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

certain animals shouldnt be in cages since they have cognitive abilities

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,803 times Debate No: 22377
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




I am generally arguing here that it is ethically immoral for humans to incarcerate ceratian animals since they have cognitive functions. witch means they feel and think in a sense as we do. How would you feel if you were caged for a lifetime to be stared at for another larger beings entertainment for your entire life? not too great.

certain animals-dogs,cats,amphibious creatures,tigers,monkeys, another mammal

first round=acceptance
second =positions


I accept and will answer to your first question. I pretty much am caged all my life. I go from school to home to school again. I live with it. It is my lifestyle.
Debate Round No. 1


response to my opponent.......that's ok.......but in a real situation it would be i understand i feelthat way sometimes......

this debate is about ethics and logic.

Animals simply shouldn't be in cages since they have cognitive abilities.( by the way humans are also mammals. I will be arguing humans as well but mainly the human perception of animals)

anything that confines or imprisons; prison.

/cog·ni·tion/ (kog-nish´un) that operation of the mind process by which we become aware of objects of thought and perception, including all aspects of perceiving, thinking, and remembering.cog´nitive-----

certain animals shouldnt be caged

1. loss of freedom,sanitation

The fact that animals have cognitive abilities, brains, and nerves means they feel pain,sadness, and other emotions.
dogs and cats don't like being in cages. They can show signs of being depressed...........

imagine being a dog. Imagine being locked in a cage and having to pee or defecate. Now imagine being locked in a cage 24 hours and using the bathroom 4 times a day. If your owner is negligent or say your on a airplane,or your owner spent the night at their friends and forgot you. Your going to have to lay in your own waste for hours and there's nothing you can do about it. This isn't ethical dogs should be left outside or inside but not in cages they need to be able to move around.(some owners may not put food or water in the cage,dogs need lots of water, they can get severely dehydrated). Lets use the ideal of a caged bird. birds are free animals who lives to fly obviously. I'm sure there not happy locked inside a cage. Neither is any animal.

2. animals cant possibly be happy in in a small confined area

Lets look at amphibious creatures. Goldfish are incarcerated pretty much all there lives when they have a owner.
Fish are supposed to be in a vast ocean, imagine the huge psychological transition if theve been freshly caught.
Also most goldfish are in a small confinement where they barely have space(primely beta fish). Do you think they are in the best environment? possibly happy if they can feel the emotion?.....not possible........especially since people always forget to feed there fish......we all do it. and they should be able to find abundant food in the ocean and not depend on forgetful owners.

3.possible aggression lash out, and denial of natural instinct

there has been numerous occasion when tiger,mammals and monkeys have all gone on rampage when theve been let out of there cages, or escaped due to aggression.

here are examples-----

The aftermath of the tragic tiger attack at the San Francisco Zoo that killed one and severely wounded two more has left us with many questions.

How did the tiger escape its confinement? Was it provoked? How could this happen? If it wasn't clear enough before, we must learn again: Wild animals are wild and capable, at any time, of aggressive, even fatal attacks.

"These animals are bored. They're smart, they're agile, they're emotional and they're working 24/7 to get out of their prison because that's what they're in: a prison cell," said Mark Bekoff, a former professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado............

and from the same source........'The Animal Does What the Animal Does'

We have seen this over and over, and not just with zoo animals.

Consider Moe, a chimpanzee who lived with St. James Davis and his wife, LaDonna, in their suburban Los Angeles home for decades, until one day in 1999, he attacked a police officer and a woman and was sent to live at an animal sanctuary. During a visit to the sanctuary in 2005, two chimps in an adjacent cage escaped and attacked Davis and nearly mauled him to death.

Animal attacks
ABC News Photo Illustration

In 2004 after 10 years of working together, a 6,000-pound whale attacked his Sea World trainer, repeatedly diving on top of him and driving him underwater before he was rescued. There was a similar whale attack in 2006.

And a lion named Bongo attacked his trainer, Dave Salmoni, in front of an audience of thousands of school kids in Toronto in 1999.

"He just sort of grabbed a hold of my arm, tore out some muscles and taught me a very good lesson," said Salmoni. "You believe they love you, like you love them. And that's the best lesson to learn about these guys. They don't have the same feelings that we do. And they won't think twice … if they come to kill you."

Perhaps the most notable case involved Siegfried and Roy, the world-renowned Las Vegas performers that feature trained tigers. Roy was severely mauled on stage and nearly bled to death, attacked by a prized tiger he had raised and trained from a cub.

