The Instigator
AlexThunder
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Incognito13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

P.E.T.A. is wrong

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...
AlexThunder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,897 times Debate No: 40713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

AlexThunder

Con

P.E.T.A. is wrong. Animals should not be entirely free for many reasons.

Pro: Takes the side of P.E.T.A.
Con(me): Against P.E.T.A.
Incognito13

Pro

I will accept this debate today while my framework would be that PETA is Good. For my side's context would be:
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters.

PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals.

PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.
Debate Round No. 1
AlexThunder

Con

Let's talk about their stances when it comes to animals, as the name suggests People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

P.E.T.A. are the guys that don't want animals be abused, killed, hunted, tortured or embarrassed. Since we probably all agree to that, i shall go on.

Ethical. Ethical means moral. And i think everyone agrees that nobody with a brain and morals would go around slapping or kicking their dog, punching their cat and more. Don't tell me that yes people do it, these people are what we call crazy people. Let us not talk about crazy people now.

P.E.T.A.s aims are not just to stop animals from being abused, or killed. They want total liberation of animals. And not only is it stupid, but they do it in a bad way.

Let me get this straight. I'm not a guy that likes going around abusing animals. I like animals, and i find it great that an organization like PETA is taking action to stop animal abuse. It's great. But they go too far. Most of them don't even know what does total liberation of animals mean, or if they do, they actually hate humans more than animals, and i will explain later in this argument why.

For now i shall quote a phrase from Ingrid Newkirk, the leader of P.E.T.A.: "Most people in this room understand that slavery is not over in America, or in the Western world, or in the world in general. The animals are today's slaves."

To anyone that thought about it must know where i am getting at. There are still millions of people that are slaves. Is P.E.T.A. ignoring that, and tries to help chickens? Because you know it, no offense, but chickens are stupid. They hate people, but love animals. I bet anyone can read this and understand their position. They don't care about mistreatment, abuse, death, and slavery that people suffer, but they turn to chickens and any other animal to save them from "harm". .Let's not go there though, as anybody with a brain got it. After that wonderful phrase she says, and is also written on their homepage that they want total liberation of animals. Because animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment or abuse.

Indeed, the P.E.T.A. you probably do not know will ban fishing, dog shows, horseback riding, zoos. They even oppose animals that actually people are in need of like dogs for the blind. I think that blind people totally abuse their dogs by using them as a guide. They even want to prohibit having an animal as a pet, as they say its held captive and not free.

Lets break it down, shall we. According to Peta, you need to lock them out to have them hunt and kill each other in order to survive. How dare you provide shelter, medication, food, hygiene, safety from predators and physical well-treatment to these majestic creatures who should sincerely roam the streets feasting on cadavers and die in their own excrement as free and liberated animals!

They say that all animals all around the world should be set free. With rights, come responsibilities. And that's something every P.E.T.A. fan should keep in their mind and never forget. Even if we were to listen to P.E.T.A. and give all animals free rights, they would all end up in prison within a month, no exception. Either for assaulting and committing murder, killing humans or even each other, not paying taxes and even for shitting all over the place. Sorry to be rude, but that's reality.
Real life and society is not like Disney World, where the lions hangs out with his body piggy and zebra, and people that support P.E.T.A. either do not know this, or don't understand it. They live in their own little world.

Also, the way P.E.T.A. is trying to hypothetically save animals is by harassing people and by acts of terrorism. You might be wandering, but keep on reading. There are P.E.T.A. heroes, that's what they call them, that P.E.T.A. funds (and since PETA is a tax-exempt you know where they get their money from, Americans) that commit arson against animal shelters, and medical facilities. You, American citizen, are paying a bunch of terrorist. Committing arson to get what you want is terrorism.

Many people are bothered by this, and i am too. People from the ethical treatment of animals try to stop medical research by attacking medical facilities that use animals as subjects for medical testing, because they think it's wrong. They say animal research is unscientific. Maybe another argument that i have heard off is that by testing a rat you don't get something useful for another species. I can prove that wrong. Scientists claim that if there was no animal research there would be no bio-medical science. No bio-medical science means no public health. You might think that using an innocent animal for testing is bad, and rightfully so. But please read on. By stopping animals from being used as test subjects, we would lose 90-95% of the current medical progress. It would essentially be put in to a halt. Thanks to animal testing, millions of people have been saved, and P.E.T.A. is ignoring that and cares about some thousand rats that are born as lab animals. They don't give a crap about the human species, just animals.

Then why do people still believe that humans are just living a wonderful, full-of-joy life, and animals are suffering? It's because the people of today have not lived or experienced Nazism, Communism, and are so naive that think that the real harm is done to animals.

