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

Greenpeace Is Evil

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: 6/17/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,872 times Debate No: 17102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Full resolution: On the whole, the environmental organization Greepeace has caused (or has attempted to cause) more harm than good in the world.

First round for acceptance. The last round is for summarization; no new arguments. 48 hours to argue each of the 4 rounds.

Greenpeace's website can be found

Greenpeace: see above

cause: The source or reason of an event or action. (

harm: Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune; That which causes injury, damage, or loss; To cause injury to another; to hurt; to cause damage to something (

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate!



Alright, lets do this. Leroy...
Debate Round No. 1


... Jenkins.

Thanks for taking this debate - I hope it's a fun and productive one!

I will prove in my case that the resolution - Greenpeace causes more harm than good - can be easily upheld when we look at the evidence. I will be looking at a few specific instances were Greenpeace has lobbied for a certain law or regulation that ultimately would cost the lives of millions. While Greenpeace isn't the only player in the environmental lobbying group, they are a major one and even though they may not bear 100% of the responsibility, their support for the following actions warrants them as doing more harm than good. The issues are:
  • Greenpeace's former opposition to DDTs
  • Greenpeace's opposition to Golden Rice

Both of these issues is detrimental to the world as a whole.

1. DDTs.

DDTs (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) are one of the most sucessful synthetic pesticides in the history of mankind. It is incredibly useful for combating insects, especially the female Anopheles mosquito -- the main vector for malaria [1]. In fact, the man who discovered DDT's anti-insect capabilities, Swiss Dr. Paul Müller, lter went on to receive a Nobel prize in Medicine for his work. [2] In 2008, at 700,000 to 1,000,000 people died of malaria [3], most of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. The United States virtually eradicated malaria with DDT within four years time [4].

Naturally, this chemical was viewed as a miracle by many. And today, Greenpeace has finally admitted that DDT is a life saving product. But this admission came after 30 years of objection to the use of DDT [5]. Former Cato Institute adjunct scholar Steve Milloy noted that:
"It might be easy for some to dismiss the past 43 years of eco-hysteria over DDT with a simple 'nevermind', except for the blood of millions of people dripping from the hands of the WWF, Greenpeace, Rachel Carson, Environmental Defense Fund, and other junk science-fueled opponents of DDT."

Now, why would Greenpeace hate such a wonderful substance? The reason for the ban and opposition to DDT was the effects it had on the environment and people. Simply put, it was toxic. It killed things, just like it was supposed to. We understand that - however, when we look on the balance, we can see that while somewhat dangerous, DDT's usage outweighs its negative effects.

In 2006, the World Health Organization acknowledged that while DDT was dangerous, what was far more dangerous than DDT was disease. It encouraged, albeit with caution, more widespread usage of the substance to fight disease everywhere (DDT doesn't just fight malaria, but fleas that carry the bubonic plague, etc) [7].

Greenpeace and other organizations got their way with DDT bans, and thus, are partially responsible for the millions of easily preventable deaths that occurred during the 30 year opposition. While they may not have had direct control over DDT, just like those who stood idly by and watched Nazi Germany abhor human life, Greenpeace is to blame. (Not to insinuate that Greenpeace = Nazis)

2. GMOs (Golden Rice)

GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) or GECs (Genetically Engineered Crops) are, in this case, plants that have been modified to a state more beneficial to humans, such as making grain easier to grow or making rice higher in vitamins. Greenpeace doesn't like GMOs [8].

One such genetically modified foodstuff is golden rice. In essence, golden rice is rice that has been taken and modified to have higher levels or vitamins and minerals [9], especially vitamin A. Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD) is a leading cause of blindness and even death in the third world. Over 250 million children are affected by VAD [10]. By feeding people golden rice in third world countries, they would receives extra Vitamin A (in addition to other nutrients) that would help combat VAD [11].

Greenpeace's opposition, and subsequent lobbying for government regulation that have passed, has prevented millions from receiving food that would help them combat their diseases and ailments. There is little to no credible scientific evidence given by Greenpeace, or anyone, to explain why GMOs are so terrible that we should let people starve as opposed to let them eat GMOs.

