The Instigator
Prof.Pingas
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tejretics
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

PETA is idiotic and should be banned.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 91683
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Prof.Pingas

Pro

PETA is full of idiots and should go away. Anyone who disagrees will soon see my side is right. I am not anti-vegan, in fact I think vegans are sensible for caring about animals but PETA is just insane.
tejretics

Con

I accept; Pro's BOP is to show two things: (1) that PETA is "idiotic," and (2) that it should be banned.

Pro has the full BOP to prove #1, but the BOP is even on the issue of #2, so I'll write a brief opening. PETA shouldn't be banned because there should be liberty to do anything that doesn't cause net harm. John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" captures this idea; it holds that the only purpose for which power can be exercised over an unwilling person is when it is done to prevent a net harm. [1, http://plato.stanford.edu...] There's no net harm in this case from PETA. Pro has to prove that such a harm exists, without which a Con vote is necessary.

Note that this does *not* mean I agree with the philosophy of PETA. This merely means I disagree that PETA should be *banned* just because it has controversial views and campaigns for controversial things. Now, Pro might bring some examples of things PETA does which are net harmful, but that doesn't advance their burden, because a counterplan -- to prevent those specific things rather than banning the entire organization -- would allow a Con ballot anyway.

I now turn the debate over to Pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Prof.Pingas

Pro

(Oh no, I never expected for a GOLD rank to come into my debate. Isn't that noob sniping? I will still try my best)
However, PETA has done a large amount of unsavoury things. An example is when two of their members (keep in mind, PETA fully endorsed the two and wanted them to) broke into a backyard and stole a happy, healthy and friendly "pit-bull". They later admitted to putting it to death. This was just a small part of PETA's campaign to hunt down and euthanize "pit-bulls", along with trapping and killing stray AND owned outdoor cats without the owner's permission. PETA has done so many bad things, that there was a bill launched to strip them of the power to euthanize animals.
PETA stealing a dog:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com...
Anti-PETA bill:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com...
As you can see, PETA already has enough evidence to put them in jail, let alone disband them.
tejretics

Con

I agree that PETA's actions were questionable. But I disagree that PETA should be banned as a result.

The bill Pro talks about has already been passed. [1] This bill isn't an "anti-PETA" bill. That's a complete misrepresentation. HB-1381 reduces the existence of high-kill shelters, and such, thus preventing PETA from taking such actions at all. Once PETA doesn't commit such actions, there's no harm in allowing PETA to continue existing. "Stealing a dog" is already illegal, and measures must be taken to prevent that. That doesn't mean banning the entire organization rather than banning a small subset of that organization.

Pro concedes that welfare of animals is good, so I'll go on to a lot of good that PETA has done. PETA was critical in the passing of a bill in India that banned testing of cosmetics on animals. [2] Taiwan's first animal welfare law was passed due to action by PETA. [3] PETA convinced Polo Ralph Lauren to stop using fur. [4] The Ad Council signed a PETA pledge to stop using great apes ~ and later all wild animals ~ in advertisements. [5] PETA also ensured that 4.5 *million* animals were spared from animal testing by the European Chemical Agency. [6]

Imagine the positive impact to animals PETA can continue to have. It's philosophy might be wrong, but laws can always be instituted to prevent extreme measures, while still ensuring a net positive impact to PETA's existence. Without PETA, millions -- or even billions -- of animals would be dead. Don't allow that. Vote Con.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[2] http://www.thehindu.com...
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...
[4] http://designtaxi.com...
[5] http://yubanet.com...
[6] http://www.all-creatures.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Prof.Pingas

Pro

I agree that PETA has done good things for animals and without it, a lot of animals would be dead or suffering. However, PETA has shown that it doesn't want to change. That bill was to restrict PETA from killing animals in THAT state. Shelters nowadays have a no-kill policy and thanks to major efforts, that is coming true very quickly. However, PETA has also kills 98% of its animals and admits to killing perfectly adoptable animals too. PETA has also said that having a pet is not kind to the animals, as they say that "having an animal and expecting love from it is shameful". PETA has also said that, and I quote, "Cats will thrive on a vegan diet". Cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they cannot survive without meat, and PETA continues to say this despite the facts slapping them in their face. This proves that PETA is too ignorant to ever change their cruel ways.
PETA vegan cats:
http://www.peta.org...
Can you see that they are bad? Vote Pro!
tejretics

Con

As I mentioned last round, Pro's burden is to show two things. First, Pro has to show that PETA is "idiotic." Second, Pro has to show that PETA has to be banned. My burden is to negate any one of these things. Insofar as I do that, vote Con.

