The Instigator
The_adroit_inept_one
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points
The Contender
TheIntellectualDevotional
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

PETA is, as an organizatioon, not good.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 9 votes the winner is...
The_adroit_inept_one
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,736 times Debate No: 10693
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (9)

 

The_adroit_inept_one

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank the intellectual devotional for taking this debate.

First, I would like to define "good" as the following: right; proper.

Point One – PETA doesn't treat animals well.
The "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" treat animals anything BUT ethically. For example, they have killed over 20,000 overall [1]. Not to ignore the fact that in 2008, PETA took in over 2000 animals. They found homes for 7, and the rest were euthanized [1]. This shows that PETA, which has over 25 MILLION dollars in annual "income," [2] would rather kill animals, as opposed to finding them homes. And it's also impossible to say that PETA can't find homes for these animals, as a much smaller adoption agency (the Virginia Beach SPCA), which is just 5 miles from their Norfolk Headquarters had an adoption rate of 67% in 2007. And it's also impossible to say that this is an isolated incident in a group that largely does good deeds in the world.

Point Two – PETA doesn't even bury the animal's bodies.
In an animal cruelty case against two PETA employees, the two were accused of asking for healthy dogs from other animal adoption agencies and then later that day dropping the corpse's of 18 (on a side note, there were 13 more in the van) healthy dogs and puppies (the corpses were also in plastic bags) in a shopping center trash bin, after killing them. Both the police and the workers at the other adoption agencies testified against PETA at the case. . Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's head, said it's against the group's policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but "that for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than euthanasia." This shows that this… slaughtering of animals is part of the companies' policy.
This is not "ethical" at all, and shows PETA's blatant lack of respect toward animals.

Point Three – PETA could become a no-kill shelter immediately, but chooses not to.
In 2000, Ingrid Newkirk said "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately." [3]. Also, PETA has a walk in refrigerator that a PETA manager testified (under oath) was for storing animal corpses until they are shipped off to a crematorium (the fact that PETA had a contract with a crematorium is shown by the following quote from Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA's research and investigations department, "We had a contract with Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater.")

Point Four – PETA funds criminals
PETA has donated over 150,000$ to criminal activists convicted of arson, burglary, and attempted murder [4]. In 2001, PETA donated 1,500$ to the North American Earth Liberation Front, which is an organization which the FBI classifies as domestic terrorists. Also, since 2000 alone, over 80 PETA activists have been arrested for breaking laws during PETA protests. The reasons include all of the fallowing: Felony obstruction of government property, criminal mischief, assaulting a cabinet official, felony vandalism, performing obscene acts in public, destruction of federal property, and burglary.

A summary of my arguments
Argument 1 – PETA treats animals horribly, as shown by how many animals they kill.
Argument 2 – PETA treats the animals corpses disgracefully
Argument 3 – PETA could save these animals, but choose not to
Argument 4 – PETA gives money to both criminals and criminal organizations.
1 = http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
2 = http://www.peta.org...
3 = http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
4 = http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
TheIntellectualDevotional

Con

First I would like to thank The_adroit_inept_one for this debate.

First, I would like to question my opponent's definition of good. Good, as defined by Merriam Webster, is "of a favorable character or tendency." [1]

Rebuttal:

1.) In 2008 we were at the peak of a recession. Most people weren't adopting dogs. Also who isn't to say that these animals were not old, sick, aggressive, etc. Not to mention that the animals could have been animals that people do not have as house pets. Such as a horse or pig. Also what if the adoption agencies hap more adoptable animals. Young, healthy, docile, etc. In this statement, my opponent also made the false claim that PETA would kill as opposed to find homes for these animals. With this false (and quite exaggerated) claim, he also mentioned that PETA has many supporters. This is true, but means nothing other than the fact that many people agree with their cause.

2.) An entire organization cannot be judged by the cruel behavior of some of its employees. I also believe that my opponent has misinterpreted Mr. Newkirks response. He is in fact against what those people have done, and he said "there is no kinder option than euthanasia." which sadly be true. As I stated in my argument above, a major chunk of the animals are sick and old. In some truly erroneous cases, euthanasia is the kindest option. If an animal is dying a slow painful death, would you rather they be tortured or quickly, painlessly killed?

