The Instigator
Bricheze
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
askbob
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points

PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of 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
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/6/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,133 times Debate No: 6162
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (9)

 

Bricheze

Con

PETA has rarely made significant contribution to helpful conservational and environmental issues. In fact, they have a done a large amount to harm it. They are continuesly forcing beliefs on people, from both peer pressure, and by creating laws. They give other organizations bad raps for their bad deeds. They are far to extreme and don't understand how to help a group of animals, they only understand how to save one. It is fine if they want to go live in a cave somewhere; and give animals the same rights as them. But, they should not be forcing this upon the rest of the world. Their bad qualities far exceed any good ones they posses.
askbob

Pro

I would like to let my opponent know that I will unmercifully attempt to crush her in this debate. With that said, I'd like to thank you for coming to debate.org and appreciate your creation of this debate.

PETA has made many significant contributions which are easily recognizable upon their listing.

The Philadelphia Daily News reported, "PETA has done more to lessen animal suffering than nearly any other organization."
Stu Bykofsky, "Lioness in Winter. PETA's Ingrid Newkirk Asks for Kindness," Philadelphia Daily News 31 May 2005.

Not only have they benefited helpful conservational and environmental issues (depending on your viewpoint), but they also have made possibly one of the biggest positive impacts on animal welfare.

PETA first uncovered the abuse of animals in experiments in 1981 and launched the precedent-setting "Silver Spring monkeys" case. This resulted in the first arrest and criminal conviction of an animal experimenter in the United States on charges of cruelty to animals, the first confiscation of abused laboratory animals, and the first U.S. Supreme Court victory for animals in laboratories.
•PETA released 70 hours of graphic video footage that documented the appalling treatment of primates at the University of Pennsylvania head-injury laboratory, resulting in government fines and the loss of funding for the cruel study.
•PETA's undercover investigation of a huge contract testing laboratory in Philadelphia and our subsequent campaign led to Benetton's permanent ban on animal tests—a first for a major cosmetics company. Other leading companies, such as Avon, Revlon, and Est�e Lauder, followed suit. Gillette announced a moratorium on animal tests after PETA's 10-year campaign. PETA now lists hundreds of companies that do not test products on animals. Please visit CaringConsumer.com for details.
•After negotiations with PETA, juice-makers POM, Welch's, and Ocean Spray agreed to stop funding animal experiments.
•PETA was victorious over the General Motors Corporation, which ended its use of animals in crash tests.
•PETA released investigators' photographs and videotaped footage taken inside Carolina Biological Supply Company, the nation's largest biological supply house. PETA documented that animals were removed from gas chambers and injected with formaldehyde without being checked for vital signs, as well as cats' and rats' struggling during embalming and employees' spitting on animals. The company was charged by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with violations of the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
•With the help of celebrities like Ewan McGregor and Martin Sheen; U.S., German, and Canadian government officials; and activists worldwide, PETA was able to secure the release of polar bears who had been suffering for years in the Suarez Bros. Circus. The bears are now recovering and thriving in more appropriate climates.
•PETA distributed an undercover videotape that showed Las Vegas casino "entertainer" Bobby Berosini beating orangutans with a metal rod. The U.S. Department of the Interior revoked Berosini's captive-bred-wildlife permit, making it illegal for Berosini to buy or sell orangutans.
•An undercover investigation of painful scabies experiments on dogs and rabbits at Ohio's Wright State University led to charges by the USDA of 18 violations of the AWA. The experiments were stopped.
•After being pressured by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and PETA, the American College of Surgeons replaced animals with simulations at its training conferences and is now urging medical schools to adopt non-animal training alternatives.
•PETA released undercover photographs and videotapes that showed ducks' being violently force-fed on a foie gras farm in New York, resulting in the first-ever police raid on a U.S. factory farm. After learning the gory details of foie gras production, many airlines and restaurants dropped the so-called "delicacy" from their menus.
•Undercover investigations at pig-breeding factory farms in North Carolina and Oklahoma revealed horrific conditions and daily abuse of pigs, including the fact that one pig was skinned alive, leading to the first-ever felony indictments of farm workers.
•In another precedent-setting case, a California furrier was charged with cruelty to animals after a PETA investigator filmed him electrocuting chinchillas by clipping wires to the animals' genitals. The American Veterinary Medical Association denounced the killing method, saying that it causes animals to experience the pain of a heart attack while they are still conscious. In another undercover expos�, PETA videotaped a fur rancher's causing minks to die in agony by injecting them with weed-killer. Both farms agreed to stop these cruel killing methods.
•After exposing the National Air and Space Administration's Bion experiment, in which straitjacketed monkeys were to be implanted with electrodes and then launched into space, PETA succeeded in pressuring the U.S. to pull out of the project.
•PETA's undercover investigation of a Florida exotic-animal "training school" revealed that big cats were being beaten with ax handles, which encouraged the USDA to develop new regulations governing animal training methods.
•PETA's undercover investigation of Boys Town National Research Hospital's experiments, in which researchers cut into kittens' heads and starved cats in order to study deafness, spurred the National Institutes of Health to issue a report condemning Boys Town's animal care and use program. The USDA found that Boys Town had failed to comply with the AWA.
•PETA convinced Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats had become trapped in the shafts and were burned to death.
•After two years of negotiations and more than 400 demonstrations worldwide, McDonald's became the first fast-food chain to agree to make basic welfare improvements for farmed animals. Burger King and Wendy's followed suit within a year's time, and within two years, Safeway, Kroger, and Albertson's had also agreed to adopt stricter guidelines in order to improve the lives of billions of animals slaughtered for food.
•Thanks to PETA's long campaign to push PETCO to take more responsibility for the animals in its care, the company agreed to stop selling large birds in all its stores and to make provisions for the millions of rats and mice in its care.

