The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Letting the bunnies out of the cage has a net positive outcome.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2008 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,727 times Debate No: 4833
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (5)




Of course, I happen to be in favor of this moving topic. Letting the bunnies out of cage definitely has a positive effect. Who will oppose such a notion.


Who will oppose such a notion indeed.

Let me first clarify where my opponent has failed to.

:: Analysis ::
What is meant by "Letting the bunnies out of the cage"?
A cursory web search was enough to show that "Letting the bunnies out of the cage" is not an idiom. That is to say, it is not a phrase that means something other than what it says. Indeed, "Letting the bunnies out of the cage" should be taken as literally letting the bunnies out of the cage.

However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty in the phrase. "The" bunnies? Of which bunnies do we speak? Obviously, this is a question with no definite answer. Therefore, it is best to approach this debate from a general viewpoint.

However, it is clear that these bunnies are caged. "The" cage obviously refers to whatever cage the bunnies are currently in.

Therefore, we should consider the statement for every bunny that is caged. Now obviously, we're not going to go over the scenario for every caged bunny in existence. Generalizations will be needed, and I will speak more on that when I get to said generalizations.

Hence, "A net positive outcome" will depend not on one scenario having a bigger positive effect than negative, but on the weighted combination of all scenarios having a net positive effect.

:: Argumentation ::
Consider that at this point, my opponent has failed to bring up any good effects of letting the bunnies out of the cage. Therefore, I could stop here and we'd be even, each with arguments of 0 strength. However, it seems wise for me to go ahead and list some reasons why there is not a net positive effect from letting the bunnies out of the cage.

First, let us consider the scenario of the average caged bunny. Most caged bunnies have been placed in a cage by a human being. This placement is not simply a random decision - there is a reason. Perhaps the human did not want the bunnies getting loose, perhaps the human wanted to protect his or her valued possessions from being ruined by said bunnies. There are probably other reasons, as well. The point here is, there are reasons the bunnies are put in cages. Most of the time, to let the bunnies out of the cage is to undo this decision, and to go against whatever reason there was for caging the bunnies in the first place. For instance, many possible instances of letting the bunnies out of the cage would lead to the bunnies getting loose. Many would lead to the bunnies ruining some goods - perhaps devaluing them even more than the worth of the bunnies themselves. In any case, this is a clear negative outcome. And since there are as of yet no positive effects given by my opponent, the net outcome is negative so far.

Also, uncaged bunnies are much more hassle than caged bunnies. This extra hassle a person has to deal with is another negative effect.

I do not wish to make this too lengthy, and since my opponent made no arguments last round, I will end here for now.
Debate Round No. 1


Hahaha, a very interesting profile indeed Who, you are indubitably a cunning character.

Let us begin.


It is of course a grave mistake by my opponent that he has found no meanings of bunnies in contemporary society. In fact, a plethora of meanings exist. Let me begin.

Bunnies, are most commonly used as a symbol of three distinct concepts in modern society. Those being:

-Playful Sexuality (innocently)

Furthermore, and even more recently, bunnies have been portrayed as one distinct character role. That of the trickster. Such examples include Bugs Bunny, Br'er Rabbit, and the white rabbit from Alice and Wonderland.

Thus my friends, the world Bunny in our resolution today can exemplify distinctly five things: Rabbits, Innocence, Fertility, Playful Sexuality, or The Trickster.

Which brings us to the second part of the resolution, "out of the cage". A cage of course could be a metal or wooden contraption in which something is held. However this is not all a cage must be, a cage could alternatively be a metaphorical containment of a concept. For instance my emotions for the love of my life could be caged behind bars of my shy nature. Another example, my freedom to run nude through the streets is caged by the law. As we can see, caged is a very vague concept that could mean many things, I will of course be covering all of them in due time.

This brings us to the final part of the resolution, "has a net positive outcome." I must agree with my opponent unanimously when he states,

"Hence, "A net positive outcome" will depend not on one scenario having a bigger positive effect than negative, but on the weighted combination of all scenarios having a net positive effect."

Thereby, from this paradigm I will ask that everyone vote, at the end of this debate, on who has won the greatest number of scenarios. As no scenarios will have a greater weight than any other they should all be given equal consideration. The exception to this rule will be in the instance that myself or my opponent gives extra weight to any given scenario. Weight can and will be debated.

