The Instigator
G131994
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Debater's Choice

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 34488
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

G131994

Pro

Rules:
1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules:

2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind.

3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i.e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments.

4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here: http://www.debate.org......)

5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that.

6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications.

7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible.
TUF

Con

I choose: Pushing for more humane treatment of animals, should be PETA's main focus, as opposed to boycotting animal made goods altogether. I will be pro for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
G131994

Pro

I accept and will let my opponent open the debate
TUF

Con

I apologize, I was under the impression that my opponent was going to start this debate. We should have communicated a bit better. I will go ahead and start though, since it was passed on to me and we have a limited amount of rounds left.

My focus in this debate is that PETA should focus their efforts less on boycotting, and more at stopping the root of the problem: Humane treatment of animals.



;

;

Contention 1: Weighing the problem

From watching PETA videos, and reading their website, any viewers can clearly see that the ultimate purpose that PETA has is demonstrating cruel animal treatment methods. They have popular videos of animal fur farm videos, slaughterhouse videos, lab testing videos, etc. Ultimately the message they are giving to the public is that people treat animals too harshly. Now from watching these documentaries, and shocking footages, this can be conclusively decided as true (I do realize that the videos they show aren’t superfluously common, and are only selected because of their intensity. Some treat animals a little bit differently). However PETA focus’s it’s efforts into trying to get the masses to stop eating meats, buying furs, and any animal made products.

This is an un-realistic goal. The impact the emotional videos have on society, realistically, can never do enough damage to put an industry selling these products out of business. Even to commit to just eating vegetables instead of meat, humans risk their health as vital nutrients are required to sustain the human body and keep it healthy. And while there are alternative methods to getting these nutrients, the expense following these is again, un-realistic to expect every human being to follow behind.

But the point is, that the emotional appeal that PETA is using to get people to join their cause, follows the principal of the poor treatment of animals. People as a whole are saddened by innocent animals mis-treated, tortured and slaughtered. As a result, some will buy into the emotional factor of PETA’s argument and follow their cause. However, PETA could be a lot more successful in preventing animal mis-treatment if they honed their efforts in on purely stopping abuse prior to the animal’s death.

Alternative methods such as lethal injection, poisoning food, etc can be suggested as long as it results in a quick painless death for the animal and doesn’t ruin the product. Cost shouldn’t be considered into this argument, as the humane treatment of animals should be argued as more important to PETA. That way it benefits every.

Contention 2: Superior intelligent race

Boycotting animal products, will never be completely effective (as shown before), but why should it be? Humans used to hunt animals for food, just as a lion hunts its prey to feed it’s family. And just because we can eat different options, doesn’t mean we are helping the cause. The burger or fur coat you don’t buy, is just available for someone else to buy. There will always be a consumer, to make it an effective stream of you not helping the cause by not purchasing these products. But as humans, we don’t have to be cruel in our endeavors. In fact I will say that PETA is reasonable in the aspect of wanting less animal abuse. Boycotting isn’t the way to do it though. They need to get people behind the motive of stopping animal abuse. Politically, a majority group is against boycotting for the reasons of simple hunter/survival aspect. But if PETA were to accept the use of these products, and dis-continue boycotting advocacies, t hey could easily gain much more support in trying to stop the abusive techniques animals undergo before being slaughtered.

Conclusion:

The impact PETA leaves on this earth is miniscule, in accordance with what it CAN be. If this organization appeals to the masses in stopping animal abuse, then their efforts will likely be less futile. People can easily find arguments against boycotting, and they do, which is the major attributing factor to the minority of effectiveness PETA has. But PETA focusing it’s efforts on what their video’s are supposedly appealing to, could change the world drastically. I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him luck in the following rounds.

Debate Round No. 2
G131994

Pro

G131994 forfeited this round.
TUF

Con

My opponent has not made an attempt to refute my arguments. Please Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
And that they should focus on implementing more humane animal treatment tactics, yes.
Posted by G131994 3 years ago
G131994
Sorry For the delay. Just to clarify is the focus of the debate PETA should not boycott animal made products ?
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Taking too long. I'll just pick one
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Gun control - pro
Gay marriage legalisation - pro
Art is subjective in nature- pro
9/11 is a conspiracy - con
should pitbulls be kept as pets? - con
PETA should argue for more humane treatment of animals rather than boycottitng animal made products.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Debate ideas

Assisted suicide is morally permissible- Pro

The multi-verse theory is most likely false- Pro

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, will it still make a sound?- Pro

Time travel is more than likely impossible- Pro

Human actions are influenced by society, not dictated by them- Pro

Morality is objective -Con

If an all powerful god creates an unmovable stone, can god himself move the stone? "Pro, or con

Does outer space end? """ Pro or Con

It is better to kill 1000 adults quickly, then to brutally torture 10 children to death- Pro or Con

It is better to have loved than lost, than to have never loved at all. Pro

Dreams are meaningless- Pro or Con

Supernatural beings most likely dont exist.- Pro

Color blindness is a falsely associated word- Pro

It is impossible to guarantee the upholding of a promise- Pro

All human actions are selfish- Pro
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
i will just post some potential debates In the comments section and have you pick one you like
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 3 years ago
Maikuru
G131994TUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con presented a case. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
G131994TUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Damn F.F. :(
Vote Placed by CriticalThinkingMachine 3 years ago
CriticalThinkingMachine
G131994TUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit on arguments. forfeiting without giving a reason is also rude, so pro loses conduct. pro had no case construction, so i'm taking off S/G. pro only posted sources but did not argue the content of them, and con had no sources.