As is easily understood PETA has made huge contributions to animal welfare. I challenge my opponent to prove her resolution that PETA has not only not improved the above stated situations, but have actually worsened them.

Any of these accomplishments is easily googled.

I would like to thank my opponent for her opening statement and look forward to her proof that PETA has negatively impacted animal welfare. And not only just negatively impacted. But "Done a large amount to harm it".

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Bricheze

Con

Bricheze forfeited this round.
askbob

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited the last round

Hopefully she returns to debate.

*Extend all arguments*
Debate Round No. 2
Bricheze

Con

"Not only have they benefited helpful conservational and environmental issues (depending on your viewpoint), but they also have made possibly one of the biggest positive impacts on animal welfare."

They have done nothing for the environment, but harm it. What you don't understand is that they do not care about the welfare of species of animals or the over all health, they only care about a small amount of animals that were treated inhumanly. Acts that were ILLEGAL and acts that happened for a SHORT period of time and acts that do NOT happen again. They tell you all about the 50 chickens at KFC that some horrible (and I mean it, I have 2 show chickens that I love at my farm, and 5 laying hens. The way they treated them was NOT tolerated by me or any of my other fellow agriculturalists) farmers tortured, but they neglect to tell you have the 15'000'000 other ones that lived happy healthy lives. They show videos of HORRIBLE farmers hurting animals, people I disown and refuse to call farmers, and tell you we are ALL like this. BUT we aren't and it is prejudicial to judge us this way. We treat our animals as humanely as possible.

"PETA first uncovered the abuse of animals in experiments in 1981 and launched the precedent-setting "Silver Spring monkeys" case. This resulted in the first arrest and criminal conviction of an animal experimenter in the United States on charges of cruelty to animals, the first confiscation of abused laboratory animals, and the first U.S. Supreme Court victory for animals in laboratories."

And then they moved on to the extreme, saying we should not use animals for testing at all. But, we should. Animals are treated well in these conditions. if they aren't it IS ILLEGAL. PETA and other, much better organizations (such as the ASPCA), have already made it illegal. But they continue to gregariously say all labs treat animals badly, so we should not allow them to exist anymore. So they take videos of the few cases of already illegal abuse, and then show those videos to you (not showing you all the other laboratories that treat animals with respect) and then tell you that all animals are treated that way, when simply it isn't so. And you are buying into a pack of lies.

•PETA released 70 hours of graphic video footage that documented the appalling treatment of primates at the University of Pennsylvania head-injury laboratory, resulting in government fines and the loss of funding for the cruel study.

And they didn't realease the other 1'000'000'000'000 hours of video that they have taken, where the animals were well taken care of in these situations. As you can see they ALREADY made it illegal. And because PETA doesn't want to run out of things to do, so they can continue to run as an organization, they try to make it seem much worse then it really is. So they continue to make money and continue to be an organization that doesn't need to be there anymore.

This response, is basically the response to the rest of your arguments. PETA made it illegal, or filmed something already illegal. Told you that people were still openly practicing it and that everyone in the field does it. And then told you that unless if we stop all of the operations it will continue to happen, even though it has already been stopped.

Comments Section Response:

"Think of the poor little moo cows. Stop caring about humans. If it weren't for humans, cows would be roaming around the country unfettered by human desires. Free the moo cows! We should all vacate our houses and lend them to the moo cows."

Cows do not want to live in houses. They hate inclosed spaces, and are much hapeir roaming along the big open space they got on a farm, with plenty of fresh food, water, and no predators to worry about. Unlike in the wild, they do not suffer from certain disease and live much longer, helathier lives. Even ones that go to slaughter are treated much better then they would have been in the wild. I would much rather be a domesticated animal, one that likes the compainionship of humans, then a wild one! Who doesn't like health, food, water, and freedom from predators? Even when cows were allowed to roam around back along time ago; they didn't run away. Because they LIKE being domesticated animals.

This morning my cow, Jessie, had two twin bull calfs, Pete and Repete. They are the cutest little things. But in the wild they both would have died. First off, it is winter time. They would have frozen, covered in all of the 'gunk' from giving birth, they wouldn't of stood a chance. Second off, one of the twins had a minor problem standing, because of the way his legs had been in the womb. It was like he had been sleeping 'funny' on them for nine months, and they were just sore and weak. So we wrapped them so he could get to his moms colostrum. You see, for the first 6 to 8 hours after birth a mother makes colostrum instead of milk. It is filled with antibodies and fat, very much needed for the survival of the calf. Every hour they go without it is like a 10 to 15 % decrease in the survival of the animal. In the wild if they hadn't frozen the second calf surely would of died from illness from not receiving the colostrum in time.

