CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
10
Yes, he was hurting the boy. No, that is murder!
Debate Score:20
Arguments:26
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, he was hurting the boy. (8)
 
 No, that is murder! (8)

Debate Creator

foil7(346) pic



Should the Gorilla have died?

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/05/29/boy-falls-into-gorilla-habitat-pkg-nr.cnn/video/playlists/boy-falls-into-gorilla-habitat/

Yes, he was hurting the boy.

Side Score: 10
VS.

No, that is murder!

Side Score: 10
3 points

I personally would have preferred that all the people preferring that the gorilla be saved would be thrown in with the gorillas for 3 days. Now that would be fun to watch.

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.

Shoot it. Then send the stupid mother a bill for:

1 gorilla $100k

1 zoo reputation ~$2m

1 bullet $0.50

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
1 point

The Go-rilla needed to die and he is dead now ! But those Progressives are all about compassion and caring until it comes to human life then NOT SO MUCH ! They have displayed that !

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
foil7(346) Disputed
1 point

Is human life worth more than a gorilla? If anythng, humans are the evil ones.

Side: No, that is murder!
1 point

yes its just a gorilla animal that's not as important as a human person.

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
1 point

Yes, it is very sad that the gorilla died. It should and could have been prevented and right now the main thing the zoo needs to focus on is making sure it doesn't happen again. It's really a lose lose situation for the them. Two things could have happened. They could have tranq'd the gorilla on the small chance that it wouldn't have pissed the it off which could have hurt, possibly killed the boy before it fell asleep, or they could have shot and killed the gorilla. In the interest of saving that kids life they chose the best option and it's sad but it's a fact. As far as the parents are concerned, from what I know the mother had four kids she was taking to the zoo by herself. Now I didn't look further so if that's wrong then let me know but even with TWO kids they can be a handful. She should have gotten help so it is partially her fault that this happened. You can't keep your eyes on your kids all the time, even a second can lead to your kid just wandering off but that kid needs some serious punishment and those parents need to pay a fine.

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
ERnursebyday(13) Disputed
1 point

It's not always an option for a mother of four to have assistance. It seems as though you are insinuating that she should just stay at home with the children unless she has help. The mother should absolutely not be fined. Kids are so quick! I'm a nurse in the ER and had to care for a four year old that ran in front of a pizza delivery driver in an apartment complex. The mother was holding her sons hand, she dropped her keys, let go of his hand for one second to bend down and grab them and her son ran. Unfortunately, the boy did not survive. Do you feel that she should be fined for being an unfit parent?

Side: No, that is murder!
Mint_tea(4641) Disputed
1 point

I think she should know limitations. I know as a parent, having two kids can be difficult to wrangle just as I know they are more than able to scoot off in the blink of an eye. Unfortunate things happen and this is just one of them. That's terrible for the mother who lost her child, she will be reliving that horrific experience for the rest of her life. This mother thankfully will not. I didn't say that she was an unfit parent, I am suggesting however that she not go to the zoo that day if she is unable to take measures to care for all the kids.

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.

I dont see any reason why the guns that shot the gorilla couldnt have been loaded with tranquilizers. Theyre shooting bullets dangerously close to the kid anyways so why cant you shoot high-power tranquilizers and save both of them? I think there are several courses of action that couldve been taken by the zoo staff to rescue both the boy and the gorilla. And all other courses of action aside from killing it shouldve been investigated first considering how endangered the animal was.

Side: No, that is murder!
3 points

If the gorilla would have been shot with a tranquilizer it most likely would have become enraged and ravaged the child. It would have taken around 10 minutes for the dart to take effect. The gorilla seemed to be agitated. I fairly positive it would have attacked the child. Resulting in death. Also, what if the gorilla fell on top of the child? It was wise, but saddening, to shoot the gorilla.

Side: No, that is murder!
1 point

That gorilla had so much time to kill that kid. The zookeepers should have tried to lure the gorilla away from the kid.

Side: No, that is murder!

I would like to ask the individuals, who believe that the gorilla should not have been shot, if they have any children?

Side: No, that is murder!
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Emotional appeals don't really indicate a logical, thought out stance on a situation. Many parents would harm many, many people in order to protect their children. That doesn't make it alright.

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
ERnursebyday(13) Clarified
1 point

My response states that I feel that it is murder, but that is NOT my stance. I agree that the gorilla should be shot. I must have pressed the wrong button.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "emotional appeals"

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
0 points

The gorilla wasn't really hurting the kid. Even if he was, I don't see any reason to kill it. Gorillas are actually very protective of their young. That species, in particular, could be violent, but he wasn't hurting the kid.

Side: No, that is murder!
ERnursebyday(13) Disputed
1 point

So foil7 you are implying they should have waited until the gorilla began to attack the child before shooting him? Silverback gorillas have a high potential to attack when threatened or scared. News articles comment on the people yelling, which could absolutely threaten the gorilla.

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.

We have billions of humans, but not many gorillas. If anything they should of shot the kid.

Side: No, that is murder!
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

They should shoot you first if you are so concerned with how many humans there are. Nah, you want your life but the kid could die? What a mindless post!

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.
IAmSparticus(1516) Clarified
1 point

Feel better?

Side: Yes, he was hurting the boy.