The Instigator
ournamestoolong
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Kirkland
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

PETA in generals, has had a positive effect in society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,001 times Debate No: 9049
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

ournamestoolong

Pro

RESOLVED: PETA in general, has had a positive effect in society

Round one is for introductions and definitions, the rest will proceed like a three round debate.

PETA: The orginaization known as People for the ethical treatment of animals
Kirkland

Con

PETA call themselves the protector of Animals and have created campaigns which have caused sheer shock without effect. One can look at for instance the images PETA gained from Chinese fur farms [1] now in a country where there are no Animal rights [2] and hardly any public pressure on the Chinese government is PETA actually doing anything except allowing images which could negatively impact our Children's minds.

Yet is it not hypocritical for an organization such as PETA whom are against the killing and torture of animals to have leaders whom seem to have a zeal for killing with Newkirk saying " "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself...I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." [3] Does this not show an organization which does not stick to even the words in its name.

Ethical is defined as 'motivation based on ideas of right and wrong' [4] the definition of what we believe is morally wrong is hard to define due to the fact that different people have different frames of reference. I therefore put forward that the only general consensus of right and wrong can be that of what society generally accepts.

Society is defined as 'A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality. ' [5] One has to remember also the procedure of how medicine is approved, in that the FDA requires all medicine to have animal testing before being approved in order to test the safety of the medication. [6] If animal testing was stopped as wanted the affect would cause major problems for society in the testing of new drugs.

On a side note I look forward to the debate ahead especially since this is my first of hopefully many debates on debate.org.

1.www.peta.org/feat/chineseFurFarms/index.asp
2.http://buyhard.net46.net...
3.http://www.nokillnow.com...
4.http://www.google.co.uk...=
5.http://en.wikipedia.org...
6.http://students.cua.edu...
Debate Round No. 1
ournamestoolong

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate.

"PETA call themselves the protector of Animals and have created campaigns which have caused sheer shock without effect."

That is debateable. Sheer shock can have a major effect (i.e. 9/11) Here are only a few of their acomplishments (http://www.furisdead.com...)

- Making Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation go fur free
- Making Redenvolope stop using fur in earmuffs
- Making the Bombay company go fur-free
- Making J. Crew go fur-free
- Making Ann Taylor go fur-free

"One can look at for instance the images PETA gained from Chinese fur farms [1] now in a country where there are no Animal rights [2] and hardly any public pressure on the Chinese government is PETA actually doing anything except allowing images which could negatively impact our Children's minds."

PETA is taking a different approach. They are making the American compnies go fur-free, and making the fur trade a less economic viable oppurtunity. PETA knows that the chinese will probably never dierectly give up the fur trade, so they affect the trade economically

"Yet is it not hypocritical for an organization such as PETA whom are against the killing and torture of animals to have leaders whom seem to have a zeal for killing with Newkirk saying " "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself...I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." [3] Does this not show an organization which does not stick to even the words in its name."

You didn't bother to read the whole quote did you? (http://www.nokillnow.com...)

"I went to the front office all the time, and I would say, 'John is kicking the dogs and putting them into freezers.' Or I would say, 'They are stepping on the animals, crushing them like grapes, and they don't care.' In the end, I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through that. I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day. Some of those people would take pleasure in making them suffer. Driving home every night, I would cry just thinking about it. And I just felt, to my bones, this cannot be right. I hadn't thought about animal rights in the broader sense. Not then, or even for a while after. But working at that shelter I just said to myself, 'What is wrong with human beings that we can act this way?'"

Sort of changes things, doesn't it?. She had to kill the animals, because the alternative was even worse.If she had not intervened, the animals would have been tortured, then killed.

"Ethical is defined as 'motivation based on ideas of right and wrong' [4] the definition of what we believe is morally wrong is hard to define due to the fact that different people have different frames of reference. I therefore put forward that the only general consensus of right and wrong can be that of what society generally accepts."

Agreed

"Society is defined as 'A society is a body of individuals of a species, generally seen as a community or group, that is outlined by the bounds of functional interdependence, comprising also possible characters or conditions such as cultural identity, social solidarity, or eusociality. ' [5]"

Agreed

"One has to remember also the procedure of how medicine is approved, in that the FDA requires all medicine to have animal testing before being approved in order to test the safety of the medication. [6] If animal testing was stopped as wanted the affect would cause major problems for society in the testing of new drugs."

Depending on the drug, there are other ways you can test it. (If it is not dangerous, it can PROBABLY, go straight to trial)

My argument is simple. PETA has helped animal's welfare. The society has deemed that ethical, which is prven by this poll.

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2008. N=1,017 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.

.

"Which of these statements comes closest to your view about the treatment of animals? Animals deserve the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation. Animals deserve some protection from harm and exploitation, but it is still appropriate to use them for the benefit of humans. OR, Animals don't need much protection from harm and exploitation since they are just animals." Options rotated

(http://www.pollingreport.com...)

97% of people think animals deserve at least some protection. PETA provides that.

I await my opponents reply.
Kirkland

Con

"PETA is taking a different approach. They are making the American compnies go fur-free, and making the fur trade a less economic viable oppurtunity. PETA knows that the chinese will probably never dierectly give up the fur trade, so they affect the trade economically "

But is that good for society? Does that not mean less jobs for people in China? At the end of the day fitting basic needs such as food and shelter is the core essence of Society. With 23.45 million people [1] in China below the poverty should animal rights come before basic human rights. It seems that PETA's aim in preventing the fur trade ruin lives instead of helping better society.

"Sort of changes things, doesn't it?. She had to kill the animals, because the alternative was even worse.If she had not intervened, the animals would have been tortured, then killed."
PETA are well known for killing animals which other animal rights organizations would consider adoptable. This animals are not being tortured or killed they are in the care of the PETA organization! Based on official figures out of all the animals PETA gets 96% of all these animals are put down. PETA have put that down to the poor health of the animals but then how come other shelters/animal groups who take in animals have a lower euthanasia rate? With the euthanasia rate of the RSPCA being only 8% [2]. Is it not hypocritical of PETA to kill so many animals instead of giving them a second chance?

PETA say their 96% euthanasia rate is because "homes could not be found for the dogs and cats, usually because they were in such poor health or because they were "unsocialised" and aggressive, usually because of bad treatment by their owners."[1] Yet the organizations such as the RSPCA believe that "dogs come to us in very poor condition or with very poor social skills. Our staff and volunteers do everything they can to ensure a dog becomes homable and the fact that we find homes for 92% of unwanted dogs proves our commitment to this cause." [2] Surely PETA who continue to criticize others for Killing animals should not do the same and should try to limit the use of Euthanasia?

"My argument is simple. PETA has helped animal's welfare. The society has deemed that ethical, which is prven by this poll. "
No the title of this debate was "PETA in generals, has had a positive effect on society" not whether they have increased ethical treatment of animals. In order to decide whether or not PETA has had a positive effect one must look at society and ethical treatment of animals comes after helping humans. PETA oppose all drug testing dangerous and not dangerous with their mission take their action against Covance for example. PETA have tried to stop them opening a new building for testing despite the vital research they do. [3] Covance does so much such as creating vaccines, gene therapy research and Monoclonal Antibodies [4]. With PETA trying to get rid of lab testing they are creating a negative effect on society in that they are trying to prevent a new generation of treatments which could cure aids, could cure cancer and could cure diabetes. They have tried before with a new breakthrough breast cancer treatment where they were angered because Animals were used for testing [5]! Is this positive for our society?

The protests PETA does also creates a negative influence on society with Police officers on several occasions such as in Oxford [6] being called to break it up. Surely this means that these police men will be unable to respond to more important calls? Another negative to Society. Ethical treatment for animals is covered by many many organizations without that don't use such radical ideas and have such questionable staff such as the 2 employees of PETA who in 2005 "were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA".[7]

In general for society the Well being of us come before animals and from this surely anyone can see that in general PETA have had more of a negative effect on the economy, the increase in medical knowledge and even the well fair of animals.

