The Instigator
snaymansukh2004
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

animals should not be kept in cages

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
snaymansukh2004
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 112778
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

snaymansukh2004

Pro

animals should not be kept in cages because they also need space similar like we do
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Con

People are locked up in cages are they animals or victims of a system that has failed them. Plants are locked in the ground in one place and communicates with the other plants about it.

So animals are kept in cages as to be raised for the slaughterhouse or abattoir for our own consumption. Now if we the human race did not eat meat within our own evolution we would not be as we are.
Are some plants alive as like animals? YES
Are some people alive as like animals? YES
Are some animals as bad as people? YES
Are we anything more than professional murders? YES
Are we professional murders of each other? YES
We all have blood on our hands and if you think that you have not then you are a wanker and if your not a wanker then you are a lier.

Zoos keep animals in cages. But the animals are very well looked after. Circuses do keep animals in cages and they shouldn't. Because the animals just don't get the treatment that they deserve. So don't go to the circus is they have caged animals.
Debate Round No. 1
snaymansukh2004

Pro

yes i agree with you but when animals are kept in cages what are we gaining from it?
if the animals would be free it would interact with the others perfectly.now if you lock it up in a cage and take care of it it will still be alive but on the other hand it will live for less years because it was not given the proper environment to stay in
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Con

You must be one of the few of humanities humane. This is a road least travelled and most that do lest we forget.

Liberties I like your hat. Have you ever worked in a piggery or a chicken farm or a slaughterhouse or have you ever had a fish on a line and watched it fight for its own liberties and put your own needs before others and then gutted and eaten it. Have you played music or talked to your garden while it grows and when ready cut it down to eat it?

My heart aches at this but what chose have we got, stave to death. I have worked in these places and I could tell you the reasoning of it all if you like but hey we are supposedly the dominant species are we not.
Debate Round No. 2
snaymansukh2004

Pro

ts highly necessary that animals are not kept in cages because the quality of the produce will not be as good or tasty as free range animals. Free-range animals will have had a happy life and have been able to peck at the grass, getting the nutrients they need. If caged produce is purchased the flavour of the food will not be as nice, because the animal has had a bad life and been forced to produce. Also 98% of free-range farmers believe that their animals are happy and have had 20% less sickness than caged animals. "They deserve a happy life too!" Free-range farmers tell us. "So animals deserve to live a good life too, you do!"
2far4u2CharlesDarwin

Con

Thank you for my heart pains a little less with what you say. And yes I agree with what you have put forward. But that's a lot of lands allotted for the cause. Piggers 3000 sows to keep up with supplies and Hatchers wow the mind boggles and KFC chickens just don't taste as good as they once were.
My humanities humane dear friend if we lived in an idealistic world I would be on board with what you have put forward. But hey only the wealthy can afford to pay the prices at the corporate supermarkets. and real people need feeding and land is plenty but unused or neglected. The scares in the wheat fields from the rising salt from over irrigation and farmers that are crush by corporate industry because the rain doesn't come. A farmers life is no picnic of cucumber sandwiches with a tall ice-filled glass of lemonade now, is it?
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 2far4u2CharlesDarwin 3 years ago
2far4u2CharlesDarwin
And your WIzofoz manner of expression as limited as it is in scripture sounds like the record of a machine. "AFFIRMATIVE"
Montune abuse should be kept to one's self.
As to fall back on one's own sword and say if you have nothing good to say then say nothing at all.

Peace be with you and also with you.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
Revised comments-

Cons initial arguments attempted to link the justification for caging animals with the incarceration of Humans and the fact plants are static.

The logic was simply asserted without explanation, and as such did not logically follow.

Pros initial argument that caging limits the quality and length of an animals life were valid, but a citation would have helped and perhaps gained a point for sources.

Con made a valid argument on the necessity of eating animals, but did not directly link this with CAGING animals.

Pro then made assertions regarding the taste of free range livestock, their happiness and sickness rates, all without evidence or citation.

Cons last argument regarding lad usage was valid, but did not give sufficient reason why alternatives to caging could not be found.

Con seems to not be fluent in English- there were grammatical errors and sat times it made points hard to understand, but was sufficiently coherent to not earn a deduction.

Points to Con for valid arguments, Pro for my agreement afterwards- a 1 point each tie.
Posted by Wizofoz 3 years ago
Wizofoz
Cons initial arguments attempted to link the justification for caging animals with the incarceration of Humans and the fact plants are static.

The logic was simply asserted without explanation, and as such did not logically follow.

Pros initial argument that caging limits the quality and length of an animals life were valid, but a citation would have helped and perhaps gained a point for sources.

Con made a valid argument on the necessity of eating animals, but did not directly link this with CAGING animals.

Pro then made assertions regarding the taste of free range livestock, their happiness and sickness rates, all without evidence or citation.

Cons last argument regarding lad usage was valid, but did not give sufficient reason why alternatives to caging could not be found.

Con loses for S&G as there were numerous grammatical errors.

Points to Con for valid arguments, Pro for S&G, Pro for my agreement afterwards- narrow victory to pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
snaymansukh20042far4u2CharlesDarwinTied
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: Con appears to concede in the last round when he said, "And yes I agree with what you have put forward."

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.