Should Lions be kept in cages?
I will do this debate with Jonbonbon
The first round is acceptance, the second is arguments, and the third is rebuttals, conclusion.
1. No forfeiting
2. No cheating
Lions: a large wild cat that has golden brown fur and that lives mainly in Africa
Cages: a box made of wire or metal bars in which people keep animals or birds
Sure, I'll accept. I don't see why not.
Give me your best, mashed potatoes (which is a really weird thing to say outloud, now that I've tried it).
Thank you for your acceptance.
I have three reasons to support my side.
I think it’s cruel and wrong to kept lions in cages; lions should be free and enjoy its life as a wild animal and suppose to be running around in the wild. Every lions have its own freedom and deserve to run around with its fellow lions in the wild, I believe that keeping lions in cages is still wrong even if it would be taken care by people.
1. Lions are animal that was born in the wild, and suppose to be apart the jungle world; it’s also a part of the food chain. By taking them away from their home and lock them in a cage is not just cruel but, it would also takes away the lion’s freedom and instinct and will affect the food chain, and the earth’s natural system. Many lion is used for entertainment for people and slowly all of them will lose their natural instinct, things like been trap in the zoo, and have to work their way in the circus…and while the others lions is in the wild, it will be harder for the lions to start growing population because a lot of their kind has been taken away, especially for male lions.
2. big disadvantage for the lions like when the situation is lions been kept in the zoo, people in business expect the lions to attract people and tourist for them and make them some money, but once their freedom been taken away, everything they own is gone too, people came and expect lions to do what they suppose to do but when they arrive the lions just going to sit around and been lazy, they are not active because once they came into the zoo, all they can do is just to sit around until the zoo keeper give it its next meal, the lions was not able to go and run, hunt its prey so in the end it fail to kept its natural instinct.
3. Even when there are many bad things about this but many other people would think this it better for them because they are been taken care of, they are completely safe from hunters that is wondering in the wild, and also they don’t have to worry about the about food or have to defend a entire group just to makes sure they can be safe.
Even though lions is been taken care of and they don’t ever have to worry about anything much, I still think and always will believe that lions should be free because since there is not much lions left in the wild, we should preserve these natural abilities and skills of the lions as much as we can and not just to protect these animals, also to live up to its name as one the most impressive wild animal.
Thank you for that last round. I'm going to provide my supporting arguments now:
1) Male lions sort of deserve to be kept in cages.
Male lions are like that abusive dad or stepdad that you might find sauntering about in a bar. They pretty much sit on a rock all day while the woman goes out and does all the work. Male lions only really exercise when competing with other males, killing their wife's children (this is a thing they actually do when the lionness already has kids, because lions don't like being stepfathers), or on the rare occassion they just decide to go kill something else.  Male lions are like the worst animal. And those are the ones you see in the zoo. So yeah, you're basically putting them in their natural habitat (sitting around and doing nothing), except people can look at them.
Also, due to the fact that the lionness does most of the hunting, that means that we're not even really disrupting the food chain.
2) Violent crimes
Lions kill people. It's just a thing that happens. But why should a lion be allowed to get away with murder, and humans shouldn't? I mean, sure a lion needs to eat, but then a cannibal needs to eat too, right? And that's like the worst kind of human ever. So when a lion kills a human, they should be locked up and sent to rehabilitation.
3) Lions are hunted a lot
In order for lionkind to be preserved, we actually need to keep them locked up for a while until they can reproduce enough to stabilize the population, then they can be released back into the wild. It's a thing people do to preserve the animals they love. If we just send them out into the wild, of course poachers are just going to kill them all. Then lions would be completely dead. How does that sound?
Thanks for reading.
Here's my source: https://cbs.umn.edu...
I will go on my rebuttals
1. This is just part of the lions habits. If lions to not kill anything, if they go out the cages, or any other reasons. They can't hunt or kill. They can't get to much food.
 Dependent - "a person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support."
In this case it is an animal. The lion will be too dependent of the humans. This represents their nurture, and domestication. They can't guard themselves. They can't run too.