Farm life is just much nicer then wild life. In the wild they are riddled with disease and eaten alive by predators. Constantly their babies are killed. And there is no way a cow would want to live in my house. They are much happier in the hay in the warm barn at night, then they are in a bed in your house! Plus, the grain they are fed tastes good to them. It has exactly what they need. They would get sick if we fed them pizza or peanut butter sandwiches! Actually, they love that they get their food handed to them. Without us giving them food they would have to scavenge for many hours more then they have too.

I never said PETA harms the welfare of animals, I said they harm conservational and environmental pursuits.

I would also like to bring out the pictures and films I am sure you have seen of so called 'farms' that keep animals in tiny boxes, that they can't even turn around in. These are an illusion. There are regulated size pens animals HAVE to be kept in. A pig needs something like a 4 X 4 square foot pen, roughly the size of an average bedroom. Cows need a certain amount of acreage, each, as well. They need food, wanter, and shelter. As well as entertainment. If we don't give it to them then they die or suffer, and a suffered animal is a stressed one, and a stressed carcass is worth much less then a happy one. Why would we want to kill are animals? Why would we want to stress them out to reduce the amount they are worth? because we don't. And the only ones that do are twisted fools that end up in jail.

Most of the pictures you see are at slaughter houses, where the animal may live at for under 20 minutes, up to a week, depending on how much they weigh. Their death comes quickly and much more mercifully then in the wild (where they would have either starved to death, been eaten alive, or died slowly of a painful disease) I would take a quick cut to the throat, over the sharp claws of a cheetah ripping at my belly any day.

What I really want to express to you is:
1) Animals like the way they live on farms that follow the law, over then how they would have lived in the wild.
2) We have no reason to break the laws set out for us to fill
3) It is wrong to group us all up for the small amount of wrong doing of others, or people in the past
4) PETA dwells on non-existent problems, simply so they can keep going as an organization
5) What you believe is immoral is not something we all believe is immoral. And PETA should not force it's beliefs on others
askbob

Pro

Proceeding with refuting my opponents arguments and accepting my opponents apology for the prior forfeit, I begin.

1. My opponent shows not one example or logical reason how not only have they done nothing for the environment (which I'm presuming in this case to mean animals and creatures that exist in said environment) but what they have done to bring, and I quote "a large amount of harm" I do not think it would benefit anyone if we were to forget the original resolution.

2. Many things are illegal however, many illegal acts occur. PETA simply makes sure the law is enforced. My opponent has not provided a statement in a case where they do say all labs treat animals poorly nor how this has hurt the environment or other conservational issues. Or how their "bad qualities far exceed any good ones".

3. My opponent has done nothing to refute well documented video evidence which needless to say helped to enforce the law and prevent further illegal actions of abuse, except to state that in some cases animals are well taken care of.

So with this logic we are to assume that social workers not only do not help out the community but actually cause harm to it. As social workers are uncovering and preventing future child abuse as PETA is uncovering and preventing future animal abuse. My opponent in essence is stating that there are plenty of cases where child abuse doesn't occur. Since child abuse is ALREADY illegal, no one needs to enforce it. Because they are helping children being abused they are doing a bad thing and all they want is to make money.

4. Founded in 1980 and based in Norfolk, Virginia, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost exclusively by its members. Therefore they are not in it "to make money" as my opponent incorrectly assumes. What does my opponent care if the organization is attempting to do good and is funded by its members and not by her tax dollars? I fail to see how they cause any harm whatsoever.

"About Peta", July 10, 2006.
http://www.peta.org...
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Give.org, April 12, 2006.
http://charityreports.bbb.org...

5. My opponent is criticizing a watchdog organization for doing what it is designed to do. To watch. It would be the same as criticizing the local media. Why do they continue to try to discover crime and corruption when it has already been made illegal and has stopped. Why are they telling us people are still practicing crime and corruption.

Simply because people will continue to commit crime and become corrupt. It is the duty of watchdog organizations such as the media and PETA to protect the rights of the citizens (in the case of the media) and to protect the rights of animals (in the case of PETA) simply because something is illegal does not mean it will occur. I primarily think this is what my opponent fails to understand in large. Simply because something has been found out and made illegal does not mean that it will not continue to happen.

6. My opponent responds to the comments section. I do have to say that is very poor conduct, at least as it is considered on this site. I did not make those comments after I accepted the debate. They are not at all revelant to the debate simply because they are comments and not a debate argument. Therefore you have absolutely no grounds to respond to them.

7. Personal opinions have no place in a debate. Only when they are backed up with relevant facts are they necessary.

8. Perhaps you should have defined "harm conservational and environmental pursuits" as it is a huge category in which animal abuse easily fits. As animals are a large part and factor in the present environment. Furthermore PETA's name primarily indicated that you wished this to be about animal abuse as PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. A indepth explanation of your meaning usually is a good thing to do in the opening round.

9. Pictures have no place in this debate unless you are using them as factual proof of something.

10. A. You cannot judge how animals feel as you cannot feel their emotions for them. Additionally you have provided no proof that they prefer being milked 24/7 to living in the environment.
B. No we do not. However I fail to see where this pertains to your argument.
C. I agree stereotyping is not a good thing, however I fail to see how this pertains to your arguments.
D. No as shown by my evidence (none of which you have refuted the validity of) PETA has done a great deal in fixing past problems and continues to fix every rising problems. Simply because animal abuse has been put to an end once, does not mean it will happen again. To assume so is to be ignorant as assuming that Social workers are unnecessary because child abuse has already been put to a stop once.

