The Instigator
VbPeppermint
Pro (for)
Winning
54 Points
The Contender
Harlan
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points

PETA is a scam for money.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 12/1/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,445 times Debate No: 131
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (30)

 

VbPeppermint

Pro

PETA was invented as a scam for people who don't eat meat. They donate their wallets to PETA while PETA stands by doing nothing and KILLING animals rather than saving them. They film videos of themselves killing baby animals and such and claim it is the government doing it.
Harlan

Con

I thought about this one, and decided to go head and accept. This theory can easily be disproved.

First of all, PETA is nonprofit, so the whole idea that it is a "scam" that you are revolving around is untrue.

Why would they kill animals, if there was nothing to gain? PETA is run by people who really do want to make these reforms to such things. Could you please back that up, or specify what video you are talking about? Do you deny that the things in the video ARE how animals are treated, for it is all fact? So if it is all true, what would be the point in staging the video?

These conspiracy theories get really exhausting. One person starts it by making some wild far-fetched claim, with no facts to back it, and a bunch of people childishly and readily believe them, just because it makes the world seem that much more exciting. Have you heard of Occam's razor? The simplest answer is usually right. The simplest answer happens to be that PETA is just what it appears to be, an organization of people for the ethical treatment of animals. Sorry, to break it to you. Life is not a novel, it is not always exciting. A world in which the strange answer was usually right, would be a fiction book, not the real world.
Debate Round No. 1
VbPeppermint

Pro

Here is one of many videos where PETA goes against their name.

1. "First of all, PETA is nonprofit, so the whole idea that it is a "scam" that you are revolving around is untrue."

Well its plain and simple: people love animals. Of course they will dump their wages into PETA, they don't want to see little baby chimpanzees being slaughtered

2. "Why would they kill animals, if there was nothing to gain?"

They might actually put some insurance on the animals they kill from the people's donations they may receive, and kill them. This creates the illusion that they actually considered if they got into an 'accident' and got insurance for those animals. That is a very good question, thought provoking indeed although some of it isn't even about why they do.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com...
Walk-in freezer? Now I wonder why PETA would need that. A senseless killing chamber, perhaps?

3. "So if it is all true, what would be the point in staging the video?"

Its surprising to find that a lot of the videos that contain beating animals to death with or without a weapon were actually produced by PETA. Its to shock sensitive animal sympathizers that can't really do anything directly so they try to 'help' save animals with money alone.

For those who actually go out and do something to 'save' animals PETA set up a problem, probably what the walk-in freezer is for: to dump animal carcasses and spread them in a concentrated area to create an illusion that there has been animal cruelty there. Just look at this.

http://news.bestfriends.org...

4. "These conspiracy theories get really exhausting..."

We are talking about PETA and their scam for money, not about life's excitement or comparing life to a novel. I must say, the last paragraph almost seems like a personal attack as an arsenal in this debate. It feels as if you are trying to make me feel bad for claiming that PETA is a scam and pushing me off the edge of the debate. Well you are mistaken, I remain a PRO for this.
Harlan

Con

Harlan forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
VbPeppermint

Pro

VbPeppermint forfeited this round.
Harlan

Con

I am afraid that I am unable to access that video, as it requires the viewer to log on to a you-tube account as a member over the age of 18, which is impossible for me, being 13. Maybe you could describe it?

"Of course they will dump their wages into PETA, they don't want to see little baby chimpanzees being slaughtered"

What part of "non-profit" do you not understand, you completely dodged my point. I shall repeat, PETA is non-profit, meaning no profit made, meaning no personal gain, and proving WITHOUT A DOUBT that the idea of "PETA is a scam for money", being completely untrue. You CANNOT refute this, PETA is non-profit; no individuals make money off of the PETA organization.

The insurance idea is, too, moot, because any insurance received would go to the Non-profit PETA organization, who would spend it all on other things (such as $9,370 dollar walk-in freezers)

"Walk-in freezer? Now I wonder why PETA would need that. A senseless killing chamber, perhaps?"