3. Conclusion

Overall, Greenpeace's opposition towards humane solutions to human suffering is enough for us to safely affirm the resolution, that on the whole, the environmental organization Greepeace has caused (or has attempted to cause) more harm than good in the world. Their activism isn't all bad, but, unfortunately, they take precedence of whales over millions human beings' lives.

[1] National Center for Biotechnology Information's database:

[2] Duke Dept. of Chemistry:

[3] Center for Disease Control:

[4] Center for Disease Control

[5] Heartland Institute

[6] Junk Science

[7] NPR

[8] Greenpeace International

[9] Golden Rice Project

[10] The World Health Organization

[11] Golden Rice Project (¶ 4; Point 2);




Interesting, interesting indeed. Let me start by saying, Water is the bases for life. It gives us food, It gives us a source of drink.
1) My opponent has brought up DDT, a chemical used to kill things. Yes it is a good thing, but only to be used in moderation. Greenpeace released studies that found that in the Menhaden there was a measurable amount of DDT within it[1]. Now, the Menhaden is just one of those tiny bate fish that bigger fish eat, and though the food chain, if big fish eats little fish1 with .1 unit of ddt, and then he eats fish2, with .1 unit of ddt, big fish now has .2 ddt in him and so on. You can see how this is concerning given that this poison has worked its way into the food supply. That is why they disliked DDT so much, because it was poisoning the food chain.
2) GMOs. So our opponent is basically arguing against organic food. The Pesticide Action Network found that children between 6 and 11 years old were exposed to the nerve-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos at four times the level deemed acceptable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [2]. Not everything that goes into your food has been tested, and isn’t labeled. 70% of America’s meats are made out of cow leftover parts (meat that lines the bladder, intestines, other random cuts that are not sold by butchers), this is made for dog food, but instead it is treated with Ammonia, and put into our school lunches (at least here In California). Last I checked, Ammonia isn’t good for us. I could go on and on about how bad GMO’s are bad for us, And that is why green peace is against all this. Yeah its cheap to make, and you can put good stuff in it, but really, are you trying to poison the starving people!? Feed them good food, not cow bladder lining. [3]

So my opponent hasn’t made any evidence that green peace has hurt people, they are just watching out for the worlds.

3 ; (see video)

Here is my argument-
Lets take a looksie at the word “evil” this was the only word not defined in round 1, let me tell you how I see it. Killing or injuring for personal gain. Hitler was evil. Obama is not. Lucifer, the devil is evil. God is not.
Okay, here is my side of the argument. There is a division of green peace, Sea shepherd, who though has cause caused great controversy, saved the life of a fisherman[1], would an evil group do that? The sea shepherd woks across the world, headed by their founder, Captain Paul Watson. IN their campaigns against wailing, Dolphin harvesting, and illegal tuna fishing, With the 10 (now higher then this news post suggests) ships they “sank” there was no intent to harm human life, and none was lost [2]. These warriors have fought to protect the world’s ocean , not kill all the people in them. Therefore, they are fighting for good not evil. Oh, and if you are a fan of the TV show on Discovery, don’t read the following statement- but the Sea shepherds have almost effectively shut down the Illegal Japanese whaling when the Nisshin Maru caught fire, and effectively was shut down. [3]
From my research, I have found that no one had been killed by green peace in an effort to protect the environment.
Green peace is not evil, because they are only protecting the environment by hindering Illegal activities.
Debate Round No. 2


I'll first defend my case and then proceed to deconstruct my opponent's.

Before I start, however, I'd like t remind CON of the resolution: "On the whole, the environmental organization Greepeace has caused (or has attempted to cause) more harm than good in the world." That's what we're debating. I don't define evil because it's not in the resolution.

1. DDTs

As defined by the WHO, DDT is a "moderately hazardous" substance by the WHO [1]. "Moderately hazardous" is Class 3 out of four classes, with the fourth class being slightly toxic [2]. This class is comparable to the EPA Toxicity Class II. DDT, contrary to what Greenpeace thought, is not some Agent Orange-esque cancer-causing arsenic compound.