I do have to diverge with my opponent and ask the voters in this debate to recognize the importance and validity of watchdog organizations which not only have been a great check and balance for our government but similarly, have done the same in our society.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Bricheze

Con

1. PETA is strongly against hunting and the fur industry. Commercial fur farms are bad for the environment; but trappers and hunters are not. Because of PETA and orginizations like PETA the amount of hunters and trappers have rapidly declined. Which has very negative results on the environment. I am going to get most of the rest of this from another website, because I don't have the time to write up my own version, like I normally would. But, your response is lengthy, so mine must be too; and I can't spend all the time on this ONE argument!

First, consider the plight of the hunter. The proportion of hunters in the general population has declined steadily over the last four decades, going from 11% in 1960 to 8.3% by 1990 to about 6% in 2001. Almost any statistic you can find about hunting reveals that the U.S. numbers are declining.

Another disturbing demographic aspect about hunters is that the actual number of Americans who hunt is declining at an even steeper rate than the percentage. One explanation is that the number of young people who hunt decreases every year. In other words, hunters are getting older; young hunters are not joining the ranks. This is equivalent to a deer herd or duck species having more individuals leave the population each year than are added to it. Recruitment is too low to result in a sustainable population.

Do not get the impression that not many people engage in wildlife sports activities any more. According to the most recent survey available to me, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 82 million adults participated in hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching in 2001. But only 13 million of those were hunters. Yet people who hunt and fish contributed immensely to the national economy, spending more than $70 billion in 2001. Expenditures included licenses, guns, fishing equipment, and the costs of lodging, travel, and other goods and services. Wildlife watchers, meanwhile, spent $38 billion.

But why do I say hunting is good for the environment? First, let me define "good" as situations or activities that maintain wildlife at current levels. In that case, hunting is good for the environment because the hunting community ensures that wildlife populations of game species are sustainable from one generation to the next. This requires that a diversity of natural habitats be kept intact, unpolluted, and undisturbed. Hunters support all these efforts.

The taxes from hunting activities go to the states or to the federal government for such purposes as enhancing wildlife habitat, managing and maintaining parks and wildlife refuges, and conducting surveys and research to determine the status of not only game but also some nongame species. So, hunters contribute in a big way to benefiting natural environments.

Keeping our wild habitats as undamaged, clean, and natural as possible is a key aspect of having suitable places to hunt. But hunters are not the only ones seeking such habitats. Ecologists depend on them for research. Hikers, bird-watchers, and wildflower viewers all prefer habitats that are uncontaminated and full of wild things.

Of course, these groups prefer habitats that favor their own interests. Hikers want trails. Bird-watchers want a diversity of relatively quiet habitats. And hunters want land management that favors their favorite game bird or mammal. Also, hunters and the other groups do not like to share the same habitat at the same time. But although time-sharing may sometimes be a problem, a variety of wildlife enthusiasts have a single common vision--healthy outdoor ecosystems.

Of course, what makes a "good" forest for a hunter may be different from what other groups consider a "good" environment, and compromises must be made to accommodate all of them. Nonetheless, the time has come when hunters must become involved in partnerships with other groups who have an equally fervent interest in maintaining healthy habitats of forests, streams, and small wetlands. The time has also come when these other groups must look to the hunting community for what they can contribute to environmental prosperity.

Indeed hunters are entering into partnerships with research ecologists, groups interested in wildlife recreation, and organizations that focus on habitat protection. Although the ultimate objectives differ for each, the primary goal of saving or restoring forests and other natural habitats benefits all. Hunters depend on and help maintain sustainable populations of their species of interest. Ironically, their own population is facing a serious decline in numbers.

2. They imply that all labs are bad, and all of them must be SHUT DOWN. They think it is cruel to take blood from a monkey, via a shot, to do tests on the blood. And I don't know what other things a lab could do...

3. PETA's job is not to do what police and organizations such as ASPCA are supposed to do, enforce the law. Their job is to create the laws. And since they have created the laws, what else can they do, but make even more extreme laws? Either then have to close their doors for good...

4/5. "The organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost exclusively by its members."

I never said they weren't a non-profit. The thing is, is that they have 187 employees. People that don't want to lose their job because the organization has already done what it was supposed to do, create laws against animal abuse. Which is all PETA does, raise awareness to create laws; other organizations and the police enforce these laws. Not PETA. PETA has already made basic cruelty illegal. Which is good. But now they are trying to make other things illegal, things that are not cruel. Because, they don't have anything else to do, but shut-down. And those 187 people don't want to lose their jobs.

"They are not in it "to make money" as my opponent incorrectly assumes."

I never said they were, like you incorrectly assumed. 187 people work there, and are paid to work their. They are in it to stay 'in business' so they don't all lose their jobs.

6. You said them, I can respond to them. I never read any rules saying I couldn't respond to things my opponent said... You just trying to make me look bad in front of the voters.

7. Personal opinions have everything to do with a debate. If we just stacked facts next to facts and compared them it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a list of facts. It is our opinions that make it a debate.

8. Conservation is the welfare of animals. The environment and conservation of the environment should be something PETA at least doesn't harm, if they aren't going to help with it.

9. I was talking about the so called 'farms' PETA has all over it's website:

http://www.peta.org...

