The Instigator
Con (against)
8 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

PETA has done more harm then good (Read full res. below)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-7
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,536 times Debate No: 9318
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)




"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.

I promise NOT to get banned during this debate. And SOMEONE take the challenge, I've never lost a PETA debate (IRL and DDO and NFL) without conditional forfeit, so whoever can do it will be a record holder.

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!


I would like to thank my opponent vor this very interesting topics
I do not think he understand what the animal is so I will provide a insightful Wikipedia link
Debate Round No. 1


At this point in the round, the Negative is winning.

My opponent has not made any arguments whatsoever, in fact, he has said absolutely nothing that is correlated with the resolution.

My opponent lists a link to a strange animal, which, again, has nothing to do with this debate.

As interesting as this animal may be, it doesn't explain your constructive for you, so I'll wait one more round for you to (hopefully) post a real one.

But thank you for accepting the debate under the apparently extreme rules I have laid out. Best of luck with that constructive.


I gave the wrong link heres what the point of animals are
Debate Round No. 2


In the same essense of my opponent's argumentation, I will post the following wikipedia link which shows exactly what my opponent has turned this debate into.

Please vote NEG, taken that my opponent has done absolutely nothing in this debate round, other than post another pointless, irrelevent and slightly offensive link to a wiki page.
Debate Round No. 3



He said
Animals = Meat.

This is not true because:
1) Though animals can be turned into meat, they are not meat. Think of it as a circle inside a circle: All meat are animals but not all animals are meat.
2) EVEN if he were correct, this makes no correlation or even point in the debate whatsoever, since we are debating about PETA
3) This is a new argument, if you can even call it an argument
4) He does not provide any tangible or implied warrant or impact. In fact, his claim is also false, meaning that the AFF basically just submitted a blank text block

Please vote for me, since my opponent made no argument.
And opponent, please stop accepting debates.


Harbalalism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago

Conduct: CON
The PRO didn't care, try or even fully participate in the debate.

Spelling and grammar: CON
PRO didn't use any real grammar, whereas the CON did.

Arguments: CON
The PRO did not submit any points, and the CON pointed this out

Sources: CON
This isn't so much because CON provided ample definitions, but instead because the PRO only provided useless (and often mistaken) links
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Looks like your winning streak will continue, Charlie.
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Ditto what Rezz said.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
I was never aiming to entertain you. Your seemingly arrogant position did not particularly attract me, so I wrote up an opinion. Kind of like how customers tell businesses how they'd do better in XYZ areas on a survey. The only difference is that you didn't ask. I thought I could be of some help (I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one of this opinion), but I guess I should've seen your response coming.

Well, I'll keep that one in mind. "Don't ever correct or even give your opinion to Charlie_Danger"....
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Yeah, I figured that out.

Turns out wikipedia doesn't have a page on "waste of time", which is what I wanted to do on my last argument...

Rezzealaux, I guess I do think highly of myself. Because I think I'm too good to carry on a pointless conversation in the comment section of my own (basically wasted) debate with some arbitraily disgruntled DDO user, who has a rather harsh opinion toward me. Go ahead, I don't mind it when people like, dislike or hate me, I'm just not entertained by your comments/complaints any more.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Yeah, expect this debate to be a waste of time, C_D; Harbalism, if you've seen any of his previous rounds, basically debates for the sole purpose of... well... having no purpose at all.
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
"Rezzealaux, you seem very skilled at complaining about my rules, so why not complain about PETA in this debate?"

I don't know anything much about the PETA, other than its stated intent and its name. Taking the debate for the sole purpose of arguing against the rules you set up would be unsightly, as I could very well just not take the debate. So, I left my "complaining about [your] rules" in the comments section.

"Complaining", huh.... you really do think highly of yourself.
I probably should've bought it the moment I saw you setting up DDO's ToC.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Sorry for the seemingly complicated rules, but I just dislike getting the same cheap arguments over and over.

Ultimately, I am very lenient in the areas of Contention format and Observations. I just, again, don't want stupidity and rambling in the round. (Which is why I dislike InfraRedEd debates)

Speaking of him, I apologize for keeping that part in, lol, I copy/pasted my last listing, and I missed that line.

Rezzealaux, you seem very skilled at complaining about my rules, so why not complain about PETA in this debate?

@Skeptic: Will do. I trust you to be rational in-round.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
I agree - I'm not exactly sure how this whole claim, warrant, impact thing works. I have a clue, but I don't want to waste rounds.

Modify those rules, and I'll you a good run for your perfect PETA record.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Yeah, I would take this debate out of extreme malice for PETA, if I didn't have extreme malice for the way the framework is set up, also.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by nonparticipant 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
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