The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Levin
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

PETA has done more bad than good (See full res. below)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
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 2 votes the winner is...
Levin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,639 times Debate No: 8859
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Charlie_Danger

Con

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being of all living things than positive impacts" I negate.

Rules: -My opponent cannot be InfraRedEd
-Stick to the resolution
-Address both sides of the resolution
-Place arguments in Contention format (Claim, Warrant, Impact)
-I'll let the Aff propose framework (definitions & observations) but if it is abusive I will decline it and propose my own (aka, don't present biased or B.S. defintions)

I will spare my initial arguments for the time being, the affirmative will present its constructive at this time.

Good luck and thanks to accepting this debate. Don't forfeit any rounds so we can keep this debate popular!
As for everyone else, click "like" on this debate!
Levin

Pro

I'm new here so I'm jumping right in. I hope I don't mess this up.

To begin I agree with the principles that PETA stands for, however I am against many of their methods, which is what I believe we are arguing.
You already defined PETA. The only definition I will give is that I believe destruction is not limited to actual physcial harm, but also to mental pain and suffering.

Contention 1: A Holocaust on your plate

This was an advertising campaign that PETA used to get attention for the horrors of eating meat and the brutal practices of some factory farms. This campaign was used many times over the Thanksgiving holiday. It juxtaposed images of concentration camps with images of meat processing.
These images hurt and offended holocaust survivors. I don't have an opinion poll to back me up on this, but I know that my friend Keith's grandfather was a holocaust survivor and he found it utterly disgusting. I use this reaction to mirror other typical reactions from people that had to live through this horrific offense.
The point is that PETA (like Howard Stern) believes that "shock value" is more important than being socially responsible people. I often equate PETA with those who kill abortion doctors. Just because you are against abortion it doesn't mean you must go to the extreme.

I could post other instances of PETA going overboard, such as putting up a poster of Rudy Giuliani (after he had been diagnosed with cancer) with a milk mustache that said "Got Cancer" and explained how drinking milk has been linked to some forms of cancer. I could post many others as well but I believe we are all aware of the extreme measures that they take and how they are harmful to people mentally.

Contention 2: PETA has done very little "good".
PETA has failed in their goal to stop factory farming, meat processing, the eating of meat or the killing of animals at shelters. PETA has lofty goals but it seems they are more concerned with making news than making a difference.
For instance, PETA protesters have been sighted around the country in front of animal shelters. They are protesting the euthanasia policy of most shelters. However, how many of these protesters walk away with animals? The answer, very few of them. If they spent their time adopting animals the problem of overcrowded shelters would be much less severe than it is.2.8 percent of Americans are vegetarians: http://findarticles.com...
Here is an article from the New York Times from 1987:http://www.nytimes.com...
The Times article correctly points out the fad of vegetarianism in the late 1980's. What happened? Vegetarianism is certainly not taboo but it is not really popular.
PETA has done nothing to change the popular opinion about eating meat. It has done nothing to stop factory farming. In fact, factoring farming has only grown.

PETA has had no impact on the cause of animals. The only impact it has had is on the people that it offends with its contraversial campaigns.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Con

I am glad that I get the honor of being your first opponent, Levin, good luck in all your other debates!

Although my opponent did NOT propose any definitions, but instead modified the resolution. Were this any other debate, it would be the affirmative's demise, however, since it helps further clarify the topic, I accept it. But I STILL negate the resolution.

On to the flow...

Response to his Contention 1: (If I may, I will name the first argument here Subpoint A, and the second Subpoint B)
Sub.A: The first thing the AFF says in this contention is how an advertisement depicting the horrid similarities between concentration camps and meat farms. The thing my opponent overlooks is that these similarities are EXTREMELY alike. The, as my opponent states himself, warrant-less argument that the ad offended holocaust survivors falls just on it's lack of evidence, but even after that, you reject the example he DID present (which, for all we know, could be entirely made up) because having such a hurt or twisted feeling after viewing the video should be the motivator that gets you up and opposing the industry, like PETA most likely intended. However, PETA did NOT intend on attacking holocaust survivors. If "Keith's grandpa" was NOT motivated to join PETA after seeing the obvious comparison, he may be succumbing to the common sociological fault of rebelling against them without reasonable cause. Most likely he either:
A) Followed the common, yet dramatically unjust and unwarranted, negative opinion about PETA (or)
B) Refused to aid anyone who hurt them (or "offended" in this matter)
From anywhere in between these, it means that the best PETA's ad could have been was a well-thought out recruiter video, at worst a poorly executed advertisement. Whoop-de-do. Does this have a negative impact to all living things? No. The lives saved by the new members of PETA GREATLY outweigh some offended veterans.

Sub.B: Immediately the AFF says he COULD provide more evidence. Just so you know, the only evidence that is going to be used in debate is the evidence you show in debate. Hearsay is worthless in debate. What he DOES present is the Rudy Giuliani advertisement. He, conveniently enough, left out the fact that Rudy Giuliani was willing to do the ad. If he wasn't, why wouldn't he sue?