"He probably did something that he didn't know he was doing that tipped off something that's hard-wired into the cat's brain," said Bekoff. "In my courses that I teach in animal behavior I always tell people when you've got these hard-wired behavior patterns, like predatory behavior, or hunting, or maternal behavior, or anti-predatory behavior — it doesn't take much to trip them. And I myself, who supposedly knows a lot about carnivores, was almost killed by a mountain lion and almost killed by a wolf because I did something unbeknownst to me that triggered something really hard-wired in their brain.".............

lastly we wouldn't want to be in cages so we shouldn't cage animals for amazement.

or imagine being locked in a cage, like a zoo or normally perceived cage. We wouldn't be too happy we have a natural need to move around. being in a cage we are denied this. WE would no longer have access to food whenever we want. WE may be left and forgotten and forced to lay in our wastes. We will loose all happiness and our humanity. WE would go insane.

so certain animals shoulnt be in cages since they have cognitive abilities.



1. First off, Dogs would not exist without humans. Dogs were the result off careful breeding down from wolves to small dogs. This shows we are responsible for them because they would die in nature. We need to keep them somewhere and by your definition a house could be a cage. If we let them loose, They could run wild and WOULD attack people.
2.How do you know the animals are not happy. Gold fish are obviosly happy with the transition because they breed like crazy.
3.A cage keeps the people outside safe. It is best to keep the sccident rare than common
4.God made us the stewards of the earth. It is our decition. We are the superior beings and we cannot compare ourselves to other animals
Debate Round No. 2


addressing my opponents first comment
1. The origins of dogs is irrelevant. It doesnt matter how they came into existence the fact of the matter is they shouldn't be kept in cages because they become depressed in these cages. Also a house could not possibly considered a cage, it could fall out of the category if the owner has a doggie door or one of those magnetic mesh screens. Also dogs have more space and flexibility in houses than a metal cage. Thus they shouldn't be caged.

2.I Know the animals are not happy based on evaluating signs of depression..............
Also just because something breeds doesnt mean there happy it just means the want to have sex. lol. Also most goldfish are isolated in there glass cage. So they wont be repopulating in the first place.

3. So by this logic should we then cage all bacteria and all other animals in the word just so we can feel secure. Or should we kill all animals just to feel safe and prevent accidents? No this logic is flawed. My opponent cannot defend his case witch means pro should win this debate.

4.Okay since my opponent wants to bring god into this. In the bible it states we need to show respect for life. Is depriving animals happiness and freedom or killing them to feel secure showing respect for life? No.

so my contentions are.......1. loss of freedom,sanitation,2. animals cant possibly be happy in in a small confined area,lastly we wouldn't want to be in cages so we shouldn't cage animals for amazement.

My opponent has not offered any effective counterargument to my contentions thus I/ve proven y case and pro should win this debate.





4.; border="0" alt="Animal attacks" width="200" />
ABC News Photo Illustration



1.They may have large cages. Anyway, The origin of dogs is relevant because it shows we are responsible for keeping them in check and to keep them safe from the wild.
2. If you reproduce it usually means you are comfortable and happy. Goldfish also get free food with little effort on their part. I am talking about larger fish tanks and small ponds. And according to your definition of cage, this counts.
3. There are some animals that don't need to be caged or are to small to be caged. Also bacteria don't count as animals, they are microorganisms [1]
4. And we are animals. It is fun to see animals at the zoo and if an animal kills a human that is not showing respect for life either. Where did killing come into this argument other than animals killing humans.

My points are such: Cages keep people and animals safe. also the animals may be happy in their cages. we still have not found a way to communicate with them.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
lol......i dont really like to redebate on the same topic with the same opponent so........i could do a different debate with you. I have some pretty darn interesting ideas. Ill request you for a debate....actually i will do it now.
Posted by BA_BA_BA 4 years ago
By the way, Do you think we could re-debate this topic sometime because I am going to miss the closing of this debate do to being out of town.
Posted by BA_BA_BA 4 years ago
sorry that my argument was so short. I literally had 25 seconds to post when I finished writing it.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
im not arguing incarceration of humans anymore ....lets just stick to animals....
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
i think i did good or making a speech in 20
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 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 
Reasons for voting decision: cons poor refutations and non sourced arguments did not really hold up to the in depth analysis by pro.