THE FLAW (Rabbit in a steel a cage)
My opponent, the esteemed WHO, has given us one of many scenarios. He has presented me with the concept of a rabbit in a steel cage. My opponent submits the idea that to let the rabbits out of their cage would simply be to go against the reason for putting them in their cage in the first place.

I must agree, this would indeed go against the original reason for putting them in the cage, however going against an original reason is by no means a bad thing. For instance, when Hitler was doing a mass genocide a few decades ago he could have taken a moment out of his day to say, "Hmmm, you know what, I think I will let the Jews out of their cages so they can go free." Such an action would doubtlessly have been against his original reasons for putting the Jews in their cages. Yet, letting the Jews free would not have been a BAD thing as my opponent insinuates, but rather a good thing.

The same is true in this case. Letting the rabbits free from their cage is doubtlessly going against the original intentions of putting them their but is also good thing as it gives them freedom to do as they please. The rabbits are sentient beings and do have the ability to think and make decisions however simplistic those decisions might be.

Thus at this point I have won this argument, that is to say, unless my opponent has a way to prove that the life of a human being is somehow superior to all other life and has the right to enslave it.

Yet, even if my opponent could prove such a notion, I would only have to point out that the rabbits do not need to be let out of their cages in a place where they,

"lead to the bunnies ruining some goods - perhaps devaluing...."

but rather that they could be let out of their cage in the middle of a peaceful forest, where they would not devalue anything. Thus there is no repercussions on the human population and the rabbit population now has free will.

Another bad scenario. In fact, empirically proven throughout the ages, putting beings in a metaphorical cage has almost always been a bad thing. For instance, in the status quo gays are in a metaphorical cage as inflicted by popular belief. In the past blacks and women were in metaphorical cages as inflicted by popular belief (actually blacks were occasionally in real cages too.... =( ) Anyways, the point is this! Discrimination is a bad thing, beings should be treated with respect. It is wrong to discriminate against rabbits for any reason. They should be let out of any cages of discrimination,.

I'm not sure about you but when I see an innocent child, or perhaps an innocent butterfly in a steel cage, a literal steel cage, I can't help but shiver. No innocent being should have to endure the confines of a metal cage. To do so is to take away a great deal of freedom from said innocent. Each innocent life should have the chance to strive, grow, and interact with it's environment. To bind such a being in a cage is to seriously detract from it's quality of life.

Perhaps worse than the steel cage. A metaphorical cage, and environment where an innocent being is not allowed the freedom of thought. The freedom to mature in certain ways. And in extreme cases a cage so horrible that the innocent being stays child-like forever. Such was the lot of the innocent children the 1500's in Europe. A time when philosophical thought was so frowned on by the church that individuals were caged in how they could think.

Fertility is the natural capacity of giving life. Whether metaphorical life or the life of being. To put such an ability in a steel cage would be to doom all of life to extinction. This is BAD.

Once again having fertility in a cage, even metaphorical, will lessen the natural capacity to give life. Even if only via a mindset. For instance, a mother telling her child that she will only be fertile if she follows (insert religion) should be discouraged.

Is a BAD thing because a steel cage is uncomfortable for any sort of sexual activity, however playful. Also being accidentally locked in a steel cage while engaging in playful sexual activity can potentially be embarrassing for both parties. USE A BED!

Sexual activity is known to release stress, and makes individuals calmer + happier. Freedom of sexuality should be embraced, to put such in a metaphorical cage is to deny oneself.

The trickster, not to be confused with the criminal, is the innocent being who takes delight in playing practical jokes. These jokes bring happiness to the world. To put the trickster in a cage is to decrease the amount of overall happiness.

Society has many times shunned the trickster for his/her plots. Society has attempted time and time again to cage this free flowing individual and make it conform to the rules. Yet little do they realize the trickster is harmless and full of fun. To metaphorically cage the trickster is still to decrease the overall happiness.

Having run out of characters I lend my opponent a chance to rebut.


Interesting. I must admit, things have taken a turn for the interesting.

I will accept all my opponent's definitions from his R2. I will now provide more definitions. Specifically, for the word "cage":

:: Definitions ::
1. a box or enclosure having some openwork for confining or carrying animals (as birds) (This is basically the definition my opponent gave for a physical cage)

2. Metaphorical Cage (My opponent's other definition)

3. a: a barred cell for confining prisoners, b: a fenced area for prisoners of war (I will call it a "Prisoner cage")

4. The bony enclosing wall of the chest consisting chiefly of the ribs and the structures connecting them. (A "Rib Cage")

5. A protective framework of metal bars encasing the driver of a vehicle (as a racing car) (A "Roll Cage")

So now we have 5 definitions of cage, 5 definitions of bunnies. Meaning the most scenarios we can get out of this is 25.

