The Instigator
YoudkMyName
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Peta helps save animals.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,130 times Debate No: 36219
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

YoudkMyName

Con

First round is for acceptance.
Ragnar

Pro

Challenge accepted. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
YoudkMyName

Con

Good Luck. Now for my argument. Last year alone Peta killed 89.4% of it's adoptable dogs and cats. They kill an average of 30 pets per week. In 2012 1,843 pets were recieved, 1,647 were killed. The others were adopted or transferred. In 2007, 2 Peta employees were caught dumping the bodies of dead cats and dogs in dumpsters. Peta claimed that the animals they kill are injured or are too sick to be adopted. The thing is, when evidence was shown during the trial, the animal they killed were considered "adorable and "perfect".
Sources: http://petakillsanimals.com...
Ragnar

Pro

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (henceforth referred to as Peta), does indeed help save animals. The main way they do this is through political rhetoric, to slowly encourage people to give up habits which contribute to inhumane treatment of animals; such as getting people to become vegetarian, thereby saving some animals from the fate of slaughter houses; and discouraging people from wearing fur, thereby saving some animals from being skinned.

They use naked celebrity ad campaigns, to encourage people to become vegetarian. If even one person has made the switch from it, they estimate that saves thousand of animals during that persons lifetime. Among their more notable accomplishments "PETA persuaded Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats had become trapped in the shafts and been burned to death" [1]. In their efforts to encourage people to not eat meat, they even mail out free Vegetarian Starters Kits [2].
Peta saves animals... or helps to at least.

Rebuttals:
Companies like KFC and Outback Steakhouse, fund various smear campaigns against Peta; including petakillsanimals.com [3]. However such is irrelevant to the resolution "Peta helps save animals," as whatever else they may do, does not change if they do or do not help save some animals.

To use an analogy: If we were debating Hitler's art career; the holocaust would be useless as evidence.

To flip instead of merely dismiss Con's source... If their KFC financed website Petakillsanimals.com has encouraged anyone to save any animals, that very website being inspired by Peta, in turn makes Peta ultimately have helped save those animals.

Sources:
[1] http://www.peta.org...
[2] http://www.peta.org...
[3] http://yourlife.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 2
YoudkMyName

Con

YoudkMyName forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Pro

Extend all arguments.

In order to be sporting, here's a line of reasoning Con should be able to counter...
Another example of Peta's very helpful campaigns, is their interference against Seal Clubbing [4]. Basically while clubbing is good, clubbing seals is bad. Insert lots of pathos appeals ("baby seal"), and you have source 4.
Clubbing = good.<br>Clubbing seals = bad.

Sources:
[4] http://www.peta.org...
Debate Round No. 3
YoudkMyName

Con

YoudkMyName forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Pro

As was easily proved in this debate, Peta helps save animals. I have not needed to make the claim of them being particularly effective at actually saving animals, so long as they help. Their ads are memorable, and teach important lessons about what a few less calories can cause someone to look like...
Vegetarians tend to consume less calories, thus on average are more delicious.

Further even when con logged in two days ago, they still did refute the claims against their single source (or at least concede properly).

I suggest a strong vote for pro (me), based on the following criteria.
CONDUCT (pro): Full Forfeit.
S&G (tied): No remarks.
ARGUMENT (pro): The resolution was strongly affirmed, presented well with pictures, backed up by evidence, and counter cases not merely refuted but outright flipped.
SOURCES (pro if accepting con's was flipped, otherwise tied): While the four sources provided by pro were not strong enough to outright claim the source points as opposed to just making them lean over, the claiming of a hostile source heavily tips the balance in his favor. No comment if tied.

(Yes I did just provide a voting walkthrough for new members. This could be considered a strike against conduct, but I feel the missed rounds will greatly outweight such.)
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
BTW: if anyone was offended by the picture choices, cite that as conduct against me greater than the missed rounds. I will not report any votes for such (actual votebombs still will be).
Posted by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
When this debate finishes, I'm voting on it . . .
Posted by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Interesting debate. I'll be keeping my eye on this one.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Gmail deleted my draft, I now need to rewrite it while traveling today... ARG.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Good opening, about what I expected... Still going to need time to work out a rebuttal. My reply should be up tomorrow night.
Posted by YoudkMyName 4 years ago
YoudkMyName
I have read alot about Peta. I happen to live near a Peta, so I know firsthand how they treat animals.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Now to actually read up on PETA.
Posted by vbaculum 4 years ago
vbaculum
My bet is that he will argue that PETA doesn't save animals because they do, in fact, euthanasia several thousand animals a year. A lot of people who hate PETA like to make a big deal about it.
Posted by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
Actually Peta is a pretty disgusting orginization. I won't go into it, but they are pretty terrible at it.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Easy win for Pro. Of course they help save animals! (Are they efficient or rational about it? That's a different question.)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 4 years ago
Juan_Pablo
YoudkMyNameRagnarTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Ragnar made his case. Though PETA does execute some animals, it does so to save them from prolonged suffering due to neglect by owners. PETA does more good for animals than it gets credit for.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 4 years ago
jzonda415
YoudkMyNameRagnarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by rajun 4 years ago
rajun
YoudkMyNameRagnarTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses the conduct points for ff. To back up is better than making the Pro waiting...disrespectful. Arguments were convincing from Pro as Con literally didn't rebuttal anything. Also, Pro used more reliable sources.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
YoudkMyNameRagnarTied
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: FF and im liking the pics