"97% of people think animals deserve at least some protection. PETA provides that. "
Yes but how many of these people think PETA is doing that job? There are many animal right organizations this poll does not reflect what people think of PETA and their treatment of animals but the overall opinion that animals deserve Ethical treatment. For instance the 2 things the PETA are violently against (fur and animal drug testing) the American people seem to disagree with. In a gallup poll 61% thought it was alright to buy clothes and wear clothes made of fur up 7% from 2008 [8]! So what effect is PETA having on the fur trade? PETA started its action against the Chinese Fur farms in 2008 [9] its shock campaign it seems did not work and the only effect it has had is putting terrible images of animals dying on the internet! Is this ethical? To such brutal images of dying animals on the internet?

When it comes to medical testing on animals 57% of the people polled said that it was acceptable up 1% from 2008[8]! It seems that the two main issues that PETA have are not supported by the majority of the American people. The poll that you had therefore can be concluded that yes people want ethical treatment of Animals but not what PETA aims and protests about.

1.http://www.china.org.cn...
2.http://the-riotact.com...
3.http://www.washingtonpost.com...
4.http://www.covance.com...
5.http://www.heartland.org...
6.stephensimpson3.wordpress.com/.../peta-protest-outside-selfridges-dept-store/
7.http://www.associatedcontent.com...
8.http://www.gallup.com...
9.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ournamestoolong

Pro

Thank you for a speedy reply

"But is that good for society? Does that not mean less jobs for people in China? At the end of the day fitting basic needs such as food and shelter is the core essence of Society. With 23.45 million people [1] in China below the poverty should animal rights come before basic human rights. It seems that PETA's aim in preventing the fur trade ruin lives instead of helping better society."

That would be a valid argument, if the jobs wouldn't be able to be replaced with the production of artificial fur. This would provide the majority of the people job opportunities.

"PETA are well known for killing animals which other animal rights organizations would consider adoptable. This animals are not being tortured or killed they are in the care of the PETA organization! Based on official figures out of all the animals PETA gets 96% of all these animals are put down. PETA have put that down to the poor health of the animals but then how come other shelters/animal groups who take in animals have a lower euthanasia rate? With the euthanasia rate of the RSPCA being only 8% [2]. Is it not hypocritical of PETA to kill so many animals instead of giving them a second chance?"

I'm sorry, but your statistics are wrong. (http://www.petakillsanimals.com...) on page 3 it clearly states that PETA returned 7525 animals back to their owners, while euthanizing 2369.

"For instance the 2 things the PETA are violently against (fur and animal drug testing) the American people seem to disagree with. In a Gallup poll 61% thought it was alright to buy clothes and wear clothes made of fur up 7% from 2008 [8]! "

I believe the American people are misinformed about the fur trade, and perceive it as ethical.

"So what effect is PETA having on the fur trade? PETA started its action against the Chinese Fur farms in 2008 [9] its shock campaign it seems did not work and the only effect it has had is putting terrible images of animals dying on the internet! Is this ethical? To such brutal images of dying animals on the internet?"

I have already listed PETA's accomplishments above.

Thank you for reading.
Kirkland

Con

'That would be a valid argument, if the jobs wouldn't be able to be replaced with the production of artificial fur. This would provide the majority of the people job opportunities. '
It would ruin a way of life many of these people have been doing that job for their whole life its all they know and have skills for. Yes it can be replaced by artificial fur but what about the families who's whole tradition and history is based around the fur farms.

'I'm sorry, but your statistics are wrong. (http://www.petakillsanimals.com......) on page 3 it clearly states that PETA returned 7525 animals back to their owners, while euthanizing 2369. '
Firstly I said adoptable animals not ones given back to owners. My statistics come from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services whom PETA are obliged to submit all their statistics to. But if that is not a secure enough source for you I'll use the very web site you have used on petakillsanimals.com in an article it said and I quote "PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year.� During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets."[1]

I will take that further in the very same article it gives a further account of statistics of Euthanasia with regards to PETA the lowest percentage of Euthanasia is in 1998 with 72.6% being killed. Surely this proves that from the start PETA have been killing more than what any reasonable person would call ethical! I was not talking about owners reclaiming animals as in those cases its obvious that they would not be euthanize. If my dog runs away I am going to want it back and I would likely go look at the shelters. What I was talking about were the animals not claimed the ones that PETA needs to find a home for but instead of doing that cost cut and fall back to euthanasia. Surely PETA in this case in particular lack compassion when shelters such as the SPCA in San Fransisco( who don't kill any animal unless fatally sick)[2] are the ones leading the ethical treatment of animals and not an organization such as PETA who kill 95% of adoptable animals.

