With every great news report you hear whether, from the news companies, your friends, family or radio comes with three sides to it. Each story has an affirmative, a negative and the truth. What you hear is swayed to either side.
Truth: noun; a fact or belief that is accepted as being true
Negate: verb; nullify, make ineffective
Affirm: verb; state as a fact; assert strongly and publicly
Each word is listed with its definition form above. These are terms used during a debate to explain a side view for the topic or the resolution. The truth is what is truly correct based on the resolution, the debater will take a side whether is to affirm the resolution or to negate it. This is a take on the critical news from the debate side.
Resolution: The actions taken against Harambe, the 17-year-old male gorilla interacting with a fallen child were immoral.
To further explain the topic, Harambe is a gorilla who was interacting in his habitat during normal zoo hours. A family was looking at the gorilla exhibit when a young child made his way over/through the enclosure wall and down into the moat area of the enclosure. Harambe made his way down to the fallen child where he grabbed onto the boy and pulled him around for approximately 10 minutes. According to CNN the 450-pound Harambe violently pulled the boy away. Zoo staff (director, shoot team and his keepers responded to the scene where a decision was made to tranquilize the gorilla, shoot the gorilla or lure him back into his holding enclosure. After discussion of the events unrolling in front of the staff, a decision was made to shoot the gorilla in order to protect the child. Viewpoints are made from the zoo staff, the news, parents, spectators, police and new viewers (which will be the read in this case). Every person took a side on this resolution. Neither side is right nor wrong for what you argue will remain a viewpoint and an opinion. What will remain vital information is the truth. These are the general viewpoints for the negator and the affirmative side.
Negate will go first:
After analyzing the event of Harambe's death, blame is pointed in the wrong direction. Nobody who belongs to Cincinnati Zoo should be blamed for a reasonable response to events. Harambe's killing was justified. According to CNN, guest of the zoo heard the young boy tell his mother he is going to get into the moat with the gorillas. The mother responded with a simple reprimanding before becoming distracted by other children she had with her. The conversation between child and mother is of any parent who is hoping their child will move on to another fixation. The mother responded "No you're not, no you're not" multiple times without reprimanding the specific behavior she told the child to not do. The mother distracted her attention to attend to other children in her care while the boy climbed the fence railing and fell into the moat. No public area is responsible for watching your child, no bystander is responsible for something that doesn't relate to them. Nobody but the poorly distracted mother is to blame for Harambe's death and justified actions of zoo staff.
Affirmative will follow:
Post review of the tragic events unveiled before us, Harambe's death was immoral, unjust and unfair to his population and status. He is one of few rare species of gorillas. The zoo staff's decision seems to have overlooked the status and rarity of such a creature. Critiques argue that children who are not capable of understanding rules and capable of caring for themselves should be leashed, should be under the watch of capable parents, or zoo security. Petitions began quickly after news released the events before us and more than 100,000 signatures filled the online pages within two days of being open. On viewers of the event seek justice and blame to others for Harambe. Outside viewers have taken citizens moral obligation to take into further consideration that the zoo is to blame. They point fingers that the enclosure wall for peering guest wasn't protective enough to cover all situations. Nobody but the zoo alone is to blame for the misguided death of a beloved gorilla.
The truth will be stated now:
Based upon events and review of the fully enclosed information, the zoo had created what was believed to be an adequate structure wall to prevent guest from falling in or making their way into the enclosure. Onlooking guests are not responsible for the child or mother's behavior. Nor is the staff of the zoo responsible for the actions of this family with how they carried themselves with respect to the Zoo's rules. Cincinnati police ruled that this was not in result of the operations or safety of Cincinnati Zoo. They are still currently determining if charges need to be brought forward against either party. The zoo director has come forth and has stood by her call that the child's life was in danger despite what was visibly seen by a guest. She also states that "People who question that don't understand you can't take a risk with a silverback gorilla-- this is a dangerous animal." Situations similar to this, zoo staff are to discuss potential outcomes based off of the strength, primal instincts and characteristics of the species, not base off of the animal's personality when it interacts with humans. Multiple parties have confirmed the safety of the zoo and that they are not at fault for the actions made.
Opinions have been discussed, debated and confirmed by any spectator of the articles but as a human, you are entitled despite the truth laid out before you.