So, even if this is in the supply of our food, it's outweighed by the millions of lives that DDT has saved. I'd like to note that my opponent's first source from Greenpeace measures the amounts in parts per million, whereas DDT is toxic at a dosage of several thousand times that (5-30 grams) [3].

My opponent has failed to justify the lives lost by anti-DDT activism, including that of Greenpeace, thus, you can vote PRO on this issue.

2. GMOs

The notion that I don't like organic foods is absurd. The problem arises in third world where not everyone can access free-range happy chicken eggs, or GMO-free peanut butter. IN the third world, food itself is a problem: not only can you really not get "organic" unless you grow it, a lot of times you can't get food at all. It would be better to give everybody organic food, but that's simply not possible. What is more feasible is GMO-based foods. I'm not arguing for GMOs in America, we're discussing the millions who are suffering deficiencies in the Third World (like VAD) whose problems can be alleviated by GMOs.

"Yeah its cheap to make, and you can put good stuff in it, but really, are you trying to poison the starving people!?"

I think this quote from PRO accurately shows the problematic assumptions in his case. We can't do that. It's not practical, at all. Organizc food is much more expensive [4], and, without widespread pesticides or preservatives, not plausible for charitable use outside the US.

Overall, I've given loads of evidence that Greenpeace has actively campaigned against that which is beneficial. My opponent has yet to justify why they were correct in doing so, and as such, my case stands.

3. CON's Case

Again, we're looking at the whole here - on the net. Greenpeace, I'm sure, has done at least one or two nice things in their existence, but that is vastly outweighed by the harm done. Greenpeace itself doesn't hire hitsquads to murder (although they do extensive damage to property) but they kill and main via the consequences of their lobbying -- like I said earlier, trying to prevent foodstuffs from reaching the third world or trying to ensure that the environment is protected from DDT at the cost of a million human beings per year.

There's really not much to be said here - PRO hasn't proven in any way that Greenpeace has done more harm than good. Even if I grant every contention made in his case, that leaves Greenpeace with one saved fisherman, some fish, and whales. These things are far outweighed by the consequences of their actions.

[1] World Health Organization (Page 22);
[2] Wikipedia
[3] Wikipedia
[4] Mint Personal Finance


Sorry for going off course in my argument- I actually wrote it before you published your argument.

1) Personally, I don't care if I'm downing arsenic or Iodine, It still and good for ya. Though DDT was found in these fish in parts per million, My opponent didn't take into account that these fish were at the bottom of the food chain, just above plankton, so when you sit down to eat your salon, it maybe has eaten over 3 thousand in its lifetime, And keep in mind that that was in 2007, things could increase. in number, and this toxin should be used cautiously.

2) My opponent is arguing that Greenpeace was wrong for hateing on GMOs. And for the record, I said he was arguing against organic food, never said he didn't like them. And lets hold up a second.. Round 1
"I think this quote from PRO accurately shows the problematic assumptions in his case. We can't do that. It's not practical, at all. Organizc food is much more expensive [*], and, without widespread pesticides or preservatives, not plausible for charitable use outside the US." Last I checked, greenpeace wasn't in charge of ending world hunger, and neither is US "We use non-violent confrontation to raise the level and quality of public debate." They are not evil, and they are not hurting or helping, just informing.

Becasue of what Green peace has stopped, we dont know what they prevented. They started by protesting nucler weapons testing in Alaska, you think global warming is bad? just imagine what an Atomic bomb would do to our icecaps and polar bears. It could have contaminated the waters killing all the fishing. So intull Pro invents a way to travle to a parell deminsion whout green peace, we wont know what they prevented. But If man wants to keep hurting the natural ecosystems ov the oceans, well OGMs may be all we have left, and to be honest, your daughter could hit puberty at age 7.[2] becasue of gentically modified foods. This is what green peace is against, and to be honest, they arent working too well..