3.) No kill shelters are incredibly hard to maintain and are in constant danger of closing. Many no kill shelters either have or have come very close to closing. The amount of animals increase and increase and if you can't balance the adoption rate with the incoming animal rate, it begins to pile up. Furthermore, the fact that PETA has a walk in refrigerator and has had a deal Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater, proves noting more than the fact that animals die and must be treated with respect in death. I have no problem whatsoever with cremation for, I find it no less humane than being dropped in a hole, which my opponent seems to think is better.

4.) First off, the North American Earth Liberation Front, tries to protect the environment. Their means not justified, but they do mean well. Secondly, protests are known to get out of hand. Most protests do. Even the nonviolent protests of the sixties got out of hand when the police attacked the people. Also, the convicted crimes are not serious crimes. It is mostly vandalism. All save for assault.

A summary of my opponents refuted arguments:

Argument 1-PETA does not treat animals horribly, they merely euthanize the ones that they cannot save.
Argument 2- PETA tries to treat the animals with as much respect as possible. A few employees cannot show PETA entirely.
Argument 3- They do all that they can to save them.
Argument 4- PETA gives money to radicals. As did Bush, Ford, DuPont, etc.

I would like to finish by drawing attention to all the good that PETA has done. Here is some of their 2008 year review. Since 1998, PETA has built and delivered nearly 4,200 doghouses to needy animals. When we are unable to gain custody of the dogs or persuade their owners to take them inside, we replace heavy chains with light-weight cables and provide properly fitting collars. If the owners will allow it, we build or repair fences so that dogs who have been chained will have room to run. The majority of these dogs are not nearly as lucky as Killian because despite our best efforts, their owners refuse to relinquish them. But we give the animals food, clean water, parasite-prevention treatments, toys, treats, and some desperately needed love and attention in addition to a sturdy doghouse that will shelter them from extreme weather. PETA's clinics have already spayed or neutered more than 48,000 animals, including more than 7,485 surgeries in 2008. PETA's mobile clinics also vaccinate dogs and cats, and our DogDoc mobile clinic treats injuries and provides antibiotics and other medications. Each dog we spay prevents up to 67,000 dogs from being born in just six years. And every cat spayed prevents as many as 420,000 cats from being born in seven years. [2]

Sources:
1=http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2=http://www.peta.org...
Debate Round No. 1
The_adroit_inept_one

Pro

First, I would like to say that his definition of good is in the context of "good news" (that's from Merriam Webster) and, a more agreeable solution to both of us might be another definition from Merriam Webster "Virtuous, right, commendable (which is in the context of a good person, or good conduct).
============================================================================
Rebuttals of rebuttals
1.) Actually, PETA killed 21339 "adoptable dogs, cats, puppies and kittens."[1] Also, it's not an exaggerated claim, otherwise they WOULD. If they couldn't, how would the shelter 4 miles away have a 67% adoption rate while PETA kills an average of 85% of the animals it takes in. Also, where did I say they had many supporters? I said they had a large annual income.

2.) It is not true that "there is no kinder option than euthanasia" because many of these animals were healthy, as shown by the autopsies of the bodies (from the dumping of the corpses, mentioned earlier). Also, where is your source for "a major chunk of the animals are sick and old?" Also, just a small tip, Mrs. Newkirk is a she, not a he.

3.) However, Mrs. Newkirk said they could, did she not? Therefore, seeing as she would most likely have far more information about PETA than either of us, we must trust her opinion. The fact that they have a walk in refrigerator and have a deal with a pet cremation agency shows that they kill animals in such large numbers that they can't even give them individual burials (or burnings, as the case may be).