Hmmm….Where shall I even start? First off, buying a $9370 freezer would be a largely impractical device for killing. There are many extremely cheap ways to kill someone and to spend $9370 dollars would be truly "senseless". Also, if you had read the article you provided in more length you would have read this:

"PETA euthanizes animals by lethal injection, which it considers more humane than gassing groups of animals, as poor counties are forced to do, O'Brien said"

They do not use walk-in freezers for euthanasia, they use lethal injections. Now to the question of it's purpose, it could be many things. One such possibility is to hold dog-food. Another possibility is it is used to hold the bodies of the euthanized animals. The latter is the more probable. One thing we can reasonably assume that it is not, is a "senseless killing chamber".

"Its surprising to find that a lot of the videos that contain beating animals to death with or without a weapon were actually produced by PETA. Its to shock sensitive animal sympathizers that can't really do anything directly so they try to 'help' save animals with money alone."

You made a grammatical error, you should have said "It WOULD BE surprising IF we found that a lot of the…" It certainly WOULD be surprising to "find" that, but we haven't found that, you have provided no evidence to support yourself.

"For those who actually go out and do something to 'save' animals PETA set up a problem, probably what the walk-in freezer is for: to dump animal carcasses and spread them in a concentrated area to create an illusion that there has been animal cruelty there"

Once more, there would be absolutely no point. Why would they create this complicated grand scheme, that would give them absolutely no personal gain in any way at all. They are non-profit.

My last paragraph was not attacking you, it was merely reflecting upon how these conspiracies get passed around with absolutely no fact to back them up. I was making a valid point, in fact. WE MUST consider Occam's razor. You have made an overly complex answer to these possibilities. Or, as it would be phrased in the context of Occam's Razor, you have unnecessarily factored in to many entities, when the vastly more probable answer is otherwise.

You have yet to give facts that prove that PETA is a scam for money, but I, though, have prov ed you're argument wrong, irrefutably, because PETA is nonprofit.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Harlan 7 years ago
Harlan
They have revenue but not profit. There is a clear distinction there. They collect money, but they ONLY use it for business expenses, not personal gain. None of it goes into their own pockets. That is how a non-profit organization works.
Posted by chihiro 7 years ago
chihiro
If peta is non-profit then how did they get the money for the freezer and other expenses?Free money from the govt?
Posted by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
dipsh1ts im way better than u all so hurry up and worship me
Posted by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
"chill nigga bros" hippos and pots and chikcen fries
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Just because you won doesn't mean you debated well, lets just clear that up. You won because so many people dislike peta. I am free to post new information if I please. I am not debating, I am commenting.

Also, nobody hates you. Don't be so sensitive.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Chill, peppermint.

I didn't add any new info not already adressed in a debate.

I could care less who gets more votes...winning doesn't really matter so much...but you have my congratulations, sir

I asked what you did not understand of non-profit, in the debate above, because you neglected to adress the point; the point that mattered most in this debate.

I do not hate you, and I don't think any one else here, does.

The somments forum is for discussing the debate and the outcome of the debate.

"Why are people voting for him?" was a question and nothing more...I have the right to ask questions to attain information. The question was not an attack on you, or even talking to you, so don't freak out, peppermint.
Posted by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
harlan may or may not be too stubborn to win a debate
"what part of non-profit do you not understand"
Posted by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
I already won the debate, so stop adding additional information! It is for another debate... unless you want a rematch, harlan. Overall I see many people of various sorts are not being very nice with their comments. "How is Pro winning????" I don't think thats a very intelligent argument. "Why are you people voting for him?" all I am doing is supporting my ideas. Because I have more votes I guess my argument was better supported and was loaded with information and my rebuttals as well.

But I still don't get why people hate me for no reason. Nice world we live in.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
How is Pro winning????

Probably because so many people hate PETA, well guys, I'm here to tell you that PETA has actually never done anything against animals or blown anything up! The radical animal rights group that did that is not even associated with PETA.

I am a member of PETA and though I agree some forms of protest hinder the progress of the cause, PETA has done a lot to raise awareness about animal rights.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Where was that? fbsakdfbwisbfasbfohsa
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jsonn5 9 years ago
jsonn5
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by artC 9 years ago
artC
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by clydefrog13 9 years ago
clydefrog13
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gogott 9 years ago
gogott
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
VbPeppermintHarlanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30