The Instigator
brendizzle29
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
gdaysamantha
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 3 votes the winner is...
brendizzle29
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,946 times Debate No: 6990
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

brendizzle29

Con

Yes, PETA needs to exist. We need an American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an ASPCA if you will. Oh wait, we already have one and it's called exactly that. What is PETA's purpose then?

Is it fear-mongering? It certainly seems that way considering the fact that PETA has comparing making leather handbags to the Holocaust. How could we not have seen the connection between purses and the death of 11 million people in concentration camps?

Is it to accomplish their goals by ANY means necessary? PETA has allied themselves with the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, both of which have been labeled "special interest extremist groups" by the Counterterrorism Department of the US government.

Is it to kill animals? In 2004 and 2005 alone, PETA personally had over 4000 animals euthanized. They even rescued over 30 animals from a research facility, only to have them euthanized.

Why should anyone support such a corrupt organization?
gdaysamantha

Pro

Yes, PETA needs to exist. We need an American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an ASPCA if you will. Oh wait, we already have one and it's called exactly that. What is PETA's purpose then?

- Simple. ASPCA is about protecting PETS and DOMESTICATED animals. PETA would be about protecting ALL animals. So having PETA, is basically our American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ALL Animals. ASPCA is an Animal Welfare organization and PETA is an Animal Rights organization.

Animal Rights opposes products and uses for animals. Meat, milk, fur, circus animals, zoos, ect.

Is it to kill animals? In 2004 and 2005 alone, PETA personally had over 4000 animals euthanized. They even rescued over 30 animals from a research facility, only to have them euthanized.

- Where did you get this statistic ? Are you aware that euthanized means -
1. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.
2. A quiet, painless death.

Do you consider this cruel ? Is it not possible that the animals they "rescued" could possibly be suffering. It is cruel to let an animal live who is in pain, do you not agree ?

Why should anyone support such a corrupt organization?
- PETA basically focuses on factory farms, laboratories, the fur trade, and the entertainment industry. And like I said they are a group for ALL animals including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" and the abuse of dogs. Someone should support them if they are obviously against cruelty towards animals.
Debate Round No. 1
brendizzle29

Con

"- Simple. ASPCA is about protecting PETS and DOMESTICATED animals."

I find extremely odd that you say that because on ASPCA's own website, their purpose is cited as being, "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States." No mention of only pets. So unless you are accusing ASPCA of lying about their own purpose, then this point is no longer valid.

"- Where did you get this statistic ? Are you aware that euthanized means -
1. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment."

I got this statistic from MSNBC. Nice attempt to attack me on lack of sources when you also have cited none.

"Do you consider this cruel ? Is it not possible that the animals they "rescued" could possibly be suffering. It is cruel to let an animal live who is in pain, do you not agree ?"

Considering that also according to MSNBC, PETA members involved in this euthanization were charged with cruelty to animals (under laws that were created as a result of the work of ASPCA) I'd say I do consider this cruel. Futhermore, PETA stated their own purpose for this and many other euthanizations not being able to find room for them with various shelters (also known for euthanasia of healthy animals) or members. They never mentioned that these animals were suffering so this argument is also null and void. In addition, PETA has in numerous instances advocated euthanasia for animals that zoos were releasing back into their natural habitats. Please explain to me how freedom is, according to your definition, "a terminal illness or an incurable condition".

"Someone should support them if they are obviously against cruelty towards animals."

A few things on this one. First, with this statement, you accuse key animal rights activists of not being against cruelty to animals. This is because both The Center for Consumer Freedom and Fox News report that key animal activists disagree with PETA. Second, you say we should support PETA but never refute that they are a corrupt organization. According to this, we should support any organization that says it has a good cause, not matter how corrupt it is. Want someone brought to justice? Why not round up a group of vigilantes? A corrupt organization is corrupt no matter what their purpose is. We should never support corruption. Third, as I've shown previously, the American judicial system feels that even PETA's own members aren't always against cruelty to animals.

Additionally, you never refuted the fact that PETA uses fear-mongering or any other means they deem necessary to accomplish their goals, meaning that according to the traditional rules of debate you agree with these points completely and can no longer address them. To elaborate on these points, some have even gone as far as to call PETA a terrorist group. Looking at some of PETA's actions, it is not very hard to see why. According to Fox News, PETA shipped a 1,500 dollar gift to the Earth Liberation Front shortly after this group was found guilty of terrorism. A more example, however, can be found in the trial of a man by the name of Rodney Coronado. Coronado was found guilty of burning a research facility to the ground. What does this have to do with PETA, you may ask? US Attorney Michael Dettmer presented evidence during the trial that Coronado was working closely with PETA on the planning of the arson. Furthermore, PETA member Bruce Friedrich had this to say, "I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." Why do you still defend this organization?

This is not a debate about animal rights. If it were, I would without hesitation argue in affirmation. This is a debate why an animal-killing, fear-mongering, corrupt organization merits our support.
gdaysamantha

Pro

"-I find extremely odd that you say that because on ASPCA's own website, their purpose is cited as being, "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States." No mention of only pets. So unless you are accusing ASPCA of lying about their own purpose, then this point is no longer valid."

Are you aware that on ASPCA's website, on the front page it says "Together we'll work to end animal cruelty and find loving homes for all adoptable pets." The key words here are adoptable pets, which are pets and domesticated animals. Also at the top you will find a link to their adoptable pets, which are cat and dog. So as you see this point is vaild, because if you look beyond the simple headline "to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States" you will see that ASPCA is about protecting pets and domesticated animals.

"-I got this statistic from MSNBC. Nice attempt to attack me on lack of sources when you also have cited none."

In your first argument you also failed to cite your sources also, so since you brought it up in your second arguement, I find it fair that I should also. I got the definiton from my first arguement from(http://dictionary.reference.com...)

"-Additionally, you never refuted the fact that PETA uses fear-mongering or any other means they deem necessary to accomplish their goals, meaning that according to the traditional rules of debate you agree with these points completely and can no longer address them. "

Can you tell me where on this site or anywhere else there are rules for debates on debate.org ? I was not aware of this, however, I would like to say that that PETA does not influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. To me their campagins seem to have a great strategy, and effective. Being overdramatic can help get the word out and show people what is really happening to these animals that are put up to animal cruelty. Additonaly, with the " Holocaust on Your Plate " advertisement, PETA clearly apologized saying "When "Holocaust on Your Plate" was originally launched, we knew that it would be emotionally charged and intellectually provocative. Even if we had used more conventional tactics, people don't like to have it pointed out to them that they�re causing unnecessary pain and suffering by eating meat. We did aim to be provocative. We did not, however, aim simply to provoke" As stated on israelinsider.com.

"-Furthermore, PETA member Bruce Friedrich had this to say, "I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it." Why do you still defend this organization?"

Wow it's sad to see someone take somebody elses words and completley twist them, the actual quote is "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. "
— Bruce Friedrich
To people reading this debate Bruce Friedrich is PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, and said this at the "Animal Rights 2001" conference. Why my opponet used this in their arguement I am unsure.
Debate Round No. 2
brendizzle29

Con

"Are you aware that on ASPCA's website, on the front page it says 'Together we'll work to end animal cruelty and find loving homes for all adoptable pets.'"

Yes, I am aware of this. In fact, I am even aware of the full quote: "Your renewed membership today will serve as a tangible act of defiance against those who abuse animals...and an act of love for all the animals on the streets tonight. Together we'll work to end animal cruelty and find loving homes for all adoptable pets." And the quote that I cited is what ASPCA states as their purpose so this is not a simple headline, not matter what you say. If anything, what you said is a simple headline. Yes, the focus primarily on pets, but most laws against cruelty to animals in the US came as a result of ASPCA's actions. So once again, your point is invalid. They still advocate rights for ALL animals.

"Can you tell me where on this site or anywhere else there are rules for debates on debate.org ? I was not aware of this, however, I would like to say that that PETA does not influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. To me their campagins seem to have a great strategy, and effective. Being overdramatic can help get the word out and show people what is really happening to these animals that are put up to animal cruelty."

I was actually referring to national debate rules organized for fair competition and debate. Rules of the National Forensics League and Pi Kappa Delta, which as an NFL debater yourself, you should have been well aware of and should follow unless you are advocating that we through out rules that have been established as necessary to fair debate. As for them having a great strategy, they do certain do grab people's attention. So if you take all ethics and morality out of it and don't care how many human deaths you compare to a leather purse or chicken sandwich, then this is a good strategy. I guess I'm just insane for believing that every word and action should be governed by morality.