4.) The North American Liberation Front might think they do good. Overall, they don't, as shown by this website (http://www.elfpressoffice.org...). The website (which is run by the North American Earth Liberation Front) displays how they torched a "slaughterhouse" in Santiago, attacked a Carso cement company, attacked a Carso construction company, sabotaged an Apex drilling site, sabotaged Mainshill drilling vehicles, sabotaged three vehicles in Scotland, torched a Telmex cell phone tower in Mexico State, destroyed construction machinery in Butovo, Russia, torched a bulldozer in Spain, burned two ATM's in Mexico, poured acid on 15 hummers in Portland, toppled a radio station tower in Everett, WA, torched a councilman's truck in Mexico, torched a development water car, vandalized the home of the Bank of America director, sabotaged diggers in Italy, torched a police station in Mexico, burned a paving machine in Mexico, sabotaged 30 Telmex phone in Mexico, torched construction equipment in Mexico, set fire to 5 Telmex phones in Mexico, and burned 7 Telmex phone booths. Also, if I may note, this was all in 2009, while their records go back to 1996 (of deeds like this) [2]. Also, the crimes mentioned earlier (that occurred during the protests) were serious crimes. They were felonies.
============================================================================
A summary of his refuted refutes
Argument 1 - They don't euthanize the ones they can't save, they kill most all the animals regardless of whether they can or can't.
Argument 2- But I must inquire, do you think the van was purchased without notice? At PETA's headquarters? PETA must have been well aware of what was happening.
Argument 3- No they don't.
Argument 4- That doesn't mean "Bush, Ford, DuPont, etc" were good.

Points about quote
Do the numbers from the quote "each dog we spay prevents up to 67,000 dogs from being born in just six years. And every cat spayed prevents as many as 420,000 cats from being born in seven years." take into account that some would die, making it so the progeny would never be born, and the fact that many would die in the litter?

[1]http://www.petakillsanimals.com...
[2] http://www.elfpressoffice.org...
TheIntellectualDevotional

Con

First I would like to thank The_adroit_inept_one for his rebuttals.

Rebuttals:

1.) First I must call into question the validity of my opponents source and then, as a result, his entire argument. His source seems quite questionable. Very similar to those conspiracy theory blogs. One of the reasons for this is a major loophole in the claim. PETA is not an adoption organization. It is a animal rights organization. It is unlikely that they would take in healthy adoptable animals in. Even less likely, euthanize them. As for the supporters/income, I hardly think that PETA is getting that much money from someone who does not support them.

2.) I would like to ask my opponent, in response to his asking my source, where is his source for all of the autopsies? I say again in response to the corpse dumping, a few employees do not represent and entire organization.

3.) Again as with most of the other arguments, I must call into question the validity of "petakillsanimals.com." How do we know if Mrs. Newkirk said that? Also, the Pet Cremation Services of Tidewaters entire message is sensitivity and dignity towards the animals. I am not exactly sure but judging by their website it seems as though they only have individual cremations. [1]

4.) One could argue that these are all good things. You seem to want animal rights just as much as I do, what place are animals treated worse than in slaughterhouses? As for the ELF, these acts were all for the protection of the environment. If you are pro or con environmental protection is a completely separate debate. All I am saying is that their cause is noble. They are radicals, just like PETA. They are willing to do extreme things for the right cause. Almost all, not all, of the crimes committed during the protests, are vandalism. Vandalism is a wide variety of things most of them I do not consider to be a serious crimes because people who commit it usually do not get any jail time. [2]

Summary:

Argument 1-This claim is not supported sufficiently.
Argument 2-Not necessarily. The people could have perhaps (gasp) lied.
Argument 3-As with Argument 1 this claim is not supported sufficiently.
Argument 4-I did not say that they were good, they were not penalized.

Does my opponent mean to say that some would die during the surgery, or during birth? What those numbers mean is that if every animal spayed or neutered doesn't have the offspring, that number of animals is prevented from being born so the variable of the litter does not matter.

Sources:
1=http://www.petcremation.com...
2=http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

I would like to end by thanking my opponent for this debate again, and the viewers for their time, when the voting period arrives, I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
The_adroit_inept_one

Pro

Rebuttals of rebuttals:

1.) Do you have any direct evidence disqualifying it? You can't disprove my source on your gut or feeling that it's questionable. And even if they aren't an adoption organization, they take in animals. What's your source on "It is unlikely that they would take in healthy, adoptable animals in"? And the fact that PETA has a large amount of money was meant to show that they could get the animals they take in adopted, but don't.
2.) An autopsy was performed on one of the dogs, and they found that it was healthy before it was killed. [1] However, PETA must have been aware of the purchase of the van, and most likely its purchase.
3.) See above on your argument that my source in invalid. Provide me a quote on "they only have individual cremations" and I will accept that rebuttal.
4.) What about the assault of a cabinet official? What about the burning of a councilman's car? And not to mention the destruction of federal property and burglary. Also, I would like to mention this quote from http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... "Jail time for repeat offenses or felony charges." The North American Earth Liberation Front fits both.

