We should not domesticate wild animals

Con provided good reasons to conclude that domesticating animals is okay, and he provided good rebuttals to pro's claims. However, pro gets the source point, as he cited three sources supporting his last claims, whereas con made a series of baseless, unverified claims about the state of zoos. I don't know that much about zoos, so I have no idea if he's lying or not. Con was obviously more legible than pro, as con's arguments were much more structured and coherent, whereas pro's grammar was very bad, it wasn't as well-structured, and he screamed every single word, except when he copied a quote from Wikipedia. Both never insulted each other and both showed up for the debate to contribute their arguments, nobody abused technicalities and nobody intentionally twisted anybody's words, so they are tied for conduct.

I will begin by noting that it would have served Pro well to define the keywords of his Resolution: "domesticate" and "wild" [animal]. It is apparent by the varied strategies each participant used in their arguments that a preliminary definition effort in the Description would have guided both particpants' argument strategy. This notice does not deduct points from Pro, but would be useful consideration in future challenges, if, for nothing else, advantage to voting..
Argument:
Pro presented a good structure to arguments, citing ethical, evolutionary, and potential danger to humans as key arguments in support of the Resoljution. His intended definition of "domesticate" became clear through reading the arguments, so that did not present a limiting factor for voting, after all, but the suggestion to define up front stands. The obvious meaning of Pro's "domesticate" was is placing wild animals [big cats were used as sufficient exemplars] in non-wild environments, and the 3-way structure explained sufficiently how each structure was of harming consequence to those animals.
Con's arguments keyed on species survival and ethical stewardship, both valid counterpoints, but in the process, altered what he intended "domesticate" to mean. While the keying on species survival in a growing human population that does encroach on natiurasl wild habitats, and providing artificially attempted "wild" habitats for recovery of extinction, it is still an artificial wild habitat, regardless, and there is, as a result, a relatively failed effort of domestication, making it difficult to prove success of the attempt but for a few notable exceptions which Con does describe.
Over all, I found pro's argument more convincing.
Sourcing:
This was clearly a Pro victory. Con failed to provide back-up sourcing to justify his argument points.
Legibility:
A more strict view might tilt this feature in Con's direction, because Pro's English is not easy to interpret in some instances, such as using "petation," an unfamiliar reference to this voter. However, in a wider context, I wish my skill in any of a hundred or more dialects commonly in used in India was as skillful as Pro's English is. His meaning is clearly understood by syntax. I understood, by syntax, that Pro spoke of making wild animals pets in the common sense we think of pets in America as part of our families. Content is king, and that is true in language as well as anything else. Tie.
Conduct: Both participants were cordial and respectful to each other. Tie