In this link PETA talks about a person AUTHORITIES (not them as enforcing the law is NOT their job) who placed a man in jail for abusing animals. Now this person didn't get away with their crimes. And it was and is illegal to do what he did. For what other reason would they have for posting this video, then to imply that all pig farms are horrible and we should shut them all down?

10. A. Actually I can tell how they feel. Do you have a dog? Can you tell when your dog is happy or sad? Cows, sheep, and pigs are the same way. Since you obviously don't work with animals you wouldn't know how loving they can be. And you can't tell what their emotions are like. But, since I do, I can. And they aren't milked 24/7 (This just proves you have NO idea how farms work!) They are milked one to three times a day, for maybe a half an hour each. The rest of the time they are free to roam around and play on acres of land. They are milked more by their calves in the wild, calves that have sharp teeth. In captivity, when the calves get teeth, soft hands milk them instead. And give the milk to the cows.

I will respond to B, C, & D in the comments as I ha
askbob

Pro

Ahh, my opponent has brought points in that have enforced her resolution.

1. My opponent's proof that PETA strongly harms the environmental and conservational issues is this:
A. Peta opposes hunting
B. Hunting supposedly provides a huge environmental benefit
C. The number of hunters is declining "rapidly" due to PETA's opposition to hunting
D. Hunting is good
E. Complete redefinition of good in the next to last argument
F. Hunters spend money on the environment and this also provides huge environmental benefits.
G. Therefore PETA "has done a large amount of harm to environmental and conservational issues"

While the above argument might have actually done a little to prove her resolution my opponent has failed to meet several basic requirements:

1. Proof that PETA is affecting the hunting industry
2. Proof that without the hunting industry, the environment would be much worse off than it currently is.

In response to the supposed proof that PETA is affecting the hunting industry, CBS news stated this:

"The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails. "
http://www.cbsnews.com...
http://www.usatoday.com...

In response to my opponents rather audacious claims that the environment is doing poorly do this decrease:

"Additionally the drop in hunting number coincides with a "13% increase in wildlife watching since 1996."

"The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities"

So where my opponent got her figures, I'd be suprised to see.

So as for my opponents claims that PETA affects the number of hunters, I have yet to find even the slightest notion that PETA has contributed to a drop in hunting.

"Ecologists depend on them for research. Hikers, bird-watchers, and wildflower viewers all prefer habitats that are uncontaminated and full of wild things."

2. "They imply that all labs are bad, and all of them must be SHUT DOWN."

Until my opponent can provide logical and factual evidence showing such implications I do not feel required to respond.

3. "Their job is to create the laws."

I was under the impression that our Congress made the laws in the US?

4. "I never said they weren't a non-profit."

Round 3 quotation:
"PETA doesn't want to run out of things to do, so they can continue to run as an organization, they try to make it seem much worse then it really is. So they continue to make money"

Referring to PETA, and then in the next sentence using the word "they" implies that PETA is the equivalent of they.
Your sentence by this logic would render: So PETA can continue to make money. Which is implicative that PETA exists to make profit.

5. "they are trying to make other things illegal, things that are not cruel." Could you please give me some examples? And additionally how these hurt environmental or conservational efforts? Otherwise this is just opinionated information and is not factual and thus not debatable. Furthermore you contend that they do not continue to act as a watchdog for animal cruelty?

6. No, I believe that is what you were attempting to do to me. I was simply informing you that it is basic conduct on this site, and in general debates not to bring personal information up outside of what was said in the actual debate.

7. "Personal opinions have everything to do with a debate. If we just stacked facts next to facts and compared them it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a list of facts. It is our opinions that make it a debate."

Wrong. It is our logic, reasoning, and manipulation of facts along with (in this case) typing skills which influence a debate.

Personal opinions have absolutely no place in a debate. Otherwise the debates would turn out as shouting matches.

Example:
Me: I like the color blue.
You: No yellow is better
Me: I think blue is prettier
You: I think yellow is prettier
Me: Nuh Uh
You: Yuh huh!

Instead of it being a debate where logic and reasoning and facts dictate the winner.
Example:

Me: The color blue is a much more calming color than any other color.
You: I contend that resolution, yellow has been found in this test to cause much more relaxation in a double blind study (Enter reputable source here)
Me. While my opponent makes an excellent point, (points out huge flaw in study) prevents 3 more case studies showing blue to be much more calming, etc. (enter sources)
You: Points out more flaws in study presents logical reasoning etc.

8. As you have yet to show an example with factual standing, I await this point.

9. "what other reason would they have for posting this video, then to imply that all pig farms are horrible and we should shut them all down?"

Perhaps to display their achievements of revealing illegal activity to the authorities, send a message to other farmers who are participating in the similar abuse, and encourage others to aid them in quelling animal abuse?

10. Anyone reading my sentence can tell that I was using a thing called "figurative language" and clearly wasn't being literal. I was alluding to the fact that cows are made to milk for much longer than they would otherwise in the wild. (Longer in terms of time period not the actual time they are milked)

A 400-page United Nations report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that cattle farming is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases."[28] The production of cattle to feed and clothe humans stresses ecosystems around the world,[26] and is assessed to be one of the top three environmental problems in the world on a local to global scale.[29]

The report, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the environmental damage from sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are cited as the greatest adverse impact with respect to climate change as well as species extinction. The report concludes that, unless changes are made, the massive damage reckoned to be due to livestock may more than double by 2050,

http://www.fao.org...
Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0679768114
http://www.virtualcentre.org...