Over 10 million Americans are type A diabetic. One of them? Mary Beth Sweetland,

Mary Beth Sweetland is alive right now thanks to insulin injections she gets everyday, result of research done to dogs. And who is Mary Beth Sweetland? She is a vice president of P.E.T.A. A total hypocrite, what a surprise. When she was told that it still contains some animal products, she said and i quote: "I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals." Ma'am, your group supports people that commit terrorist attacks on medical facilities where animal testing is conducted, while you are using the very best benefits of animal testing to live your own life. I think i forgot what i hypocrite is, maybe i just have a false information on what hypocrisy is.

Let me give you one of the worst dark little secrets of P.E.T.A. If we take a look at their financial files, some years ago they bought a walk-in freezer, which costed P.E.T.A. ten grand. Walk in freezers are, as we know, used for 2 things. Either for meat, or cadaverous... As Newkirk herself said and i quote: "...sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever." P.E.T.A., The People from the Ethical Treatment of Animals kill animals. P.E.T.A. officially claims that they kill about 90-95% of the animals they "save". Since 1998, P.E.T.A. has killed over 27.000 animals in their own Headquarters. Animals that could have been adopted and taken care of. Ingrid Newkirk undoubtedly has had animals be put to death. P.E.T.A. that attacks people that kill, abuse or even embarrass animals, thus they kill animals themselves in their own Headquarters. Hypocrites? I think it's clear now.

Sorry that i couldn't reply earlier, i had a lot of things to do recently. Good luck.
Incognito13

Pro

To go on full scale to destroy my opponents arguments:
My opponent said:
To anyone that thought about it must know where i am getting at. There are still millions of people that are slaves. Is P.E.T.A. ignoring that, and tries to help chickens? Because you know it, no offense, but chickens are stupid. They hate people, but love animals. I bet anyone can read this and understand their position. They don't care about mistreatment, abuse, death, and slavery that people suffer, but they turn to chickens and any other animal to save them from "harm". .Let's not go there though, as anybody with a brain got it. After that wonderful phrase she says, and is also written on their homepage that they want total liberation of animals. Because animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment or abuse.

In that case that argument is irrelevant because the topic is only about P.E.T.A not about other slaves. The PETA is all about animals but it's job is not to help people but the people donate to help the animals. if i owned PETA and people donated to me i would only focus on animals because it was what my business is all about.

Now going on to my opponents other arguments:
He said:
Indeed, the P.E.T.A. you probably do not know will ban fishing, dog shows, horseback riding, zoos. They even oppose animals that actually people are in need of like dogs for the blind. I think that blind people totally abuse their dogs by using them as a guide. They even want to prohibit having an animal as a pet, as they say its held captive and not free.

But actually is you go to the PETA website link: http://www.peta.org...
It says that injure animals should be free and taken cared of so that they get well treated. Not taking away dog helpers and also PETA wants to prohibit animals that are being taken carelessly and being beaten up. The PETA wants to help animals with over 3 million supporters to help with helping hurt animals.

My opponents, also said that

They say that all animals all around the world should be set free. With rights, come responsibilities. And that's something every P.E.T.A. fan should keep in their mind and never forget. Even if we were to listen to P.E.T.A. and give all animals free rights, they would all end up in prison within a month, no exception. Either for assaulting and committing murder, killing humans or even each other, not paying taxes and even for shitting all over the place. Sorry to be rude, but that's reality.
Real life and society is not like Disney World, where the lions hangs out with his body piggy and zebra, and people that support P.E.T.A. either do not know this, or don't understand it. They live in their own little world.

But this is easily refuted saying that the PETA only helps animals but considers to have animals set free. But the main purpose that the PETA does is to help animals. Wouldn't you rather save a life?

My opponent also says that:

Also, the way P.E.T.A. is trying to hypothetically save animals is by harassing people and by acts of terrorism. You might be wandering, but keep on reading. There are P.E.T.A. heroes, that's what they call them, that P.E.T.A. funds (and since PETA is a tax-exempt you know where they get their money from, Americans) that commit arson against animal shelters, and medical facilities. You, American citizen, are paying a bunch of terrorist. Committing arson to get what you want is terrorism.

But i quite don't get that because what my opponent means by acts of terrorism is that we are terrorism. That is what my opponent says on his arguments but my opponent also agrees that the PETA is trying to save animals. But my opponent says by harassing but that is not true given that fact by going to the main website, 3 million vole enters supporters that want to donate not by being harassed.

