A1: (4 minutes)
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Today we are debating the resolution "Wild animal captivity should be abolished". We, on the affirmative team, strongly support that resolution.
Wild animal captivity can be defined as the act of capturing wild creatures and keeping them at home or zoos for the purpose of entertainment, business, etc .
We have two reasons: the first one is bad impact on creatures and humans, the second is about environmental concern. I will present about the first point and then the second speaker, _____, will discuss the last point.
My first argument is about what wild animals and people will face if the capture continues. Removing these animals from their natural habitats means that they have to live in the condition of limited living areas and source of food, and usually inadequate healthcare. South Lake Safari, where 500 species were mistreated badly because of oversize of cages and malnutrition, is a typical example (telegraph.co.uk). Even when people captivate wild animals to save them from polluted habitat, they still don't know exactly what these animals need or afford enough money for the confinement. To some extent, there will be changes in the habits and daily activites of captured creatures. For example, according to the University of Oxford, the elephants are on the move for up to 18 hours a day, which is impossible if they're kept in captivity. They also have to serve human's needs by performing in circuses or zoos. As a result, they will suffer from stress, boredom and health problems; which is very cruel of people. Moreover, people can face danger coming from dangerous animals if they are kept in our cities. The story in theguardian.com about the shooting of a gorilla when he is trying to kill a four-year-old boy visiting the zoo perfectly exemplifies this. Another problem is that wild creatures are disease carriers, which can easily affect human's health. According to the humansociety.org, in 2003 an outbreak of monkeypox was caused by the pet trade and killed a lot of people. That's why we should abolish the captivity of wild animals.
A2: (4 minutes)
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is _______. I am the second speaker from the affirmative team.
<Rebuttal>
Our team, on the other hand has shown you that the capture of wild animals should be banned. Our first speaker, Yen, discussed the things that animals and humans will face if the act of captivating creatures from the wildlife goes on. I will continue our case from an other point of view, it is the threat to our world's biodiversity and ecological balance. When the animal captivity continues, there will be an increasing number of creatures, especially rare and valuable species, taken away from their native habitats. This will further endanger the wild population because the remaining individuals will be less genetically diverse and will have more difficulty finding mates. In long-term, these species can be on the verge of extinction. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the rapid loss of species we are seeing today is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate, which can be a much more serious problem if we don't ban capturing wild animals.* And the balance of nature may be disturbed, because you know, the food chain is a very intimate relationship, which means if a type of animal disappears, other species can get into trouble. Their herds can either grow too big or see an decrease in the number of members, which all create imbalance between different species.
A3: (4 minutes)
I'm ____________, the third speaker from the A team. Thanks for your rebuttal, but your arguments are not strong enough, and I will prove it now.
<Rebuttal>
We have talked about the disgraceful results of wild animal captivity based on 2 main reasons. The first one is the impacts on animals and humans. Creatures from the wild may face a large number of problems such as malnutrition, inadequate healthcare and boredom. This may lead to the sense of inhumanity to these animals. People can also be faced with health problems and potential risks, which is not a strange story to us now. The second argument we have given is about environmental consideration. The biodiversity and ecological balanced may be disturbed badly due to the legality of capturing wild creatures. This can open the floodgates to more environmental disasters in the beautiful world we are living today.
A4: (2 minutes)
Ladies and gentlemen, we are from the affirmative side in the resolution "Wild animal captivity should be abolished", and we have demonstrated our 2 arguments. The first one is that removing individuals from wildlife may put animals and even human in potential danger. This argument was strongly strengthened by the example of South Lake Safari, a well-known zoo in England. The second argument is about the world's biological diversity and ecological balance. We have emphasized that many rare species will be on the verge of extinction if human continue keeping animals at home or zoos. This reason has been supported by the fact that the loss of species nowadays is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural extinction rate, an extremely high figure. Our team, as you can see, has more solid arguments with examples and exact figures from well-known organizations and newspapers than the negative side. That's why our opinion, which is that "Wild animal capture should be banned", is true.
=================================
For the negative side, you just have to do the same order, but with your own arguments and evidence :">