"
I believe the American people are misinformed about the fur trade, and perceive it as ethical. "
Well then PETA's grand campaign which you were proclaiming a while back as effective is ineffective!

"I have already listed PETA's accomplishments above.
"
I don't recall any accomplishments apart from getting a few celebrities not to wear fur! But as my poll shows it has no affect on mainstream society who are still for fur not against. The support for the Ethical treatment of animals can surely not be accredited to PETA when you think about how many groups there are out there trying to protect animals. As far as I can see PETA's accomplishments are lacking and their contribution is more of a burden to society.
1.http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
2.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ournamestoolong

Pro

I thank my oppnent for a good debate.

"It would ruin a way of life many of these people have been doing that job for their whole life its all they know and have skills for. Yes it can be replaced by artificial fur but what about the families who's whole tradition and history is based around the fur farms."

I believe there is always a chance to learn a new profitable skill.

Firstly I said adoptable animals not ones given back to owners. My statistics come from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services whom PETA are obliged to submit all their statistics to. But if that is not a secure enough source for you I'll use the very web site you have used on petakillsanimals.com in an article it said and I quote PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.[1]"

The source from the website that "backs up" their stats is the same source I gave.

" will take that further in the very same article it gives a further account of statistics of Euthanasia with regards to PETA the lowest percentage of Euthanasia is in 1998 with 72.6% being killed. Surely this proves that from the start PETA have been killing more than what any reasonable person would call ethical!"

The numbers do not support that.

"I was not talking about owners reclaiming animals as in those cases its obvious that they would not be euthanize. If my dog runs away I am going to want it back and I would likely go look at the shelters."

But it is impossible to tell what dogs were thrown on to the street and what dogs ran away.

"What I was talking about were the animals not claimed the ones that PETA needs to find a home for but instead of doing that cost cut and fall back to euthanasia."

Since when was it PETA's fault that people aren't adopting animals from them. Many people go to local shelters before going to PETA.

"Surely PETA in this case in particular lack compassion when shelters such as the SPCA in San Fransisco( who don't kill any animal unless fatally sick)[2] are the ones leading the ethical treatment of animals and not an organization such as PETA who kill 95% of adoptable animals."

Again, the data simply doesn't support this.

"I don't recall any accomplishments apart from getting a few celebrities not to wear fur! But as my poll shows it has no affect on mainstream society who are still for fur not against. The support for the Ethical treatment of animals can surely not be accredited to PETA when you think about how many groups there are out there trying to protect animals. As far as I can see PETA's accomplishments are lacking and their contribution is more of a burden to society."

PETA hasn't just gotten celebrites to stop using fur, they've got companies to stop using it. As i've stated before, this hurts the fur trade.

Thank you for reading.
Kirkland

Con

"I believe there is always a chance to learn a new profitable skill. "
So for the rural society in China its better that they just ditch the job which has supported their families for years? Society is based around humans not animals and in Society shouldn't peoples livelihoods come before ethical treatment?

"The source from the website that "backs up" their stats is the same source I gave. "
Yes but the fact is what you were pointing to were animals given back to their owners not adoptable animals.

"The numbers do not support that. "
It was shown in my source the numbers do support that remember like I have said before its adoptable animals not the ones taken by their owners. Peta call their shelters 'true safe haven for lost, injured, abused, and unwanted animals ' surely there contempt for the animals lives they look after shows that they are hypocritical another reason why they are negative towards society. [1]

"But it is impossible to tell what dogs were thrown on to the street and what dogs ran away. "
Name tags, Microchips and owners coming to claim their dogs. There is a holding period which Shelters have such as 6 days in California [2]. When talking about adoptable animals it is meant after the animals that have name tags,microchips and gone through a holding period.

