The Instigator
kykrebs
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Pro (for)
Winning
53 Points

Peta is a good organization.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/14/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,192 times Debate No: 3622
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (23)

 

kykrebs

Con

Peta is one of the worst organizations.

First they have supported domestic terrorist groups. The two groups they have supported (with financing, information and legal teams) are ALF and ELF. Both groups have committed over 500 crimes (felony class).

Second, despite the group wanting to talk about how many animals they are saving, they don't seem to mention the 17,400 animals they have put to death. Nor do they talk about the North Carolina animal cruelty trial against them. (they lost)

I am in favor of environment protection, wildlife protection, animal protection period. That is one of the things that upsets me about PETA.
littlelacroix

Pro

Well hello there my worthy opponent.

I would just like to begin this debate by clarifying one major part of the topic. My opponent mentions several times that P.E.T.A. is a horrible organization, but he never defined what Peta is. Since the first speech of each side is meant to set the grounds for the debate, anyone to vote on this debate must accept my definition of Peta as the group now known as "People Eating Tasty Animals." This group is the night to the day that is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; they are the exact opposites. Therefore, the group that we will be talking about in this round is People Eating Tasty Animals.

Alright, I will now move on to my opponents arguments.

1) People Eating Tasty Animals is a group that doesn't support terrorist groups. Their only goal is to reduce the overpopulation of chickens and cows by eating them. There is no connection between People Eating Tasty Animals and terrorist groups.

2) People Eating Tasty Animals has never tried to save animals, rather kill them, humanely I want to remind you, and chow down! They have never been willing to kill animals inhumanely and cruelly, thus, this too is a rather false point.

If you look at this debate, the group of people known as People Eating Tasty Animals is actually looking toward helping the environment and animals that live in it. If cows are to continue growing at an immense pace, then the methane from their farts would speed up the global warming theory and eventually would become extinct themselves if they were to eat all of the hay and grass and have no more food left for their species. Therefore, as you can see, People Eating Tasty Animals is beneficial and is a "good organization."

Thank You
Debate Round No. 1
kykrebs

Con

Hello my worthier opponent,

To start off with your definition conflict, the definition you provide is 'people eating tasty animals'. I don't know how to tell you this, but this organization doesn't exist. I have found a single website, run by a single man claiming to make fun of the original organization. So for this definition to actually work, you would need to prove that this organization actually exists.

just for clarification, organization is defined as 'an administrative and functional structure' to have either you would need members and a working group of people.

So due to your lackluster definition (fancy word, eh james?), we must default to con's definition, which is provided at being P.E.T.A (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

So going on to your points.
1) For your first point, you state that there is no connection. Well since you provided no proof of your definition, and since we are now going by my definition, i would like to show you my evidence. According to their tax returns, the Spokesman-Review reported that PETA gave over 1,500 dollars to support the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI (Federal Bereau of Investigation so there's no confusion) declared to be the number one domestic threat in the united states. They (ELF) have caused over 45 million dollars worth of damage, and have caused more than 600 felonies.

2)And for the humane way PETA kills animals, this is a joke right? North Carolina police found over 100 dead dogs in the DUMPSTER, an autopsy was performed and said that they were killed in a horrible way, tortured to death. Investigating, the police watched the dumpster and found PETA employees dumping the bodies. Also the autopsy reported that the majority of the animals were actually quite fit, not disturbed by sickness or illness.

3)There is no point three except for the cow arguement. I do agree with that, except that is topicality. In cause you missed it James, the topic is 'Peta is a good organization'. Nothing about cows destroying the earth with global warming.

So as you can see, you can only vote for a con ballot. That was a pretty good arguement though.
littlelacroix

Pro

Thank you for your compliment of being a worthier opponent and I hope that you see that characteristic in this speech.

First of all, you never provided a definition of PETA being People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals until your second speech, thus leaving that up to me. And, I don't know how to tell you this, but People Eating Tasty Animals is an organization. I will give you your definition of an organization as being an "administrative and functional structure," broad, yet still acceptable. Since your definition is so broad, you don't require a certain purpose or designation for said organization. Thus, it must be a group with an administrator and participants of the cause, correct? Well, if you go to Facebook, this is a link to the group - http://www.facebook.com..., there is a group with an administrator and people who participate in the cause. Thus, it is administrative and functional towards the same goal of "eating tasty animals." If this one group of close to 7,000 people isn't satisfactory, just type in People Eating Tasty Animals in the Facebook search engine and you will find over 500 divisions of this nation-wide group. Ultimately, according to your definition, People Eating Tasty Animals is an organization and, since it was my burden to clarify the round, you cannot accept the definition to be People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I hope I don't sound mean when saying this, but next time you start a debate with the major part being an acronym, I highly suggest clarifying what it is.

1) This point is only topical if we were still talking about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, however, we are not. Thus anyone voting on this debate cannot accept this argument.

2) People Eating Tasty Animals does not support dog killing, at least not in the US, and at that, they would do it humanely. People Eating Tasty Animals is mainly focusing on cows and chickens and your argument doesn't hold up.

3) This argument is on topic and you, my friend, have no argument. People Eating Tasty Animals is a good organization because it is preventing the over population of cows, and chickens, which may lead to their extinction by the theories of social Darwinism. Yes, Darwin believes in survival of the fittest, but if everyone is to survive, the availability of food will eventually become scarce and they will become extinct. People Eating Tasty Animals is beneficial to not only the general welfare of animals, but also humans.

Thus, as you can see, my opponent is waaaaaaaay off topic since he is not following the grounds of the debate. He, as the instigator, had the possibility of properly setting the grounds of the debate, but since that is not the case, you MUST accept my clarification of the topic and not the clarification of my opponent, which came way too late. Thank you for your time and I will patiently await your response.
Debate Round No. 2
kykrebs

Con

Because you did provide a definition, i will argue all of your points.

Your point 1)People eating tasty animals has not supported terrorism. Well, if we look at past members of the online facebook account, Chris McCourghy, a member of your PETA, sent around 50 dollars to the ELF. So technically they have supported terrorism.
Secod Point) Killing in itself is cruel. Taking life in any form is wrong, destructful, and takes a person who has no morals or consience. Please tell me a humane way to take life. Please. And none of that 'lethal injection' is peaceful crap. So what other ways are there? Shooting an animal to death? Or how about putting poison in its food and watch it drown in its own liquids. The answer is if you aren't willing to kill a person, because it is inhumane, why would killing another creature the same way be humane? Because they don't look like you? Because they are different? Well where have i heard this before...hmmm....slavery (the imprisonment of people who were different)

And for your arguement on the global warming theory, approximately 10,000 years ago, before cows, was the hottest temperature on record. It is shown through many of the top leading universities (such as Harvard, or Stanford) that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Not because of cow farts.

One more thing, cows are not overpopulating by themselves. Have you ever seen a wild cow. No, simply because these are a domesticated animal. Without the humans breeding them or taking care of them, they would have become extinct a while back.
littlelacroix

Pro

Alright, I would just like to mention to any viewers of this debate that my opponent's entire final argument should be discredited because of brand new information and examples. It is unfair to the Pro if new examples and information is brought up at the conclusion of the debate. Also, you should see that my opponent has flipped on his argument for his final speech, has not been continuous throughout the debate and thus none of his arguments are topical, with the exception of his final speech, which I hope you will not include. However, for the sake of this debate, I will still continue refuting my opponent's arguments.

1) People Eating Tasty Animals doesn't support terrorism

The organization, People Eating Tasty Animals, doesn't support terrorism just because one member has supported it. The organization doesn't have the ideal of supporting terrorism, just that one man! Thus the organization, rather than the man, is good.

2) Killing is not cruel

Putting animals out of their misery is not a cruel process. If cows are to overpopulate, which they would do by themselves if mankind wasn't such a dominant force in nature, and they would eventually become extinct. Plus, it is just part of nature for one animal to eat another. If we eat apples, is it cruel to pick them from the tree? No, it's just in nature that we need nutrition. What is cruel, is torturing that animal to death. A quick and painless death isn't cruel. Furthermore, this ISN'T slavery. Are you kidding me? Again, it's just part of nature, animals are different, they are lower on the food chain and it's in our nature to take a huge bite out of an animal. That's it.

3) Cow farts are speeding up Global Warming

I am personally against the theory that Global Warming is 100% our fault. However, it is a proven fact, that no matter how small, CO2 is speeding up Global Warming via the Greenhouse Effect. Cow farts are also contributing to this same effect.

Again, I hope anyone viewing this debate votes according to who they believe is the best debater. I know that this is a ridiculous topic, nonetheless, I thank whoever was able to put up with this babbling.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by fitzt21 6 years ago
fitzt21
i'm just starting out in debate, but it seemed to me that he had a specific peta to begin with. How many other peta's had a north carolina lawsuit brought against them?
Posted by CHS 6 years ago
CHS
peta is ok but its stupid, when Mike vick was inducted in dog fighting chardes they just downed him and yelled at him. Instead they should have used him as a celeb figure and had him say how great they were
Posted by simplyme 6 years ago
simplyme
as i have stated before.

both of you are completely ridiculous.
Posted by Defenestrator 6 years ago
Defenestrator
Defining terms is the most important part of debate. As seen here it can win or lose a debate in the first round. Nice job to Pro for finding that error and using it to your advantage.
Posted by joetehgirl 6 years ago
joetehgirl
Personally, i'm against PETA, but littlelacroix gave a pretty good arg so i'm voting pro
Posted by simplyme 6 years ago
simplyme
you guys are completely ridiculous.

'nuff said
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 1 year ago
Jarhyn
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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: It is obvious that eating tasty animals is both good and good for you, from PRO's argument. I would award CON with conduct because of PRO's obvious bad-faith interpretation of PETA, given the contextual definition, however CON accepted it, and so conduct is tied in my view. CON failed to suitably justify the assertion that killing animals is wrong, and PRO supported his contention with good sources to validate the factual claim that PETA can and does stand for "people eating tasty animals".
Vote Placed by Excessum 5 years ago
Excessum
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 TaylorFame 5 years ago
TaylorFame
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 littlelacroix 5 years ago
littlelacroix
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 Shmishmortion 6 years ago
Shmishmortion
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 DemosthenesC 6 years ago
DemosthenesC
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 danielleparish 6 years ago
danielleparish
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 huntertracker6 6 years ago
huntertracker6
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 fitzt21 6 years ago
fitzt21
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 6 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
kykrebslittlelacroixTied
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