Now my opponent also said:

That P.E.T.A. is ignoring that and cares about some thousand rats that are born as lab animals. They don't give a crap about the human species, just animals.

but first of the main job of PETA is to care about animals and the PETA is only focused on animals not humans. Maybe you saving humans should be in another debate.

My opponent also says,

Let me give you one of the worst dark little secrets of P.E.T.A. If we take a look at their financial files, some years ago they bought a walk-in freezer, which costed P.E.T.A. ten grand. Walk in freezers are, as we know, used for 2 things. Either for meat, or cadaverous... As Newkirk herself said and i quote: "...sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever." P.E.T.A., The People from the Ethical Treatment of Animals kill animals. P.E.T.A. officially claims that they kill about 90-95% of the animals they "save". Since 1998, P.E.T.A. has killed over 27.000 animals in their own Headquarters. Animals that could have been adopted and taken care of. Ingrid Newkirk undoubtedly has had animals be put to death. P.E.T.A. that attacks people that kill, abuse or even embarrass animals, thus they kill animals themselves in their own Headquarters. Hypocrites? I think it's clear now.

But no! PETA would never kill animals. Also, please give me a source in which they killed animals

Thank you and have a good debate.
Debate Round No. 2
AlexThunder

Con

Let's watch mr. Incognito13 destroy me. Let the fun begin!

For my first argument he says: "In that case that argument is irrelevant because the topic is only about P.E.T.A not about other slaves. The PETA is all about animals but it's job is not to help people but the people donate to help the animals. if i owned PETA and people donated to me i would only focus on animals because it was what my business is all about."

I'm talking here about how bad is P.E.T.A., judging by the way they do in and their actions. If you have an organization that only cares about animals, and doesn't give a crap about the human species, we are screwed as a whole. Really? Is PETA really implying that animals are better than humans? If you sir Incognito13 want to be identified as lower significance than a chicken or a dog, i have no words. You admitted that.

The next one is big:

"Now going on to my opponents other arguments:
He said:
Indeed, the P.E.T.A. you probably do not know will ban fishing, dog shows, horseback riding, zoos. They even oppose animals that actually people are in need of like dogs for the blind. I think that blind people totally abuse their dogs by using them as a guide. They even want to prohibit having an animal as a pet, as they say its held captive and not free.
But actually is you go to the PETA website link: http://www.peta.org......
It says that injure animals should be free and taken cared of so that they get well treated. Not taking away dog helpers and also PETA wants to prohibit animals that are being taken carelessly and being beaten up. The PETA wants to help animals with over 3 million supporters to help with helping hurt animals."

No, no, no. Check out their site. They want total liberation and giving equal rights to animals to those of humans. That sounds good if you don't actually think about it that much. If you hurt an animal or rape it, its like hurting or raping a human. If you kill an animal, you commit murder. Animals have the freedom to not be embarrassed or harassed. Same with humans. That sounds really good. See, the problem is hidden in their own sentence. Total liberation and equal rights. And my previous argument totally covers it, in a few words freedom brings responsibilities, which animals won't stand up to or keep up with. They are animals. Stupid animals that don't know our society. And don't tell me this crap like: "dogs are clever, if they cant go though a door, they will dig under it!!" Yes, they are clever when compared to other animals. Let's be serious for a second. Animals

Next he said:"But this is easily refuted saying that the PETA only helps animals but considers to have animals set free. But the main purpose that the PETA does is to help animals. Wouldn't you rather save a life?"

First, if you read my argument on that you will totally understand what i mean. Second thing i want to say is that i would really like to save a life. Actually, if i had the chance to save a life and i didn't save it, i would be living a life of guilt. But i would rather save a human life than a stupid chicken. For every three seconds that pass, 1 child in Africa dies. 51% of child deaths are in Africa. Every year, 4,5 million kids die before the age of 5 in Africa alone. And its not just in Africa, but also India and all around the world. But we ignore this. Instead, we donate hundreds of thousands of dollars on saving chickens. Doesn't sound too good, doesn't it? I am not saying here that you should tell animals to screw off, but to deal with the real problems first, and next come the chickens.

He says: "But i quite don't get that because what my opponent means by acts of terrorism is that we are terrorism. That is what my opponent says on his arguments but my opponent also agrees that the PETA is trying to save animals. But my opponent says by harassing but that is not true given that fact by going to the main website, 3 million vole enters supporters that want to donate not by being harassed."

You misunderstood, here. My reply to this is this very true video, please watch it.

My opponent ironically said: "But no! PETA would never kill animals. Also, please give me a source in which they killed animals"

Poor little guy. You haven't realized yet. Well, challenge accepted:

- PETA kills 90 percent of sheltered animals (by CNN)

http://www.petakillsanimals.com... and http://www.petakillsanimals.com...