If you want to take your OGMs and make little African girls hit pubery at age 7, then go ahead. We dont even the full impact on these, and greenpeace being proactive could be a game changer. Look back to the discuvery of america, if the spanish had thake the procaution that the green peace is, you could be arguing "they wont let us take the bible in there?!?" when in accutality, the desiese spread and effective killing of 94% [3]of these native americans.

Debate Round No. 3


1. DDTs
A part per million is one milligram per kilogram (1 / 1,000,000). To reach the bare minimum of toxicity (5 grams, as I noted in the previous round) you'd need 5000 parts per million. Even with a fish at the bottom of the food chain, a few parts per million cannot be turned into 5000 parts per million easily. I'd like evidence to how that DDT poisoning is a reality in the food supply.

For the third time, we're looking at one the net. Like I stated before, by supporting action xyz, an organization is partially responsible for the consequences -- good or bad -- of xyz. By supporting DDT bans in third world nations for 30 years, Greenpeace is responsible for the millions of lives that could have been saved. A Few poisoned fish do not take precedence over millions of lives. Until PRO can provide evidence that either a) More have been saved by Greenpeace for preventing DDT or b) DDT isn't an effective pesticide that saves millions you must vote CON on this issue.

2. GMOs
My opponent hasn't in any way contested the "If you supported it, you're partially responsible for it" value that I posited, so assume he agrees. Thus, if Greenpeace supports getting rid of crops such as golden rice, then the outcome of that is partially on them. Greenpeace actively campaigns against GMOs that I have PROVEN to be beneficial in fighting disease and deficiencies; my opponent has not contested Golden Rice's abilities. Thus, he concedes them -- meaning that he acknowledges the capabilities of golden rice, and thus, is forced to admit that when golden rice distribution or development is hampered in any way, especially by Greenpeace, there are grave consequences in the Third World affecting million.

3. CON's Case

"Becasue of what Green peace has stopped, we dont know what they prevented."
My case shows that they've prevented the lives of people who suffered from malaria, and they've prevented practical foods from reaching starving people worldwide. We know exactly what they have prevented, and until my opponent proves otherwise, we can safely say that they've prevented more good than bad.

"just imagine what an Atomic bomb would do to our icecaps and polar bears."
One more atomic bomb would do nearly nothing. Literally. There have been 2000+ nuclear tests since the 1940s. See the video for a visualization of that - it really picks up around 1:45. The US herself has detonate over 1000 nuclear bombs.

'But If man wants to keep hurting the natural ecosystems ov the oceans, well OGMs may be all we have left, and to be honest, your daughter could hit puberty at age 7.'
Con has yet to show why we need to take the environment over a real threat of human life. He hasn't provided any evidence to say that Greenpeace's end goal - a safe environment - is more important than stopping malaria and ending vitamin deficiencies and hunger for millions.

Your evidence doesn't support the idea of GMO-induced puberty. The article itself, if you read it, points out that obesity and overabundance of food (which I'm sure it a first world problem, not a third world problem) are some causes. GMOs aren't even mentioned in the article at all.

'If you want to take your OGMs and make little African girls hit pubery at age 7, then go ahead. We dont even the full impact on these, and greenpeace being proactive could be a game changer. '
See above. Conjecture - no evidence. As for the other sentence - imagine if someone had been told to "hold up" on the smallpox vaccine, the polio vaccine, or DDT. People would die. GMOs have been around for years and little to no detriment has been found, especially when the choice is GMOs versus starving.

"Look back to the discuvery of america, if the spanish had thake the procaution that the green peace is, you could be arguing "they wont let us take the bible in there?!?" when in accutality, the desiese spread and effective killing of 94%"
There also wouldn't be an America if no one colonized. Risks are a part of life. But the risks are heavily outweighed by the advantages when it comes to DDTs and GMOs, as I've explained.

4. Conclusion

Con has literally provided no evidence to support most of his claims. I have put forward that Greenpeace causes inherent harms through its former opposition to DDT and its opposition to GMOs. Con hasn't touched these - he hasn't denied DDT and GMO helpfulness, hasn't denied that fact that DDTs and GMOs could save millions, and instead points to a limited number of cases where Greenpeace has shown there are a few problems with DDT, and where Greenpeace has saved a whale or two. There is no way around it: You must vote PRO. Thanks for reading, and thanks to Spartan for this debate!