Response to Contention 2:
Okay, here's the first comment: "PETA has failed in their goal to stop factory farming, meat processing, the eating of meat or the killing of animals at shelters."
1) The battle is continuous. If they had failed (past tense, my friend) then the organization would cease to exist.
2) The ideology of animal liberation is exactly what it says it is: and Ideology. It is basically impossible to achieve it, like a crime-free society. And, like the crime-free ideology, just because the goal seems unreachable, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve it.
He goes on to say that "PETA has lofty goals but it seems they are more concerned with making news than making a difference." Unfortunately for the AFF, making news often leads to making a difference. When someone "gets the word out" about a cause, or even product, it gains support and popularity. This is not bad.
He gives us a more specific example: "PETA protesters have been sighted around the country in front of animal shelters. They are protesting the euthanasia policy of most shelters. However, how many of these protesters walk away with animals? The answer, very few of them. If they spent their time adopting animals the problem of overcrowded shelters would be much less severe than it is." PETA encourages ALL its members and non-members to adopt from their bank of rescued animals, (there are multiple sources I can place for this, but for the sake of time and headache: http://www.peta.org... Just browse if you don't believe me) and you have to remember that members of PETA are rational people (regular people), meaning that they know that if you have a house with 99 cats, it's not good for them, or that if adopting a pet in a small living space or with insufficient funds to pay for the animal(s) is not good either, they won't do it. Do NOT cry "hypocrisy" on these caring individuals unless you have statistical proof for your argument anyway.
Next, he claims that 2.8% of americans are vegetarians, and shows a ridiculously outdated article about the rise in vegetarianism. Well, first-off, the "2.8" statistic is outdated (2003) and overruled by the NEW POLL by THE SAME SOURCE. Today, there is 3.4% vegetarians in the US. (http://www.hinduismtoday.com...) Now, keep in mind that the US population is skyrocketing, (http://www.npg.org...) (you can see it live here: http://www.census.gov...) and you can see that this percentage increase is in the HUNDRED-THOUSANDS. This 1% increase is clearly very significant, so already my opponent's point has been turned against him.
And "The Times article correctly points out the fad of vegetarianism in the late 1980's..." Because it only studied the late '80s my friend. "What happened? Vegetarianism is certainly not taboo but it is not really popular" Another claim proved extraordinarily wrong.

So, when my opponent says: "PETA has done nothing to change the popular opinion about eating meat. It has done nothing to stop factory farming. In fact, factoring farming has only grown." He has no proof, no evidence, no warrant, and no leg to stand on here.
When he says: "PETA has had no impact on the cause of animals. The only impact it has had is on the people that it offends with its contraversial campaigns." He has lost all the minimal evidence he provided, and looses his impact here, and more importantly, the debate.

Thank you for the first round.

Reasons to Affirm: 0
Reasons to Negate: 1
Levin

Pro

Levin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
Levin

Pro

Response to Guiliani argument: He did not give consent the likeness used on his poster was used without consent.
Response to the failings of PETA: The fight might be ongoing but they have made no progress whatsoever. In fact, as I stated, there are more factory farms now then there have ever been in the history of the United States.http://en.wikipedia.org...
The reason I showed the "old" article that you talked about was to illustrate that vegatarianism was a fad that has ebbed and not a lifestyle choice influenced by PETA at all.
You say that the Holocaust is comparable to the plight of animals, I say that is your opinion. You are comparing the slaughter of animals (which many people believe are only on Earth as a food source) with the deaths of six million human beings. Most people value human life above animal life.
My claim is simple. PETA does more harm than good to their own cause with their radical tactics. Not only does this mean they do more harm to society but it also means that they hinder any impact they have on changing opinions on the issues of animal treatment and animal consumption. Thus, on the whole, they do much more harm than good not only to the world at large but to their own cause.
Debate Round No. 3
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
Levin

Pro

This debate seems to be over. My opponent has failed to prove that PETA has done any good. I have shown that they can have ill effects, thus on balance they've done more bad than good.
Debate Round No. 4
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
Levin

Pro

Debate over.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
CONDUCT- PRO (forfeits, even though they were because of a banning)
S/G: TIED
ARG: PRO (forfeits, mostly)
SRC: CON (used more and better sources)
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Any real debate style has Claim-Warrant-Impact.

Claim: The message you are getting across (e.g. Unions hurt Capitalism)

Warrant: The evidence or theory; proof that proves that your claim is true (e.g. Quotes, Research, Theory, Analytica, etc.)

Impact: What it means and how it relates (e.g. Because *warrant* proves that *claim*, we must affirm the resolution.)

Keep in mind that they don't need to be in order, just follow what feels natural, but be sure to include all of them.

P.S. Contention is just a fancy word for "point" It stems off the root word "contend"
Posted by cool_rad_b 7 years ago
cool_rad_b
hey i want to accept the debate but is it necessary to post the argument as claim contention warrant and so forth....can't i just write it in normal debate style....if yes plz lemme know !!!!!!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Charlie_DangerLevinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Levin 7 years ago
Levin
Charlie_DangerLevinTied
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