Additionally I will not respond to anything posted in the comments section as that is bad conduct.
Debate Round No. 4
Bricheze

Con

1. Proof that PETA is affecting the hunting industry

http://www.helpinganimals.com...

When PETA started throwing blood on furs, people stopped hunting and trapping for fur. Making less people hunt and trap. Because it wasn't worth enough to make a living anymore. Even native trappers that had lived of the land for generations, using the small profit they would get from furs to buy basic supply for the winter, had to move into cities, because they simply couldn't afford their natural lifestyle anymore. Do you think an inuit trapper in Canada leaves a bigger foot print then you do living in the city? They take what they need, they don't use energy, they don't buy things with packaging, and they don't waste any part of the animals. They most definitly have a better impact on the environment then YOU do.

And because PETA constantly has demonstrations in front of hunting stores less hunters start hunting, because everyone around them says it's cruel (Because of PETA) and they give into peer pressure and don't hunt. And PETA forces their beliefs on native trappers, buy taking away their industry, and forces their beliefs on trappers by using peer pressure.

2. Proof that without the hunting industry, the environment would be much worse off than it currently is.

Hunters make the most money for the environment and for conservation. They also control populations to keep them healthy. If the deer population is to high; which is bad because there wouldn't be enough food (more would starve, because they ones that would have been hunted, still die of starvation; but they eat a large amount of food trying to survive, so the ones that would have survived hunting and starvation, die of starvation as well, because some of the food was eaten by starving deers, making them starve as well), and disease spreads much easier in a large population then in a smaller one. About 100 more of our ducks died this fall, because we failed to remove enough of the population to stop disease from easily spreading, and killing more then what it would have taken to stop the disease.

So when a population is high, the fish and hunting officers allow the deer season to start sooner or end later. They also allow hunters to hunt more animals; sometimes they limit. And vice versa, if the deer population is low; which is bad because then the predators start starving and attacking people, going into towns sometimes... if the deer population is low they end the deer season sooner or start it later. Or don't even have a deer season at all. Without this system the populations would go out of whack. And we would have very unhealthy animals. This is of course more natural, would rather have unhealthy and sickly 'natural' animals or healthy and comfortable controlled animals?

2. "Until my opponent can provide logical and factual evidence showing such implications I do not feel required to respond."

You can not prove an IMPLICATION. But, it was logical and factual. What other logical reason do you have for PETA spreading around a news story where the person who illegal harmed animals was already placed in jail (The laws were already in place, and the person did not get away with their crimes) then to imply that animals are being harmed to much by all farmers, so all farms should be shut down. Or that all labs should be shut down. It is the same story every time.

I would also like to remind my opponent, that as the Pro side it is your job to PROVE your side. And it is my job to disprove it, not prove mine. So you can't just say 'I don't have to react to this argument because there is no proof' (btw there was evidence, all over PETA's website they tell stories of labs and farms that were already shut down and charged for their crimes. And I gave you links to these stories)

3. "I was under the impression that our Congress made the laws in the US?"

FINE! Let me reword it, (I hate it when people use technicalities!) It is PETA's job to raise awareness, to get more votes for laws, so they can be passed by congress.

4. "PETA doesn't want to run out of things to do, so they can continue to run as an organization, they try to make it seem much worse then it really is. So they continue to make money"

"Referring to PETA, and then in the next sentence using the word "they" implies that PETA is the equivalent of they.
Your sentence by this logic would render: So PETA can continue to make money. Which is implicative that PETA exists to make profit."

So they can continue to continue operations, so they can continue to collect money, so they can continue to pay their employees, not make a profit, break even so they do not have to shut down. I never directly said "PETA only exists to make money, and they are a commercial business" What I meant in the short sentence YOU twisted into something it wasn't, was: 'The employees at PETA do not want to lose their jobs. So they make up problems, that they try to raise awareness too, so people will continue to donate money to them, so they can break even and not shut down. So their 187 employees do not lose their jobs.'

3.Could you please give me some examples?

It is illegal to castrate pigs in some places in Europe. In some ares you can't castrate them at all, in others you have to anesthetize them. Which is more dangerous to the health of the pigs. And the have more chance of dieing from complications of being anesthetized, then having it done with them awake. Not to mention the amount of money it costs to pay a vet to come and anesthetize an animal!

Also, you can not put animals alone in separate pens in Europe. So if you had a bull and 5 heifers (Female cows you plan to use for reproducing) you have to keep them together, even if you don't want to impregnate them. Because you certainly can not put a bull with a bull. And if your unable to castrate animals, what can you do?

"And additionally how these hurt environmental or conservational efforts? Otherwise this is just opinionated information and is not factual and thus not debatable."

Does this look like number number 1, the debates dealing with the environment. Because it looks like number 3 to me. This was an entirely different point, having NOTHING to do with number 1; the debate we are having on the environment.

"Furthermore you contend that they do not continue to act as a watchdog for animal cruelty?"