2. Lions aren't the animals that kill a lot of people. Hippos kill more.
Actual numbers are hard to come by, but Africans tend to agree that they are among the most violent animals in the wild. They fight and kill crocodiles and, in increasing numbers, humans as well. Hippos have been known to trample and gore unsuspecting people who get too close to them. They also have caused drownings when they tip over boats and drag people underwater. Some have even suggested that hippos bite off people’s heads!
s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="Hippopotamus - 04.jpg" width="250" height="167" data-file-width="1800" data-file-height="1200" />
3. Lions are not really endangered. There are way more endangered animals. However, we have a lot of time until these lions get endangered. Right now, I think that we should cage other animals.
Well, thank you all for reading this debate. I'm going to brush over everything from the debate now, especially my opponent's rebuttal.
1) My opponent sort of misses the point of my first contention. The argument is that killing is part of a lions natural habitat. Then I think my opponent follows by saying that if lions are kept in cages their whole lives then they don't know how to kill and won't kill if we release them into the wild.
First of all, I think that's a great reason to just keep the caged lions in cages. If they're just going to die of starvation when we release them, then why let the lions out? Let's just keep the entertainment going and the lions fed.
Second of all, my opponent doesn't actually address my first contention. I said two things about killing in my opening arguments, and neither of them are even mentioned here:
a. Lions will kill a lionness's children if the lionness has children before those two mate. This is only because lions don't like being stepfathers. There's no other reason (I provided evidence in my first round to back this up). That point was just to show that lions are massive jerks.
b. Lions rarely ever do the hunting. The lionness does that. Since the lions are usually the ones kept in zoos, we're just putting them back in their natural habitat: sitting on a rock with their lion buddies. That's basically what a lion does all day.
That above point wasn't even addressed.
As far as my opponent's point goes, why does dependency have to be a bad thing? No logical connection is made. We're just supposed to accept that lions depending on humans to take care of them is a bad thing. Therefore, my first contention remains untouched, and my opponent's rebuttal and contentions remain unsupported.
2) My opponent doesn't even address my actual argument. I never said that lions are the most dangerous animals in Africa. I never said they kill the most people. Therefore, my opponent's attack is entirely irrelevant.
The point is that in certain scenarios, if a lion is just going about killing humans and eating their heads off, we need to lock that guy up in a cage.
And keep in mind that it doesn't matter if I'm actually right or if you disagree with me. I realize a lot of people in the crowd are just going to brush this point off as unimportant, but this point is completely unrefuted, and my opponent never argued that lions shouldn't be locked up if they kill people. Therefore, this argument has to be taken seriously
3) My opponent just recognizes that my plan is working. But if we throw all those lions into the wild who my opponent thinks will not be able to kill or fight back, we will end up with endangered lions. So my opponent's plan is self-defeating.
Now I'm going to make sure I touch all of my opponent's opening arguments:
1) The issue of the natural habitat has been covered; however, I'm going to brush back over the issue of the food chain, which was ignored by my opponent in my last round. I did make the statement in my first argument that the food chain is not disrupted. Lionnesses do a solid majority of the hunting. The lions are usually the ones kept in zoos. This is a point that has not been refuted. Therefore, we're not really disrupting the food chain by removing the lions.
The other point made in this contention is about the population; however, male lions aren't necessarily monogomous. According the evidence I provided in my last round, they do bounce around to different lionnesses. Since my opponent and I agree that lions are the ones mostly kept in zoos, reproduction isn't threatened. Plus, my opponent says they're not even endangered, so why does it matter?
2) This point is shot down by my first contention concerning the behavior of lions. Lions are pretty lazy. They're not really bothered by sitting around in a zoo. This point has been present since my opening arguments and has gone unaddressed, meaning my opponent concedes that point.
3) This is just an opinion. My opponent doesn't really provide reasoning. He even provides an argument for my side then just says something along the lines of "I think they're wrong." Well, I think my opponent is wrong. I have just refuted his point.
Tl;dr most of my case is entirely unrefuted, and the parts that actually mention my case refute my opponent's other points. My opponent's case is left unsupported. Whether you agree with me or not, please consider the actual debate and evaluate who actually won this.
Thank you for reading.
|Who won the debate:||-|