:: Scenarios :: (For ease, I will keep the same order my opponent used R2, and just add to the end)
1. Rabbits, physical cage. [definition 1 of cage]
If the letting out is going against the original intentions of the caging, it would stand to reason that the letter out is not the cager. As in, person A caged them, person B is letting them out. This is almost always going to be a loss of property for person A, since he or she probably owns the bunnies. Bunnies, like most animals, are insignificant compared to humans. The loss of property of one person is more important than the freedom of a bunny. The fact that bunnies are 'cute' does not change this fact, and we should not give them more importance simply because they are cute. People actually do something helpful for society, whereas bunnies do not, especially when uncaged.

Also, we cannot assume that the rabbit is being let out in a grassy meadow, either. Since we don't know where it's being let out, the best way to make a decision here is based off of where the bunnies in a cage are most of the time. There are probably very few bunnies in cages that are in a grassy meadow at any given time. Most are in someone's house, in a pet shop, or some other place where the bunnies are supposed to be kept. Letting the bunnies out in these places has the same negative effects I listed last round. Devaluation of property, and perhaps loss of property as well as hassle. Both of which are more important than a bunny's "freedom" to go eat grass and multiply wherever it wants to.

2. Rabbits, metaphorical cage.
My opponent's only possible example here is the 'cage' of discrimination. However, bunnies are not in any such cage. If anything, we favor bunnies over the rest of the animal kingdom, simply because they're cute.
The examples of discriminatory cages my opponent listed were the past ordeals of black and women - clearly by this, he means the absence of some deserved rights. However, as I said, bunnies do not contribute to society, except when used by humans as a tool. The only time they are useful is when they are property, and therefore they should be treated as property. Keep them in whatever metaphorical cages they might be in.

3. Innocence, physical cage.
"Innocence", not "Innocents". It is a concept. It cannot be put in a physical cage, nor can it be let out of one.

4. Innocence, metaphorical cage.
Once again, it is the concept "Innocence" being caged, not those who have a lot of it. Therefore, my opponent's examples here are nonsensical as well. There's really not a way to let innocence out of a cage, or not one I care to think up. As of now, though, this scenario is meaningless.

5. Fertility, physical cage.
Another impossibility. Meaningless as well.

6. Fertility, metaphorical cage.
My opponent's example here does not constitute metaphorically caging fertility. Since the actual fertility is not affected at all in the situation, it cannot be said to be caged. Another scenario with no meaning, and I will leave it to my opponent to revive the point next round.

7. Sexuality, physical cage.
Once again, a non-physical thing cannot be put in a physical cage. Therefore, this scenario makes no sense.

8. Sexuality, metaphorical cage.
I accept the scenario of a person explicitly denying themselves of playful sexuality as an effective caging of playful sexuality.
As in scenario 1, the physically-caged bunnies, the person obviously has some reason for caging it [remember, to let something out of the cage, it has to be caged first, so we're ONLY talking about people who already restrict their sexuality.
Overall, most people who restrict their own sexuality do so based on principles and beliefs they hold. There are few things worse than going against ones own principles, let alone for the quite small prize of stress relief, calmness, and happiness. These are things that can be found in innumerable other places, where going against ones own principles is not required. Video games are a good example. Even debating online can cause such effects. A person should seek out stress relief and happiness, but not through channels that require a breach of ones own principles. The same would be true for calmness, except it's not intrinsically good or bad.

9. Tricksters, physical cage.
Tricksters are not trapped in physical cages, at least not cages that aren't included in other definitions of "cage".
I would say that if a trickster is somehow put into a cage he does not want to be in, he is no trickster, he is the one who has been tricked.
Therefore, this one is irrelevant.

10. Tricksters, metaphorical cage.
Trickery is frowned upon for a reason - it is often hurtful, it creates distrust or even false trust, etc. For these same reasons, tricksters should be kept in a metaphorical cage - a cage where people discourage their trickery. Trickery would not be discouraged if there was not a good reason for wanting to avoid it.