They can be a watchdog for animal cruelty, but they don't need 187 employees to 'watch'. Because that isn't their job. Their job is to find cruelty that isn't illegal, raise awareness towards it, and get it passed as a law. Since all forms of cruelty are now basically out-lawed PETA has no reason to exist as such a prominent orginization. The refuse to admit to this and downsize. So they make up problems; like the castration of pigs (the process is not painful, just scary for the piglets); and they force their beliefs on others, like veganism.

7. "Wrong. It is our logic, reasoning, and manipulation of facts along with (in this case) typing skills which influence a debate."

Otherwise known as an opinion.

8. "As you have yet to show an example with factual standing, I await this point."

What are you talking about? I explained why hunting is good and needed in the environment, and how PETA is bad for hunting.

9. "Perhaps to display their achievements of revealing illegal activity to the authorities, send a message to other farmers who are participating in the similar abuse, and encourage others to aid them in quelling animal abuse?"

Except they didn't have to show pictures of injured, starved, and abused animals. They could of just said 'we uncovered this to the police' instead they made ALL pig farms look bad, by posting videos and pictures that didn't need to be posted. How does that send a message to people participating in similar abuse? It only sends a message to kids surfing the web and gu
askbob

Pro

1. A. My opponent has shown no evidence that PETA is responsible for the number of declining hunters thus rendering her argument on hunters null.
B. PETA's personal views against hunting are not evidence that hunters are stopping hunting (in such massive scales as my oppoenent pointed out) because of PETA.
C. Demonstrations in front of hunting stores is not evidence that hunters are stopping to hunt because of PETA. In fact history has shown this might even increase business: http://www.diggersrealm.com...

2. My opponent fails to understand that deer have more natural predators than simply humans. Many other animals can execute the task that hunters do.

2. No it was rather unlogical and unbased and had no relevance at all as to how it hurts conservational and environmental issues. Refer to my reasons which are also logical and are more than likely the real reason the video was posted.
Its quite obvious why they post their successes on their website. Obviously its to deter future breakers of the law, and so that their sponsors realize the good service they are doing. Not to make every laboratory and farm in the United States look poorly.

3. Since when is raising awareness a negative thing?

4. I twisted nothing. What you stated is an assumption. You made it seem as if they were seeking profit by your poorly worded sentence. I simply called to the voters attention that they were nonprofit. Again what you state is another assumption with no facts or logic to back it up.

5. I fail to see the following:
A. How this pertains to PETA
B. How this furthers/proves your resolution.

:"Does this look like number number 1, the debates dealing with the environment. Because it looks like number 3 to me."
Actually this is number 5 unless you use a different number system than I do.

:"This was an entirely different point, having NOTHING to do with number 1; the debate we are having on the environment."
No the debate we are having is on PETA largely harming the environment and conservational pursuits.

6. "They can be a watchdog for animal cruelty"
Opponent has conceded PETA prevents animal cruelty

"they don't need 187 employees to 'watch'."
Have you ever considered that perhaps the area they are "watching for" is perhaps bigger than a small town, but encompasses the US and additionally many other countries?

7. Know obviously not.

Logic, reasoning, and factual evidence does not equate opinion as shown in my very detailed example.

8. You have shown no evidence nor any logic on how PETA harms the environment and the conservation of it.

9. It says simply: Cleanup your act otherwise we'll post pictures of you on the internet and report you to the authorities.
Additionally it incites other people viewing the pictures to take actions and report abuse if it is occurring in their neighborhood. It sends the message that no animal deserves abuse.

10. I do not respond to information posted in the comments section.

Please vote Pro.

My opponents resolution was:

"PETA has rarely made significant contribution to helpful conservational and environmental issues"
"they (PETA) have a done a large amount to harm it (conservational and environmental issues)."
"Their (Peta's) bad qualities far exceed any good ones they(PETA) posses(ses)."

Con has conceded:
1. Peta acts as a watchdog organization against animal abuse
2. PETA does not act to make profit
3. PETA has made risen awareness on animal cruelty and has helped to create laws.
4. PETA's part in the production of laws making basic animal cruelty illegal is a good thing.
5. PETA's past accomplishments have been beneficial

My opponent has shown no proof that PETA hurts environmental or conservational issues in any way.
My opponent's only argument (which has been shown null by the lack of proof) was that PETA hurts the hunting industry and thusly it hurts the environment. However as was previously stated there has been absolutely no proof (in fact proof in the other extrema) that PETA does indeed hurt the hunting industry.
There also has been no proof that the hunting industry actually benefits the environment.

Because of my opponent's conceded points, and because of her lack of evidence supporting her claims, I ask the voters of this debate to vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dumbchic 6 years ago
Dumbchic
I liked the other guy's argument better.
Posted by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
I was wondering, BOB.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Since the debate has died down and so has the voting I'd like to state for all intents and purposes that I personally am against PETA. I just think they are idiots and could give a hoot less about them. Also the comments I made in the comment section were very sarcastic lol. I took this debate because all good debaters can defend viewpoints they don't agree with personally.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
It wasn't bad conduct to post in the comment section. I had to play catch up after running out of time for the other arguments. Remeber Pro failed to prove that PETA doesn't bring harm to the environment (which, as pro, is HIS job) He failed to mention that PETA no longer has enough to do, to do anything helpful, he failed to respond to several of my arguments (because he refused to use the comment section after we were forced to lose a round), he failed to counter my arguments that PETA does bring harm to agriculture. He failed to PROVE his side. As he is the pro side and that is HIS job. And many times he simply said 'Your lieing, you have no logic, you have no proof, no evidence, and therefore I don't have to respond.' That was just a way for him to say, 'You're right, but instead of admitting to it, I am simply going to call you a lier." He twisted my words around to saying things like 'she conceded to this' but failed to mention that I didn't concede to most of it, just a small part.

