We define pets as animals kept in a house or apartment as a companion. Rabbits and mice are not pets because they are normally kept in cages. What animals can be pets as cats and dogs are? Matthew Liebman of Michigan State University writes, “Because they are by definition less domesticated, wild animals have needs that far exceed their owners’ capabilities.”
In the second example, my opponent argues that not all animals are at risk of extinction.
Learning English through Debating
S100
That is true now, but extinctions can happen very fast. Many animals go extinct in the same pattern as that of exotic pets in rich countries.
Finally, do animals love freedom? My opponent says this is just a game with words, but I think it is a matter of experience of animals. They love to run; they hate to be kept in cages. Thank you.
Opposition 1st speaker: My opponent has just redefined the word “pet” to suit the argument she wishes to make. In ordinary usage, we would say that a rabbit is a “pet.”
Rather than arguing over the meanings of words, we should talk about overall safety in keeping animals. It can be dangerous to keep a dog, if you don’t train the dog properly.
My opponent makes a false division of “wild” and “tame”. Our opponent says dogs are not wild animals, but sometimes they attack. Some dogs really are wild, while some “wild animals” can be domesticated. A couple named Adamson have tamed a lion. How can such a complex distinction ever be written into law?
My opponent says that many extinctions follow the rise in popularity of exotic pets. Here she is committing a very basic logical error. The extinctions may have followed this rise in popularity, but how do we know it was the cause? Human population increased in the same period, so that would drive these other two elements up.
The distinction between “wild” and “tame” is a problem, then. Although people may buy wild animals as pets, we do not see that this is a cause of extinction.
Segment 3
Affirmative 2nd speaker: My opponent suggests that dogs can be wild and lions can be tame. She says our proposed law is problematic as it allows people to keep some aggressive animals as pets, but not wild species that are safe. Well, the law can only concern itself with the general case. We allow people to keep dogs, but there are laws requiring people to ensure that dogs do not threaten people. If even dogs sometimes attack people, how can it be safe to keep wild animals? Most dogs can be kept safely. Can we say the same for most lions?
Will this law create some wrong distinctions? Yes, but that is the nature of laws. Laws make illegal some behaviour that is acceptable as no law can foresee all human reality.
The question is whether such a law would overall improve the world. My answer is that it would.
As for extinctions, my opponent claims that we have no evidence that the trade in exotic animals contributes to extinction. One report suggests that the trade in exotic animals contributes to extinction. Another report suggests that the importation of exotic animals as pets into the US is worth 10 billion dollars for 650 million animals. These are large numbers in a world where some species are numbered only in thousands. It is quite
Learning English through Debating
S101
credible that the taming of wild animals contributes greatly to their extinction.
Opposition 2nd speaker: My opponent says that laws are just always inexact. That seems like an excuse for a poorly designed law. Laws can be exact. My opponent says that all laws create injustice. Yet already, licences are required for people to keep animals that might be dangerous in Hong Kong. Those who want to keep a wild animal as a pet would carry the cost, so the government would pay nothing. Our opponents suggest that it is impossible to create just laws, but it is not impossible. It only requires thought and precision.
We are not suggesting that all animals should be available for sale. It is true that species have come close to extinction in the past. Yet today, there are millions of scientists and volunteers creating a very complete picture of the animal population of the world. Today, how can we not know when a species is coming close to extinction? There are ways of getting a species listed as endangered. There is an international treaty for this. This treaty covers an agreed list of species that must not be traded, anywhere. If there are defects in this list, then surely my opponents would do better to improve the treaty, get other animals on the list, rather than preventing ordinary people from carrying out perfectly legal activities.
B. Formulating questions on the sample debate
You can challenge the arguments of your opponents by asking questions. Study the two examples below and learn how to form questions. The class will then be divided into groups of four with half of the groups assigned to be the Affirmative team and the other half the Opposition. With your group members, complete practice 1A and 2A if you are on the Opposition side and 1B and 2B if you are on the Affirmative side.
1st Example
Argument of Affirmative captain
: Wild animals are always dangerous and they remain so for the rest of their lives.
Question to ask by
Opposition team
: Not all wild animals are dangerous. Do you believe that non-violent animals, like deer and koalas, would be dangerous to humans?
(Possible rebuttal: There are some wild animals that are non-violent, like deer and koalas).
Learning English through Debating
S102
2nd Example
Argument of Opposition captain
: My opponent has offered a strangely circular argument that wild animals are wild because they desire freedom.
Question to ask by
Affirmative team
: While you disagree with our argument that wild animals desire freedom, do you think that wild animals want to be kept in cages?
(Possible rebuttal: Wild animals definitely desire freedom as they don’t want to be kept in cages.)
For Opposition team:
Practice 1A Argument of
Affirmative 1st speaker
: We define pets as animals kept in a house or an apartment as a person’s companion. Rabbits and mice are not pets because they are normally kept in cages.
Question to ask by
Opposition team
:
(Possible rebuttal: Rabbits and mice are kept as pets for many years. It is normal to keep rabbits and mice in cages, just like keeping goldfish in fish bowls.)
For Affirmative team:
Practice 1B Argument of
Opposition 1st speaker
: Although people may buy wild animals as pets, we do not see that this is a cause of extinction.
Question to ask by
Affirmative team
:
(Possible rebuttal: If the opposing team believe the popularity of keeping exotic pets is not the cause of the extinction of wild animals, they should tell us what the real causes are.)
Learning English through Debating
S103
For Opposition team:
Practice 2A Argument of
Affirmative 2nd speaker
: The law can only concern itself with the general case.
Question to ask by
Opposition team
:
(Possible rebuttal: If laws could only concern itself with the general case, that means no law can be fine and just enough to protect people.)
For Affirmative team:
Practice 2B Argument of
Opposition 2nd speaker
: There are ways of getting a species listed as endangered. There is an international treaty that covers an agreed list of species that must not be traded.
Question to ask by
Affirmative team
:
(Possible rebuttal: Most people do not know there is such an agreed list of endangered species.)