[New scenarios start here]
11. Bunnies, prisoner cage.
Bunnies aren't kept in prisoner of war camps or prisons, and if they are, there is probably a good enough reason for it that they shouldn't be let out.

12. Bunnies, rib cage.
Bunnies, or at least a very large portion of them, are confined by their own rib cages. The only way to let them out of this cage is to break the rib cage. This serves no purpose, and the fact that it would ruin a bunny's cuteness is a negative effect.

13. Bunnies, roll cage.
In the extremely rare occurrence of bunnies being in a roll cage, they are likely put there to ensure their safety. Even so, this is hardly realistic enough to count for anything.

14-22. Innocence, sexuality, fertility IN A prisoner cage, rib cage, roll cage.
These are all meaningless right now.

23. Tricksters, prisoner cage.
If tricksters is in a prisoner cage, it is because he has done something illegal to be put there. When considering the length of time most people are in a prison, consider that there are very few instants when letting them out of the cage is appropriate. At all other instants, letting them out of the cage is inappropriate. It would lead to an ineffective legal system, unfairness, etc. Therefore, the net effect here is negative.

24. Tricksters, rib cage.
As with bunnies, the only way to let people out of their rib cages is by breaking their rib cages. This has apparent negative effects.

25. Tricksters, roll cage.
At all instants but a few, letting tricksters who are in a roll cage out of it is unsafe, with possible dire consequences [death, bad PR, etc].

And that'll be it from me this round. I'll rebut and recap next round.
Debate Round No. 2


I accept each of my opponents definitions.

1. Rabbit in a physical cage.

As I stated in my last round, if my opponent were to win this point he would first have to prove exactly how humans are somehow superior to all other forms of animals. As my opponent has forfeited the opportunity to explain exactly how humans are superior (if he does so in his final round it should not be considered) we must follow my paradigm that there is no means to derive what makes a species more "important" than another. To the average human another human is more important. To a bunny another bunny is more important. Objectively speaking neither of these statements are a given.

Furthermore it is not safe to assume that a person B will be letting the bunnies out of the cages. However let's look at both scenarios.

Person A (owner) frees bunny: Person A will therefor not want the bunny to ruin property so Person A will free it somewhere not near humanity.

Person B (animal rights activist): Person B will want the bunny to escape. Freeing the bunny inside of it's house or inside of a pet shop will not help the bunny escape.

As these are by far the two most likely scenarios we can see that the bunnies will be freed in a grassy meadow.

2. Rabbits in a metaphorical cage.

My opponent simply states that rabbits do not contribute to society, however he fails to see that rabbits have their own society that they may contribute to. As my opponent has found no way to prove human society more important than rabbit society the point is moot. However I must ask, "If a black man does not contribute to society should he be kept in a cage of discrimination...?" I think the answer is obvious, the same is true of bunnies, their freedoms have been excessively curbed.

3. Innocence, physical cage.

Innocence is always an attribute of an innocent person. Thus if an innocent person is in a cage so is the attribute of innocence as it is a part of that person. This point stands.

4. Innocence, metaphorical cage.

Same as three.

5-6 are hereby discontinued.

7. Playful Sexuality in a cage.

Of course a playfully sexual person will have the attribute of being playfully sexual. Therefor the only way to have the concept of playful sexuality in a physical cage is to have someone with the attribute in a physical cage. Thus a playfully sexual person who is doing sexual deeds in a cage will mean that that persons attribute of "playful sexuality" will also be in the physical cage.

My opponent opposed this contention in no way and therefor it is a point for myself. New argumentation on this point in his last round should not be accepted.

8. Playful Sexuality in a metaphorical cage.

Yeah, it's true, there are nuns and other persons out there that reject their sexuality for a higher belief. And I admit to go against that belief might just be a bad thing. However there are many many more situations where playful sexuality in a metaphorical cage is a bad thing. In our society a taboo has slowly grown against sexuality. Words describing men and women body parts are suddenly wrong to say, offensive even. Kids who naturally begin to sexual experiment are stopped, yelled at, and even beaten by their parents. Such instances of sexuality in a metaphorical cage are much more prominent than that of the nun instance which my opponent has submitted. Thus as a net outcome of this contention there is much more good being done by letting the sexuality out of it's cage.

9. Trickster in a cage.

Ah but you see, occasionally the trickster does get tricked. This does not mean that he is any less of a trickster. For instance if I was a brutish person who was beat up by a more brutish person I would still be a brutish person. Point.