PETA is an organization that no longer has anything left to do in the world. They plaster their website with phrases like "Stop this animal abuse, donate today!" When the truth is the animal abuse HAS been stopped. And they are just using stories that were already illegal and stopped to make it seem as if farms and laboratories torture their animals still. So they could continue to take in donations, so they can continue to keep their jobs. While tons of farms and laboratories go out of business because people think they are abusing their animals.

PETA isn't watchdog; it is activism. Activism for something that is already illegal, has been stopped, and is twisted into something it isn't. I don't strongly suggest you vote con, because I don't care about votes; I care about opinions. So instead, why don't you tell me what you think about this subject?
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
10. "Anyone reading my sentence can tell that I was using a thing called "figurative language" and clearly wasn't being literal."

Sarcasm is hard to catch over the internet. And you were suggesting that we should start hooking up women to milking machines. The truth is that womens bossoms are much more sensitive then a cows. And a cow is just made to produce...

I was alluding to the fact that cows are made to milk for much longer than they would otherwise in the wild. (Longer in terms of time period not the actual time they are milked)

All that they do in the wild is reproduce, new calves every year. Plus they don't get any medical help at all.

"States that cattle farming is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases."[28] The production of cattle to feed and clothe humans stresses ecosystems around the world,[26] and is assessed to be one of the top three environmental problems in the world on a local to global scale.[29]"

To bad we can't live without food, right? Agriculture happens to be the foundation of civilizations. Without it we are nothing. Plus, you are forgetting that agriculture also produces corn, one of the most important crops to combat global warming.

"Additionally I will not respond to anything posted in the comments section as that is bad conduct."

I'm just trying to make up for the round we missed. Also, I could just not respond to 4 of your points. If that's what you want...

Anyways, I'm pretty sure that bad conduct is when you harass your opponent or 'make fun' of your opponent. Or when you twist around words. Or try and make the voters think that your opponent is using bad conduct... Things like that. I never read anywhere in the rules of this website that it is bad conduct to finish responding in the comments if you ran out of characters in the debate, but your opponent was still awaiting a responds to 4 of their main points.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
"To assume so is to be ignorant as assuming that Social workers are unnecessary because child abuse has already been put to a stop once."

PETA do not do what social workers do, they do not enforce the laws. PETA creates the laws. The police and organizations that directly stop abuse enforce them. Animal abuse has already been outlawed and PETA has nothing left to do, but make up problems and try to make laws against them. We don't have a group of extremists stopping children from having to do what their parents ask of them,calling it 'child abuse.' Because we have already put the laws in place against child abuse. And it is now social workers and the police's job to enforce these laws.

Thusly, we should not have an extremist group trying to outlaw pig farms, calling raising animals for meat 'abuse' we should just have the ASPCA and the police enforcing the laws that have already been put in place.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
*Response to B, C, & D as I ran out of room in the debate

B. Since I didn't have a number 10 I don't know what your talking about. Please enlighten me.
C. As I explained in argument 9, PETA is stereotypical. And implies stereotypical things.
D. "none of which you have refuted the validity of"

I have to. As I said before: PETA's job is to create laws against animal abuse. It is the police's job to enforce them. How many of those links included PETA talking about people whom were arrested and charged with cruelty to animals? As they had already made laws against them.

The only reason PETA has for posting those, pictures, videos, and stories is to tell people 'hey these people abused animals, and they were caught and put in jail. But, other people aren't being caught and put in jail, so we should just shut them all down.' They imply that I beat my pigs and starve my piglets. Which, by the way I don't. As I have said before, stressed animals render bad meat. And bad meat doesn't make profit. Why would any sane farmers, WANT to beat or kill their animals, losing meat quality, and thusly losing money. While risking being shut down and going to jail for animal cruelty?

PETA implies this to try and shut down pig farms for good, even though most of them do not harm their animals. Because they have nothing else to do. And they don't want to lose their jobs.

"PETA has done a great deal in fixing past problems and continues to fix every rising problems."

They fixed past problems. And are now creating new ones, so they can try and fix problems that do not exist. So they can stay in business.

"Simply because animal abuse has been put to an end once, does not mean it will happen again."

If it became legal to abuse animals PETA could start up again, as of right now it isn't.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
I'm so sorry, I haven't had internet services for the last few days. I didn't forfeit that round, time did.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Yes I'm serious the poor moo cows have no homes. You evil humans should be chained to a barn and be locked in solitude and fed nothing but grains and hay. And have milkers sucking out your milk night and day. You have no idea what they go through. The separation and the lonliness they must feel. And then you go and eat them. Every human who drinks milk and eats beef is evil.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Are you serious? This just furthers my proof, PETA turns people crazy, this man wants to give his home to a cow.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
BrichezeaskbobTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
BrichezeaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
BrichezeaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
BrichezeaskbobTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 8 years ago
SolaGratia
BrichezeaskbobTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
BrichezeaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
BrichezeaskbobTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
BrichezeaskbobTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
BrichezeaskbobTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07