"Additonaly, with the " Holocaust on Your Plate " advertisement, PETA clearly apologized saying "When "Holocaust on Your Plate" was originally launched, we knew that it would be emotionally charged and intellectually provocative. Even if we had used more conventional tactics, people don't like to have it pointed out to them that they�re causing unnecessary pain and suffering by eating meat. We did aim to be provocative. We did not, however, aim simply to provoke"

Yes, they apologized for one of two Holocaust campaigns launched around the same time, the other of which compared farm animals to the Gestapo rounding up Jews and sending them to concentration camps. They apologized for one out of two horrific comparisons.

"Wow it's sad to see someone take somebody elses words and completley twist them, the actual quote is "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. "
— Bruce Friedrich
To people reading this debate Bruce Friedrich is PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, and said this at the "Animal Rights 2001" conference. Why my opponet used this in their arguement I am unsure."

I'm sorry if I you were offended that I the quote I cited said he approved of only blowing up one building instead of many. Thank you for helping my case by showing that a key member of member of PETA, someone they have allowed to rise to power in their organization, supports destroying property of others instead of more peaceful methods. Many people of tremendous moral stature that sought to change the world acknowledged that it would be immoral to bring the change about through violence. Gandhi. Martin Luther King, Junior. Susan B. Anthony. Jesus Christ. So if you believe that these people were wrong about morality, it is perfectly acceptable to do what Friedrich encourages us to do. If you believe, as I do and most of the world does, that these individuals were incredibly moral, then Friedrich's stance is repulsive. This is precisely why I brought up this quote, to show how radical and immoral some of PETA's words and actions are.

Because I advocate morality, not committing felonies, fighting corruption, not freeing animals only to kill them, and using peaceful methods to accomplish my goals, I can not and will not ever support PETA or any other organization that uses similar tactics. Anyone that believes in these same basic principles should also not give their support to this organization. If we seek to be moral members of society, we can never use fear or violence to accomplish our goals. I have shown you how PETA does just the opposite.

No matter how the voting goes, I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and hope that even if I have changed no one's mind about PETA, I have shown them that everything we do ought to be moral. Thank you.
gdaysamantha

Pro

I would like to thank my opponet, for this has been a very eye opening debate. Let's just sum up what's happened and clear the slate, I will refute a last argument and bring into final focus the reason you should vote in affirmation of this resolution.

"-Thank you for helping my case by showing that a key member of member of PETA, someone they have allowed to rise to power in their organization, supports destroying property of others instead of more peaceful methods."

Do you not find Bruce's whole quote to be shown as figuratively? "as a movement blowing things up" figuratlvey, that could be said as making an effort to promote PETA in stoping animal cruelty, such as their campagin strategy.

'Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don't always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don't use humans as slaves, don't sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior.' In all honesty, we should support PETA because they are another group working towards animals cruelty. The postive affects from PETA heavily outweighs those of the negative.

Thank you too everyone who has read this debate, and have a good night, day, weekend, whatever.
Till next this is "gdaysamantha" signing off.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
Yeah, I am happy
Posted by brendizzle29 8 years ago
brendizzle29
We tied.
Posted by Amphibian 8 years ago
Amphibian
We are only animals ourselves and are no more accountable for our actions than is any other living thing.
Posted by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
hahaha nice
Posted by brendizzle29 8 years ago
brendizzle29
We should debate on the other PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.
Posted by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
me too
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 8 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
i think animals tast good!
Posted by brendizzle29 8 years ago
brendizzle29
You completely ignored the issue of morality by the way.
Posted by gregthedestroyer 8 years ago
gregthedestroyer
ha ya. arent we all lame. you should win this.
Posted by gdaysamantha 8 years ago
gdaysamantha
haha Greg, yeah and if I do win this debate I'm gunna be happy cause I never knew about any of the alliegations toward PETA, haha and im researching. Brendons going down,underground,uptown,round and round, wow I'm lame but I like to ryhme D;
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by EmyG 8 years ago
EmyG
brendizzle29gdaysamanthaTied
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 saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
brendizzle29gdaysamanthaTied
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 brendizzle29 8 years ago
brendizzle29
brendizzle29gdaysamanthaTied
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