10. Trickster in a metaphorical cage.

The trickster as I said before is an innocent being. In most cases the tricksters tricks will never hurt anyone, but simply make for laughs and happiness. In those few cases where the trickster does hurt he should not be put in a metaphorical cage by society but rather put in metaphorical rehabilitation.

11. Bunny in prisoner camps.

Bunnies aren't kept in prisoner camps. And if they were there would be no reasons that they shouldn't be let out. Obviously a bunny has never been a prisoner of war. This point counts for nothing.

12. Bunny in rib cage.

A bunny is not in a rib cage. A bunny is not even confined by a rib cage. A rib cage is part of a bunny. As such a bunny cannot be let out of it's rib cage because it was quite frankly never in its rib cage. This is not a point that should be considered in today's round.

13. Bunnies, roll cage.

My opponent was quite right when he stated that bunnies in a roll cage does not occur very often. However as it DOES occur however infrequently. As such it must be noted that a roll cage is designed to fit a human and to confine him/her snugly so that he or she does not smash against the walls. However a roll cage is many sized to large for a bunny and thus the bunny would hit the walls and bounce off of them at ferocious speeds as the car wrecks. This is an instance where the bunny should be let out of the cage before the car ever begins moving. In fact, being let out as the car starts to wreck might even me more desirable as the bunny would only hit the ground once instead of the roll cage multiple times.

14 - 22. Innocence, sexuality, fertility IN A prisoner cage, rib cage, roll cage.

As I described before innocence can be in a physical place if embodied by a physical entity. The most common example of innocence in a physical form would be an innocent child. An innocent child should not be in a roll cage because of the fact that roll cages are designed for adults and would most likely hurt an innocent child. Plus roll cages are not 100% safe to begin with, so an innocent child should not be subject to that possible death. It is obvious that an innocent child should not be put in a prisoner cage as an innocent child has done no crime. To do such would just be to curb the innocent child's freedom. Finally an innocent child cannot be in a rib cage, a rib cage is part of an innocent child. Two points.

23. Trickster in a prisoner cage.

Nay my friend, being kept in a prisoner cage costs the government and thereby the people a great deal of money. The trickster should be let out of his prisoner cage immediately and sent straight to rehab. After all, a trickster in a prisoner cage would have been there either because he was tricked or because a trick accidentally went wrong. He/she is not all that bad of a person, and can easily be rehabilitated. To leave him/her in the prisoner cage would not help society in any way. Sending him/her to rehab would.

24. Trickster, rib cage.

A trickster is not IN a rib cage thus he/she cannot be let OUT of it. When we see someone on a street and wish to comment on that person ribs we say, "Hey that person has nice ribs!" not "That person is in some nice ribs!" Ribs are a part of any given person.

25. Trickster, roll cage.

Quite frankly a roll cage however secure is never going to be all the way safe. Thus it is rather desirable that a trickster be let out of the roll cage the moment the trickster gets in the roll cage. This will ensure that the trickster faces minimum liability to his/her life.

And now that I have finished I would like to restate that new arguments by my opponent in his final round should not be considered as I would have no chance to reply. At this point I have 16 points where as my opponent has 0 points. As we are considering points to be equal he will need to win on 9 of the points to win this debate. GL!


Who forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Mogget won pretty much automatically. As of the end of the debate, I had failed to rebut many of his arguments and failed to defend my own against his attacks, due ot missing round 3. Even I voted for him, though someone else decided to vote for me for whatever reason.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Illegal to let bunnies out of the cage here in NZ and pretty sure it's the same in Aussie.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Gonna read this one later.
Posted by Xera 8 years ago
I must vote pro here. Very humorous debate. I enjoyed this one.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Why have you done this!? WHY!? I hate having to beat you this much!
Posted by Who 8 years ago
Awesomely, I just typed my response. I suppose I was too slow.
Enjoy your win.
Posted by ABNYU 8 years ago
I love this debate.
Good Job on both sides.
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Snowball's chance in hell maybe.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
So, it's July 31st. You think we'll being seeing version 3 before the day ends?
Posted by Who 8 years ago
I would apologize for the confusion, but it is not I who has brought it upon you.
However, I will now set the record straight. "Who" is not "Beem0r".
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Who 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Im_always_right 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Xera 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mogget 8 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30