Debate Fundamentals - Lesson 15

Submitted by api on Mon, 09/08/2025 - 16:03

LESSON 15: MOCK DEBATE VIDEO- REBUTTAL!Motion: This House Would Ban All ZoosYour Role: Negative Team Task: You are now playing all 3 speaker roles of the Negative Team. For each argument below made by the Affirmative Team, your job is to rebut it in 2–3 strong sentences. Focus especially on identifying and responding to the logical fallacies we discussed in class (e.g., emotional appeal, slippery slope, ad hominem, false dilemma, etc.). Rebutting Format   My opponent said that // However // According to // This is important becauseSpeaker 1 – Argument 1: Ethics and Morality (Emotional Appeal + False Dilemma)Zoos may present themselves as centers for education or conservation, but at their core, they are prisons for animals. Wild animals are taken from their natural environments, placed behind glass or fences, and reduced to objects of amusement. How can we justify calling ourselves a civilized society while treating living beings this way? If we truly believe in animal welfare, we must reject the entire concept of zoos. There's no such thing as a "humane" cage—either we care about animals or we don’t. And if we choose to allow zoos to continue, we are choosing cruelty. It's that simple. Your Rebuttal:  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Speaker 2 – Argument 2: The Slippery Future of Captivity (Slippery Slope + Fear Appeal)Once we allow animals to be kept in captivity for public display, where does it stop? Today, it’s exotic wildlife like elephants and polar bears. But what happens when someone decides that domestic pets or rare hybrid species are the next big attraction? If we permit the exploitation of some animals under the label of conservation or education, we’re setting a dangerous precedent. We’ve already seen animals bred unnaturally for human purposes—what’s to stop commercial zoos from engineering animals purely for novelty? If we don’t take a stand now, we could be walking blindly into a future where animals exist only for profit and performance.Your Rebuttal:  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________   Speaker 3 – Argument 4: Character of Zoo Supporters (Ad Hominem + Oversimplification)Let’s not ignore who is still fighting to keep zoos open. Many are zoo executives, entertainment industry insiders, or people with outdated views who resist any kind of social or environmental progress. These are the same voices who once opposed banning animal circuses and fur farming. They claim to care about conservation, but their main concern is profit and nostalgia. If you’re defending zoos in this day and age, you’re likely doing so because you’re uncomfortable with change—or because your livelihood depends on animal captivity. That’s not a valid reason to continue an unethical system.Your Rebuttal:  __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Share your rebuttal for ALL 3 speakers in a video!

Lecture Type

Bài tập về nhà

code

ONL.DF.L15

Created by

c79c0522-b525-406f-a68e-7b5699e7a482

Subjects

TIẾNG ANH