A) Banning PETA

Pro has two examples of PETA being bad: (1) euthanasia, and (2) feeding cats a vegan diet. Neither of these outweighs the positive effects of PETA on magnitude. As for euthanasia, a strict law restricting animal euthanasia at the federal level will be sufficient, rather than actually banning the entire organization. Next, cats can *survive* without meat ~ it's just better for them to have meat. Sure, it's bad that PETA is making cats vegan, but that pales in comparison to the positive effects. As I demonstrated last round, PETA saves *millions* of animals each year. [1] But PETA has only euthanized 30,000 animals in the past *eleven* years. [2] That's around 2,727 animals killed a year. [3] That means it's a *net* positive of around 4 million animals saved a year (number of animals killed subtracted from number of animals saved). That's a net positive impact.

B) Is PETA idiotic?

Pro offers no evidence whatsoever to suggest that PETA is "idiotic," which is a part of their burden.

For those two reasons, vote Con.

[1] http://www.all-creatures.org...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] Google "30000/11"
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by shawnmccaul22 2 months ago
shawnmccaul22
Prof. Pingas is almost correct about 98% of animals killed in PETA's possession. It is 97. 3% though. You were very close
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
Thanks to DK and Diqiucun_Cunmin for the votes :)
Posted by donald.keller 8 months ago
donald.keller
RFD: So to start, Con establishes BOP. He then goes on to explain that, according to the Harm Principle, unless PETA is causing harm, they should not be banned. Pro claims that PETA has done some bad things, such as breaking and entering someone's property to steal and kill a dog, and killing cats who were owned. This is a strong counter, but the bill being passed kind of negates the harm. If the thing that made them harmful is now gone, Pro loses his argument's strength.

Con brings this up, saying that this only implies you should ban the negative action, but not the group. This depends on whether or not the group continuously followed up on these harms with more harmful actions. If the law was passed, and PETA kept doing more and more illegal actions, than Pro's argument would stand, but he only follows up with "cruel actions." But not illegal actions.

The actions of PETA are, I agree, wrong, and their teachings seem stupid. But stupid and misguided =/= illegal. Ultimately, I need objective harm, not the subjective harm that is stupidity. Pro fulfills his BOP on 1) PETA being idiotic. The "pets are cruel" bit, and the "cats can survive off a vegan diet" arguments work to fulfill that, without response from Con... But the large focus of this was clearly about banning PETA, and I wasn't given the objective harm needed to vote Pro... Con wins arguments. Sources were good on both sides. And I don't vote S&G and Conduct.

Merry freaking Christmas.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 9 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
The 98% figure might better support his argument, but he did not source this, so we don't have enough reason to believe it. Even if true, however, he did not respond to Con's argument that banning the action, rather than the organisation, will suffice.

Pro never successfully rebutted Con's arguments that the good of PETA outweighs the bad, because the scale of the wrongdoings he mentioned are quite small compared to the good that Con mentioned. He did come close to refuting Con's application of the Harm Principle by mentioning the harm that PETA did, but the problem remains that banning their actions, rather than their organisation, will still constitute preventing harm to others and is a viable alternative.

Thus, Con overwhelmingly wins this debate.

Disclosure:
I was asked to vote on this by Con.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 9 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
RFD (Part 1)

Sources:
For sources, although both sides sourced their debate, Pro mainly depended on a blog (along with the PETA site) to source his claims. He did not source many claims that would normally require citation (e.g. the 98% figure, that cats are carnivores). While some of Con's sources (e.g. Huff Post) may only be slightly better than the blog, many of them (e.g. news sites) do not have an obvious axe to grind on the issue, and are thus superior to Pro's sole, biased blog, Also, he at least cites every factual claim that is challengeable, and relies on different sources (which reduces bias).

Arguments:
Unfortunately, Pro committed an error that many beginning debaters make - not focusing on the keywords of the resolution. As Con commented, he has to show that PETA is idiotic. The facts he presented do not support the claim. Stealing and euthanising pets is *cruel*, but they may do so to somehow gain money or the pleasure of killing, not because they're too stupid to know that it's a wrong act. Without knowing the motivation, we can't tell they're idiotic. As for the cats are vegan argument, if it were used to show that PETA is idiotic, one has to show that a non-idiotic person would never say such a thing. Even if cats were carnivores, this doesn't entail that one would be idiotic to suggest feeding them a vegan diet - in fact, PETA did concede that cats aren't naturally carnivores, but provided additional arguments to support their suggestion (which Pro did not address and which do not look, prima facie, idiotic). Thus, he failed to uphold his BOP on the first statement.

On the second statement, he also supplied insufficient arguments to support his suggestion to ban PETA outright. PETA is an international organisation with numerous branches; using their cruel actions in a single state is insufficient to warrant banning PETA as a whole. Con has suggested this, but Pro did not refuted it.
Posted by tejretics 9 months ago
tejretics
lol
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 9 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Tej, you wrote 'it's' instead of 'its' in R2! >:) This must be the first time I've ever seen you make such a slip :P
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 8 months ago
donald.keller
Prof.PingastejreticsTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 9 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Prof.PingastejreticsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments