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

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!