The Instigator
scrappykoala
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
aaltobartok
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Is PETA a hyprocritical organization that is bad for animals?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,262 times Debate No: 4952
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (7)

 

scrappykoala

Pro

PETA is a hypocritical organization run by people that could care less about animals, believe humans are a cancer and are more concerned with making money[1]. Less then 1% of PETA budget goes to helping animals[1]. PETA lies to owners tricking them into giving their animals for adoption and then kills them right on their driveways inside their PETA vans[2]. After killing the puppies and kittens PETA throws them in plastic trash bags and tosses them into dumpsters[3]. PETA kills over 90% of the animals it takes in when just down the street the animal shelter adopts out over 70% of their animals[4]. PETA runs around in the most ridiculous manner making all people that ACTUALLY like animals (like ASPCA or Humane Society) look bad, while they lie so they can kill animals. PETA believes that having pets is bad and so would rather kill animals instead and also according to the president of PETA its just plain cheaper to kill them[5]. PETA has given tens of thousands to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals[6]. PETA doesn't even want you to have a Seeing Eye dog. If PETA really cared about animals 99% of its budget would be exposing CHINA.

1 http://www.activistcash.com...
2 http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
3 http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
4 http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
5 http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
6 http://www.nfss.org...
7 http://www.consumerfreedom.com...

PETA takes money, energy, and time from organizations that actually like animals like the Humane society. PETA is a media whore organization that makes everyone look bad.

Besides they kill animals nuff said!!!
aaltobartok

Con

While PETA might go overboard at times, they are not a hypocritical organization and are not bad for animals.

I can disprove all of your claims about animal killing by disproving the reliability of your source. Petakillsanimals.com is a branch of the Center for Consumer Freedom; a notorious organization that repeatedly campaigns against any regulations on anything. Run by tobacco companies, chain restaurants, meatpackers, and alcoholic beverage companies, they define their enemies as "just about every consumer and environmental group, chef, legislator or doctor who raises objections to things like pesticide use, genetic engineering of crops or antibiotic use in beef and poultry...since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine," his strategy is "to shoot the messenger. ... We've got to attack their credibility."(1). Past campaigns by this organization include "placing full-page ads in major news papers (funding sources unidentified) that gently compare America's union leaders to Fidel Castro and like authoritarians. The unionists' sin, Berman argues, is their support for allowing workers to join unions simply by signing affiliation cards rather than subjecting themselves to a National Labor Relations Act election process in which pro-union workers are frequently fired. Berman's salvos against unions are just the latest in a line of attacks he's leveled against drunk-driving laws, anti- smoking statutes, food safety ordinances and minimum-wage standards. He is, broadly speaking, the lobbyist for the Hobbesian state of nature.
Working chiefly under the aegis of his Center for Consumer Freedom, Berman has accused Mothers Against Drunk Driving and kindred groups (in the words of one of his Web sites) of "junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agenda." Another Berman Web site was devoted to dismissing the dangers of mercury levels in fish. Berman's center was jump-started in 1995 with money from Philip Morris, and, thanks to memos that were made public in the discovery process during the lawsuits against Big Tobacco, his strategic vision is now plain for all to see. "The concept," he wrote Philip Morris at the time, "is to unite the restaurant and hospitality industries in a campaign to defend their consumers and marketing programs against attacks from anti-smoking, anti-drinking, anti-meat, etc. activists." The industries apparently have appreciated Berman's work. According to the Center for Media and Democracy, a former Berman associate has produced documents showing that Coca-Cola, Wendy's, Tyson Foods, Cargill and Outback Steakhouse are among Berman's largest donors." (2).

ActivistCash and ConsumerFreedom, your other two sources, are also run by Berman and the CfCF.

This disproves your point: come up with valid sources for your facts, or I will win this debate.

(1) http://www.sourcewatch.org...
(2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
scrappykoala

Pro

scrappykoala forfeited this round.
aaltobartok

Con

Burden of proof being on the "for" side of the debate; I have won by disproving the reliability of the sources of the "pro" debater.

Again, his arguments were 'supported' by 'facts' from the Center for Consumer Freedom, a far-right-wing industry funded and lobbyist run institution dedicated to fighting any and all protest against tobacco, alcohol, and factory farming. Key campaigns of theirs have targeted Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as the Center for Consumer Freedom claimed MADD's facts on drunk driving were inaccurate, that drunk driving posed no serious threat, and that MADD uses "junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agenda."

I also realized that I forgot to address a point made by scrappykoala. PETA indeed does kill animals, as do the Humane Society and other shelters. The sad reality is that too many animals go to shelters, far more than people wish to adopt. All organizations must kill some animals if they run shelters, the idea that PETA kills any more than anyone else in proportion to their size is inaccurate.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
aaltobartok:"PETA indeed does kill animals, as do the Humane Society and other shelters. The sad reality is that too many animals go to shelters, far more than people wish to adopt. All organizations must kill some animals if they run shelters, the idea that PETA kills any more than anyone else in proportion to their size is inaccurate."
You just shot yourself mate.
Calling others "Nazis" for putting down animals then turning around and doing it themselves is what MAKES them a hypocite.look it up in the dictionary.Reguardless of scrappykoalas resources,even you had to admit they are hypocrites.I do agree that saying they kill anymore than anyone else in proportion to their size is,indeed,inaccurate.But the point is that they still took the lives of other animals reguardless their own protests against taking the lives of other animals.I am also against animal cruelty,but to sit there and call me a nazi or murderer because I had to put down my beloved,suffering, dog down,then doing the same to other animals-even if it's just because the animals existed-is entirely ludacris and hypocritical.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
aalto, Using political posturing does nothing to prove your case. PETA either does these things or they don't. I don't find your sources to be valid. Wait you didn't give any that dispute the claims against PETA. You only attack scrappy's sources not their content. You provide no sources that give a rebuttal to the charges. Personally I believe PETA does all of theses things and could care less about animals because we know they care nothing about human life.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Indeed, humans are the only animals (thus far discovered on Earth anyway) which are rational, capable of valuation. Thus, they are the only animals we know of for which things can be "good" or "bad," and since they are the only one's to which these terms apply, and PETA's position on them is clear... :P
Posted by Zerosmelt 8 years ago
Zerosmelt
What i never got about that was, arn't humans animals?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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 
Vote Placed by attrition 8 years ago
attrition
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by doubled6 8 years ago
doubled6
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by indianajones644 8 years ago
indianajones644
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 8 years ago
aaltobartok
scrappykoalaaaltobartokTied
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:03