In my essay, I take the antagonistic view towards animals being used in circuses – primarily based on the premise that circuses are not fun for animals. Based on the four argument points, my speech aims to inform the audience on the negative side of animal circuses. Importantly, I focus on the argument that animals do not feel happy doing the manoeuvres but rather do so out of compulsion resulting from long-term painful conditioning. By providing illustrious examples of mistreatment in the name of training, I intend to bring into awareness the irony behind animal circuses. An equally ubiquitous part of the observation is that when we speak of protecting nature, animal affairs should be treated inclusively.
I further reason and argue that beasts were born and meant to be free, and restraining them violates their fundamental provisions endowed by nature. That is consistent with the first idea. The second two points are closely related – that animals are a risk to public health and safety. First, they occasionally revolt, leading to chaos, stampede and even death. Besides, some animals like primates transmit diseases to humans, and minimising the contact starts with banning animal circuses.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I intentionally omitted the argument that animal sighting is best done in their natural habitat, where we can see them interact naturally without restriction. That is because I felt the idea partly overshadowed by the observation that caged animals are denied their vital freedoms, and their natural habits replaced with synthetic ones. Importantly, I focused heavily on the off-stage mistreatment of animals because it is not popular. Ideally, people imagine that the animals stay active and motivated as they are on stage all time, yet they are often neglected most of the time.
I would expect two typical counterarguments to my speech's propositions. In response to the issue of mistreatment, one counterargument is that circuses are regularly inspected for standard compliance. But I would still object, reasoning that the handful of times inspectors tour the animal circuses is not enough to assure the animals' wellbeing. We have also seen very few facilities closed over failure to meet standards, which illustrates their ineffectiveness. My point on the transmission of pests between humans and beasts could be countered by the observation that animal orphanages have even closer and intimate interactions. That would be hard to contest, but narrowing it down to individual species could bring more perspective to the argument.