"Since when was it PETA's fault that people aren't adopting animals from them. Many people go to local shelters before going to PETA."
There are many no-kill shelters who are smaller and well less known that PETA most people will not of heard about for example Seal Beach Animal Care Center [3] or project purr![4] Yet they don't put any animals down and still manage to find homes even while being less well know than PETA!

"Again, the data simply doesn't support this. "
The data does support this and I'll give you several links showing that PETA kills at least 97% of adoptable animals [5][6][7][8]. Even if this is not true they surely kill animals while the no-kill shelters kill none and instead provide a good Shelter for animals. Which one is more ethical giving shelter to an animal or putting it down because you don't want to pay to shelter the animal?

"PETA hasn't just gotten celebrites to stop using fur, they've got companies to stop using it. As i've stated before, this hurts the fur trade. "
None of which matters when there are companies out there which take their places! If people don't think its wrong then they will just buy it from another company. Its not hurting the fur trade at all it merely means the fur is being monopolized.

PETA throughout this debate have been proven bad for Society in general Ethical treatment for animals is only a small part of society and even at that they failed! Lets look at the facts without animal testing we would not have many of the treatments for cancer we would be in a society 50 years in the past. PETA if they had their way would have no testing on animals and that would mean that future medicines would be hard to test unless tested on the humans in society leading to deaths of many important figures in society! Any reasonable person would see this is a negative in society. Fur is still a thriving business with many in poverty like situations having fur as an important income. Without that needless people could die in places such as China where there is no benefits for the unemployed. Again any reasonable person would see this is a negative towards society.

Through this whole debate I have proven that PETA does not have any positive impact in general over society and even that its own moral ethical treatment for animals is flawed. PETA may stand for the people for ethical treatment of animals but maybe they should consider calling themselves Pretend Ethics Totally Abused.

Finally Society is about humans but when PETA's leader Newkirk says that "the world would be a better place without people."[9] Then it seems that PETA is against society and instead would prefer the destruction of Society this surely proves that PETA once and for all is bad for Society

Thank You for the open and great debate.

1.http://www.peta.org...
2.http://www.examiner.com...
3.http://www.sbacc.org...
4.http://www.projectpurr.org...
5.http://www.dogpolitics.com...
6.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...
7.http://www.doggienews.com...
8.http://www.itchmo.com...
9.http://www.sfgate.com...
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rubberelephant 7 years ago
rubberelephant
go away bongman and stop stalking me
Posted by BongMan 7 years ago
BongMan
How nice......sigh....
Posted by YourMamIsBack 7 years ago
YourMamIsBack
my thoughst exactly elephant
Posted by rubberelephant 7 years ago
rubberelephant
this was honestly thrilling guys congrats on making life boring
Posted by Chuckles 7 years ago
Chuckles
"PETA bread in Generals" is the single greatest threat to our nation's armed forces today. The bread expands in their stomachs and leads to gastrointestinal discomfort.
Posted by Kirkland 7 years ago
Kirkland
It gives us something to laugh about :D :D but yeah I have always been of the opinion that Peta have no positive effect on society.
Posted by crushilista 7 years ago
crushilista
I really fail to see how a person screaming at people, or wearing random chicken suits and acting like their being murdered really has a positive effect.
Posted by Kirkland 7 years ago
Kirkland
HEHE you can always mention it in the last round:) Been a great debate hopefully a great last round too:)
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
$%#! I forgot about medical testing!
Posted by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
The whole show is about some Vigilante Europeans chasing after the Japanese Whalers because they feel bad for the whales or some nonsense and that it violates international law. The Japanese say they are doing research as a cover, but they are really killing whales to sell as meat. Animal Planet portrays the whalers as terrorists lol.

I am on the Japanese side though. I love it when the Europeans watch the whales get harpooned and start crying hahah. The Japanese sell the whale meat in Japan to willing customers. The Europeans are insensitive of other cultures.

It is on Friday nights. You can google Whale Wars if you want some more info.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
ournamestoolongKirklandTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: pro put out a convincing arugmethat animsla sohuld be respected
Vote Placed by crushilista 7 years ago
crushilista
ournamestoolongKirklandTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
ournamestoolongKirklandTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01