I'm going to keep this short, because I have other work to do.

So my opponent is saying green peace did everything he listed above in his argument. Actually, he is wrong. The Government of the United States of America did[1] Green peace didn't pull the trigger in any event, they were just exercising free speech. They were opposed, yes, but they didn't do it, it all came into the hand of the politicians in the end.

And last I checked, Golden rice project is still a-go[2]. Green peace Didn't do this either, they just cried and threw stuff, but they didn't do it. Its called protesting, it doesn't make anyone evil, as the title of this strongly worded debate suggests.

Lets look at what green peace has done well.
Stopped whaling which was violating an International ban on whaling. [3]
Currently fighting small cetacean slaughter (dolphins and what have you)[4]
fighting to stop illegal tuna fishing (Mediterranean) [5]
And they are just asking for some things that should be basic knowledge:
I'm asking world leaders to deliver an energy [r]evolution to save the climate at the G8 summit;
I'm asking for a global treaty that cuts CO2 emissions in half by 2050;
for Renewable Energy supplying half the world's power by 2050;
for laws that double global energy efficiency, from light bulbs to automobiles;
for powering the world with as little coal as possible and no nuclear power;
and for protection of our forests.[6]
They are fighting against destruction of the orang-utans habitat [7]
they are fighting against over fishing of Yellow Fin and Big Eye tuna. (Pacific) [8]
they are fighting to stop the destruction of Antarctica[9]
they are working with people in third world countries to fight forest destruction [10]
they are fighting against nuclear energy, and the negatives that come with it [11]

At this point I need to get ready to shove off and do something, So I'll stop listing achievements here. Pro's argument is invalid on so many levels. Green peace is not evil, they didn't pull the trigger, they are not more harm then good. And I feel that there is much more then what I have posted here going on in this world. Greenpeace is doing the world much more good then you are, cowering behind your computer, mr Pro.

And one last thing, I think this one comment on a thread just about sum's it all up.
"SpeedJUN. 07, 2010 - 11:04AM JST
This is getting interesting.

The decision by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to allow the further depletion of bluefin tuna has once again made the actions of Green Peace, and now Sea Shepherd, necessary.

This international committee should place a bit more importance on the "endangered species" aspect of their group's name instead of being bullied over by the blue fin tuna supplier/buyer countries." [12]












Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by the1000things 7 years ago
better yet, don't TL;DR it at all
Posted by Spartan 7 years ago
If you are going to TL;DR this, at least read the last round. At least I found it interesting.
Posted by Please-Continue 7 years ago
Could you be a little less vague? What specifically do you have a problem with? If its just why you don't like the organization it could be about any number of things... including you having a verbal dispute with a member.. which wouldn't make a great debate. If its their overall ideal that your disputing that would actually make a interesting debate and would let people know what their getting in to.
Posted by the1000things 7 years ago
The title is merely that. It has no bearing on the actual resolution in any way - the word evil is not in it. The title is just an attention getter.
Posted by LeoL 7 years ago
The resolution is kind of confusing, because even if they have caused more harm than than good in the world, this doesn't mean that they are inherently evil. I would argue back that even if they did cause more harm than good in the world, it doesn't make them evil. This would corrupt the resolution and the BOP, so I am not accepting this debate.
Posted by the1000things 7 years ago
If this isn't taken in one or two days, I'd be more than happy to re-tailor the resolution around the theory of self.
Posted by Merda 7 years ago
Can I take this and argue that while a lot of harm has come out of the organization GreenPeace, the organization itself was not the cause, but some of it's members? I want to debate on the theory of self and how it can pertain to corporations and organizations. Is an organization a being capable of producing negative or positive affects?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: While Spartan did point out many good things that GP had done, they did not well counter act the huge harm caused by DDT and malaria and GMF which have a significant impact, Con should have made some kind of normative argument that people = animals are similar worth to carry the argument. 3:2 Pro