Summary of rebuttals of rebuttals.

Argument 1 - This claim is supported sufficiently, as you have no ground upon which to dismiss the source.
Argument 2 - The autopsy and the testimonials from the adoption workers show that the people didn't lie.
Argument 3 - The claim was supported sufficiently, as you have no ground upon which to dismiss my claim.
Argument 4 - NAELF committed several serious crimes, as well as repeating the more minor ones.

Point - I meant to inquire whether the number was reached by purely mathematical means (IE: A cat can have X kittens over Y period of time) or if it took the fact that many of the kittens would die, preventing them from having kittens.

http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com...
TheIntellectualDevotional

Con

I would first like to thank The_adroit_inept_one for this debate.

1.) It is true that I cannot fully invalidate my opponents source. However, the "facts," provided by this website seem quite unlikely. For example PETA taking in those animals. This is unlikely because PETA is not a rescue organization. They do help animals when they are in need but really no further than that. At the very least this information is distorted, or my opponent would have provided links to other, more reliable news sources. Also my opponent has no way to verify the claim about their income, as he cannot know why each and every person donated their money.

2.) There are many problems with this argument. One the autopsy was, as stated by my opponent, "one of the dogs," and so cannot necessarily apply to them all. Also this source is questionable, as it is off of a website made up of essays and papers. For the second part of this argument my opponent appears to have made a mistake in the final sentence. "However, PETA must have been aware of the purchase of the van, and most likely its purchase." He said that PETA would have been aware of the purchase twice. What I believe my opponent to have meant was the vans purpose. This, is not necessarily true.

3.) They do not say one way or another. However, I did find this quote "[our mission is] to provide a "sensitive alternative´┐Ż" for pet owners.
We promise to treat your pet with the dignity and respect they deserve." I doubt that their mission would be accomplished through the means that yo are suggesting.

4.) I am not trying to defend ELF, I am simply saying that their mission is a noble one. My opponent can not prove that the individual people had previous offenses.

Summary:

Argument 1- My ground is that the claims do not make sense.
Argument 2- The only source you have for this one is a website of essays and papers, you did not provide any testimonials.
Argument 3- Even if this is true it proves nothing. Especially seeing as the Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater treats all of the animals with respect and dignity.
Argument 4- The wrong things for the right reason.

PETA used purely mathematical means.

I would like to end by thanking my opponent for this debate and the viewers for their time. Now that the voting period has arrived, I urge you to vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I do find that it was sad that the entire Pro was based around a single argument (which was flawed), when there are plenty of examples that can be used. Though the other options are not as "extreme" they are at least true.

Though we also must apply a fail to Con for missing that. And that is part of debating, sometimes (especially with political topics) sources are bias and have a risk of being no good. You have to do your best to get only the good sources, though sometimes you have to take a gamble.
Posted by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
Big time source fail for Pro. Your source is too biased to be acceptable (evidence of bias is below.) I'm rather suprised that Con didn't bother to check the actual numbers that Pro's source was claiming. It took me all of five minutes to track them down and prove they are faulty.

Convincing Arguments: Tie. Pro's arguments were too dependent on a single, obviously biased source while Con's arguments were to simply call the source into question without bothering to even attempt to prove it.

=====
Out of the 9,677 dogs and cats PETA took in for 2008, a full 7,502 were reclaimed by their owners, 7 were adopted out and 34 were given to other agencies. That makes their kill percentage less than 22%... Which is on par with Virginia Beach SPCA's numbers (with just over a 20% kill rate.)

http://www.virginia.gov...

http://www.virginia.gov...
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by spinnerclotho 7 years ago
spinnerclotho
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Vaibanez 7 years ago
Vaibanez
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by ricky78 7 years ago
ricky78
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 7 years ago
daniel_t
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Spunkyasp 7 years ago
Spunkyasp
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by GeorgeCarlinWorshipper 7 years ago
GeorgeCarlinWorshipper
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by The_adroit_inept_one 7 years ago
The_adroit_inept_one
The_adroit_inept_oneTheIntellectualDevotionalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50