The fact that they bought the 12x10 i think it was Walk in Freezer for 9000 dollars.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Peta in their own site the wrote: "...sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which cats and dogs are often considered "surplus" and unwanted."

I think after this you will start seeing P.E.T.A. like you hadn't seen before. It's true. P.E.T.A.s donors are innocent and don't know. The Heart of P.E.T.A. is evil. Thank you and i hope i can make you see the truth behind the grin Ingrid Newkirk.
Incognito13

Pro

Incognito13 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
Thanks to everyone for voting.

Mikal, i never said that animals should have no rights, or be our slaves in some way. I can't stop a sentence where i say that. What i said is that animals should not have equal rights as humans, it's impossible. Anyways, thank you.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
and also responds to a challenge by pro to provide a link. He provides numerous links.

Pro FFS the next rounds which gives arguments and sources to con.

Con responded to pros source challenge and refutes pros claims that peta does not kill animals. Therefore as much as it pains to me award con arguments and sources, even in light of such a bad argument I must do so.

S&G and Conduct are equal.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
and also responds to a challenge by pro to provide a link. He provides numerous links.

Pro FFS the next rounds which gives arguments and sources to con.

Con responded to pros source challenge and refutes pros claims that peta does not kill animals. Therefore as much as it pains to me award con arguments and sources, even in light of such a bad argument I must do so.

S&G and Conduct are equal.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Right from the start this debate makes me want to punch myself in the face.

The resolution by the title is "Peta is wrong", meaning that Alex(Con) should actually be pro in this. Meaning he supports the resolution that peta is wrong.

Due to his r1 claim he is con however which actually means he should be arguing for the fact peta is good, but since both seemed to agree against this mutually, I am just going to go off the information that is presented. Granted this already hurts by brain that Con is arguing opposite from the resolution that was actually claimed.

I do not agree wtih Con at all, but pro did so poorly that arguments have to be awarded to him.

Pro starts off by saying peta shelters and takes care of animals. He even goes on to say that Peta goes out of its way to make sure they are taken care of.

Con presents a very very very poor case against peta. At one point saying

"To anyone that thought about it must know where i am getting at. There are still millions of people that are slaves. Is P.E.T.A. ignoring that, and tries to help chickens? Because you know it, no offense, but chickens are stupid"

Cons case hinged on the fact that peta are focusing on animals instead of people at this point. He then goes on to say that they are stopping treatment of people by hindering animals research as test subjects. Basically to sum this round up, Con thinks animals have no rights and are as stupid as the chickens he mentioned and that PETA by trying to sheltering them is hindering human advancement in some ways. He is also essentially saying that PETA should focus more on people. At one point he mentions peta kills animals.

This is an entirely blind and immaculately inaccurate claim, but seeing as how I must go off only the information in the debate it stands at this point.

Pro says Con is wrong and that Peta does not kill animals and asks con to provide a link

Con responds with a counter argument showing that PETA does in fact kill
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
That's a treat too:
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
There you go buddy! :)
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
Oh, my freaking stupidity. Should get some sleep. That's good though, more debate! :P
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
Alex there one more round.
Posted by AlexThunder 3 years ago
AlexThunder
You are so wrong, but sadly there are no more rounds to answer. You are probably one of the guys that donates to P.E.T.A., they are not fire bombing labs that use animals as test subjects, that they don't kill animals, and they are good and great.

Yes, the idea is really great, but reality is not that way. Please, do more research before you pose an argument. The last one you said did not really destroy me, you only said i'm without providing any evidence, but i guess truth hurts? Don't want to be rude here, but P.E.T.A. is not who you think they are.

Anyway, thanks for a great debate. I hope we had more rounds.
Posted by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
Also I have events in my past that I really haven't gotten over so I couldn't ever go vegan because of this and when would the entire human population ever become herbivores?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Yraelz 3 years ago
Yraelz
AlexThunderIncognito13Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presents a number of arguments which are uncontested: 1. PETA uses terrorism to get what they want. 2. PETA would halt 95% of medical progress. I think pro had every ability to win this debate but didn't put enough effort into the final two rounds. I think much of CON's rational hinges on logical leaps of faith... As a final note on this debate, a more precise wording of the resolution would behoove CON. I can think of a lot of debaters from this site that would have slaughtered this debate with semantic rational alone. Something like, "PETA is a net beneficial organization", would make the debate much more clean.
Vote Placed by TetsuRiken 3 years ago
TetsuRiken
AlexThunderIncognito13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better points and I have been to PETA's site and I don't trust PETA .
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
AlexThunderIncognito13Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments