The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
fresnoinvasion
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points

Resolved: On balance, PETA has done more desruction to all living things (Read Full Res. Below)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
Charlie_Danger
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/15/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,526 times Debate No: 8292
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (5)

 

Charlie_Danger

Con

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts" I negate.

Rules: -My opponent cannot be InfraRedEd
-Stick to the resolution
-Address both sides of the resolution
-Place arguments in Contention format (Claim, Warrant, Impact)
-I'll let the Aff propose framework (definitions & observations) but if it is abusive I will decline it and propose my own (aka, don't present biased or B.S. defintions)

I will spare my initial arguments for the time being, the affirmative will present its constructive at this time.

Good luck and thanks to accepting this debate. Don't forfeit any rounds so we can keep this debate popular!
As for everyone else, click "like" on this debate!
fresnoinvasion

Pro

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more destruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts"

Basically, the negative impacts of PETA on the well being and moral statures of all living animals outweigh the positive impacts.

A true issue comes when attempting to define the phrase "moral statures"; for it is common knowledge that what is moral to one, is not moral to another. However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines the word "morality" as "refer[ing] to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons". This definition comes the closet to being an overall definition of morality thus should be preferred in this debate.

This definition is real-world. Some issues can be resolved on a moral basis no matter what your religion is. Murder, for example, is unanimously deemed immoral by every religious group. My definition illustrates this fact by implying only those issues that are unanimously deemed immoral by basic human nature are what define morality.

Contention 1: Prefer "well being"
- The reason the "well being" of all living things is going to outweigh the moral stature of all living things is because "well being" is much more easily defined than "moral stature". I provided the probably one of the most least biased definitions to be found on the internet yet the definition could still be interpreted in multiple ways, each of which would provide one side or another an upper hand on the debate. From a Christian, moral, perspective PETA would without a doubt cause more negatives than positives being that the opening book of the bible places humans above animals; thus, expelling human resources for the protection of animals would not fall under their moral standards. Similar arguments could be made for many religions while contrary arguments could be made for different religions. Allowing the debate to become a morality debate in which the ballot ultimately comes down to an individuals predispositions creates a sterile and un-educational debate in which both sides, and the audience, receive nothing.

Contention 2: Well being means utilitarianism
"Well-being is most commonly used in philosophy to describe what is non-instrumentally or ultimately good for a person. The question of what well-being consists in is of independent interest, but it is of great importance in moral philosophy, especially in the case of utilitarianism, according to which well-being is to be maximized"- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Utilitarianism, or the strive for "utility" is the best framework in which to evaluate this round because of the words "well being" in the resolution. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy clearly states that in a strive for well-being, utilitarianism is the best framework in which to evaluate your actions.

Contention 3: PETA fails

PETA is attempting to remove all human influence on animals and has frequently stated that they are wishing to achieve "total animal liberation". Because PETA officials believe animals and humans have the same moral stature they have stated there is no difference between a poultry farm and a nazi death camp. Because of their extreme views of animal equality, if they were to achieve the goals in which they are setting out to we would not have any animal made products. That means no meat, no milk, no leather, and no animal testing. Food is necessary for life as is the nutrients found in dairy products. However, the most important is the halting of animal testing that would come to be if PETA achieves its goals. This impacts are already evident as seen with the passage of Prop 2 in California which stated poultry animals must have room to "roam" around, more than doubling the space required to keep a chicken in. The effects of this plan are not yet evident because the plan will not be implemented until 2010. However, the raise in food prices that will surely come do to poultry farm renovations and less amount of food able to be produced on a single farm will be evident in the not too distant future. Because of PETAs policies that they have had a hand in implementing have produced a negative impact onto humans it will outweigh the positives of the animals.

Contention 4: PETA is a terrorist organization, this wins me the morality debate.

The head of PETA influenced Yasser Arafat to commit suicide bombings to protect animal rights but ignored the human lives that were lost in order to "Save" the animals. When PETA officials are known to influence groups to commit murder against other humans, the most immoral thing to do, we see that PETA has committed a moral crime that is universal. No matter your belief about animal rights it is clear that PETA has committed a moral crime in doing this and are obligated to vote PRO because PETAs actions fall outside the scope of morality for every living person, not just certain groups.

My character limit is quickly dwindling and I am left to end my argument here.

Hopefully this ends up good, good luck con debater.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.

Okay, the first thing my opponent does is attempt to show an a-priori morality as paramount to this debate. I must reject this framework as a-priori morality does not exist. As irrational as that sounds, it is true. My opponent gives murder as an example, everyone hate murder (thinks it is immoral) right? Wrong. The death penalty is considered to be murder, as well as things like abortion or euthanasia, but we have supporters as well as opposers. There is absolutely no "moral" idea that is accepted or agreed upon by every person in the world. If we all didn't want murder or rape in our society, we wouldn't have murder and rape!
Furthermore, my opponent bases this off sheer religion. I don't have a religion, does that mean I think its okay to kill people? No. I haven't done so yet. But more importantly, my opponent contradicts himself by proposing a-priori morality (inner morals that everyone shares without law or social opinion) and then duty-based morality (a system of morals or rules set up by a government or religion for its people and itself to follow) for us to follow in this round!
All in all, we shouldn't look at any given definition to decide the winner of this debate, we are just attempting to see if PETA has generally done more bad than good. It is up to you, readers/voters, to decide that, not some value/criterion or definition. (especially if they contradict each other!)
Now on to the affirmative's case:

My opponent's first contention says nothing. All he does is talk about how morality can't be looked at, AFTER HE SPENT ALL THAT TIME DEFINING IT. On the grounds of looking at the debate on a moral point of veiw, I agree with my opponent, if we decide to impact the debate this way, its just end up with people voting based off their own opinions, not this debate.
The most important thing for you to think of right now is that his first contention has no weight and gains him ZERO ground, so it is not a reason to affirm.

His contention two gains him ZERO GROUND. On-face, you drop this statement (at least in the form of a contention) because it doesn't give you any reason to affirm. He simply states that we should look at utilitarianism for this debate, which (if you read the resolution) we already are generally doing already.

Please note that at this point in the debate, there is no reason to affirm based on his first two "contentions"

Okay, the first thing my opponent does in his third contention is put words in the mouth of PETA. He claims: "PETA is attempting to remove all human influence on animals and has frequently stated that they are wishing to achieve 'total animal liberation'." He DOES NOT STATE any date, source, location or FACT to prove this statement. Why? Because he CAN'T! PETA's goal according to THEM: (Note that I am citing a source, unlike my opponent) "PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other 'pests,' and the abuse of backyard dogs. Our goal is to end all unnessesary suffering for animals everywhere." Unfortunately for my opponent, NOWHERE does their mission statement claim "we want to make animals equal or better than humans".
This is going to be a key issue for you voters in this round: My opponent, like so many people, has misconstrued PETA's objective because the media and ex-members (or sheer opposers of PETA for that matter) has given such a false and distorted view on what PETA does and does not support.
But, lets contine down his C.3:
"Food is necessary for life as is the nutrients found in dairy products" This is blatantly false. Vegans (take note that I am talking about healthy vegans who balance their diet intelectually) live often HEALTHIER lives than that of meat eaters. From a panel of health scientists in New York: "Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning" Vegetarians have the same benefits, but I'm running out of characters and I must address my opponent's 4th Contention. I will provide more links and hard evidence for my opponent and judges if they wish.

His last contention is a contradiction to his first! He claims that PETA is immoral, so he shoud win. His first contention says "Don't judge on 'Morality'"!
Even after that hypocritical nonsence, we can look at the UNWARRANTED CLAIMS he presents in this contention: "The head of PETA influenced Yasser Arafat to commit suicide bombings to protect animal rights but ignored the human lives that were lost in order to 'Save' the animals"
1) There is ZERO ACTUAL PROOF that Ingrid Newkirk even TALKED to Yasser Arafat!
2) PETA greatly opposes suicide bombings, moreover anything that hurts a human being. PETA supports life. Period. Animal, Human, Insect, everything.
Lets read on: "When PETA officials are known to influence groups to commit murder against other humans, the most immoral thing to do, we see that PETA has committed a moral crime that is universal"
1) PETA does not influence groups to do anything harmful to anything with life.
2) PETA would be listed as a domestic terrorist group if they commited crimes. They are not. A domestic terrorist group named ALF (animal liberation front) has been known to commit bombings on animal testing facilities, and PETA is often blamed as the source. These groups are COMPLELTELY SEPARATE.

Okay, so right now, you have no reason to affirm, but many reasons to negate.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

Contrary to my opponents opinion, I did not spend a majority of my argument about morality for no reason. My opponent is the one who created this debate and he included the words "moral statures" in his official resolution, provided at the top of his very first argument. However, he makes a damning concession as of his first argument that will prove to be rather important; leaving him in a position in which he cannot win.

He says, "There is absolutely no "moral" idea that is accepted or agreed upon by every person in the world", I completely agree. As of my first argument it was logical to attempt to rid of the words "moral stature" in the resolution and you really just placed the last nail in the coffin on yourself. You go on to talk about how I make these contradictory arguments, first defining morality then saying to not prefer it in your decision. However, you completely misunderstand the point I am making with these arguments.

Observation 1: Morality cannot be used to impact your decision in this round

The two words "moral stature" provided in the resolution of this debate should not even be taken into consideration because both sides of the debate (me and my opponent) have agreed that morality either cannot be defined or contains too loose of a definition. As with the example provided by the con debater, even murder can be morally justified... Which means there is no basic human morality. I will make this concession because I believe in this statement myself, however, as a result of this concession you are left to only base your decision on what is best in the realm of "well-being" because it is the only other weighing mechanism provided in the resolution.

My opponent comes to the conclusion that "All in all, we shouldn't look at any given definition to decide the winner of this debate, we are just attempting to see if PETA has generally done more bad than good. It is up to you, readers/voters, to decide that, not some value/criterion or definition" However, this conclusion is not what will be best for the debate. He says we are trying to see if PETA has done more "bad" than "good", but what does he mean by that? He later concedes that utilitarianism is what is going to be best for the calculation of "well being"; true this is.

The reason we must have a "framework" in which the debate is evaluated is not to follow the (inferior to policy debate) LD debate format, but to avoid confusion in the round and provide the judge with directions on how to vote. Providing a "framework" in argumentation happens on the every day level. If one were to contemplate whether or not drugs should be consumed we immediately refer to a type of "framework" to make our decision. For example, one may think "no. that is against my morals, therefore I will not do it" or another may think, "Although smoking a bowl will not go against my morals, I do not want to risk my short term memory because this is most important to me right now". As we can see, a type of "framework" was used in both of these thoughts against the consumption of drugs. The previous used a moral framework while the latter exhibited a logical framework in which the advantages were weighed against the disadvantages. The latter strove for what would be best for his current situation while ignoring "morality". We too must follow this framework that abandons predispositions on the morality of animal rights and look to a logical, utilitarian framework. As spectators, we must remember that the con debater agrees with the arguments I am making and makes the concession as of his last argument. Do not let him change his mind in the rounds to come.

"utilitarianism... according to which well-being is to be maximized"- SEP

Observation 2: Utilitarianism places human life above animal life

A quick google search would prove to you that animal rights activists constantly reject utilitarianism when dealing with animal rights because they know that in the overall picture, making sacrifices to appeal to animals is not going to better society. All increases in technology were due to humans, every vaccine created was invented by a human, without placing importance on the human race, our society would fail.

Observation 3: PETA fails under the framework of utilitarianism by worsening the human race for life forms that do not contribute to society

My opponent makes a fatal concession in his last argument by not addressing the issue of "prop 2" in California that recently passed. This bill was backed by PETA and called for an increased area for farm animals to roam, chickens targeted. He also concedes that the differences brought on by this bill will alter food prices to the human consumer. This, and many other examples that are common knowledge to the judges show that PETA has taken away from the betterment of human society in exchange for the betterment of an "animal society"

Because we are evaluating this round strictly on utilitarianism, we are left no choice but to vote pro because it is clear that PETA has caused more harm than good to the human race (which outweighs animals based on utilitarianism)
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Con

My opponent is clearly a policy debater. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.)

He starts by taking my words out of context and claiming that I support some form of a-priori or duty-based morality. This is false. I am simply proving a point (that he contradicts himself) against him, not advocating any form of morality. (At least not there.)

His Observation 1:
Here's what he is basically saying: in this debate we look at moral statures and utilitarianism, but we shouldn't look at moral statures. Okay, my opponent is trying to complicate this debate and I don't want that, and I don't think you (the judge) wants that either. If we did, this would be a debate in LD format. My opponent is trying to place rule-based burdens on me, but again, we are just having an intellectual debate not one in LD, Policy, PFD, Parlimentary or whatever! He tells us to follow utilitarianism solitarily. (Arguably just to impact his last "Observation") This is unnessesary and false. We are to impact to the well-being and dignity of ALL LIVING THINGS, not just humans (as he tries to shift the debate later) and, again, it is ultimately up to the judge/voter/reader to decide wether or not the resoution has been upheld. This is another thing my opponent missed, he is the affirmative, therefore, he must prove that his claim (the resolution) is true and uphold it 100 percent. This here is essential, because any critique he makes of the resolution hurts him, because he is the one upholding it, not me!
All in all, here's the lowdown:
1) HE has to uphold the resolution exactly as it is stated
2) The "framework" we are judging off of is (and only is) the resolution. Not "utilitarianism" by whatever defintion my opponent proposes, not personal opinions, but the resolution.

His observation 2: (by the way, if I was picky and annoying, I would point out and argue that an observation is not an argument and shouldn't be used as such)
All he says here is that utilitarianism means "Utilitarianism = Humans > Animals. Utilitarianism should be the only thing you look at." (aka: Affirm so you can Affirm!) He claims: "All increases in technology were due to humans, every vaccine created was invented by a human, without placing importance on the human race, our society would fail." Cool. Humans are great. I'm a human, I like it, I'm a fairly nice guy. We aren't here to debate on if humans are superior to animals, or if humans have done more than animals or even if humans are smarter than animals. My opponent needs to reread the resolution: "Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts" At this point, his observation two falls.

Go to his "Observation 3":
He talks about, and only about, Prop 2. He says that it betters the animal society at the cost of the human society. You reject this claim for three reasons:
1) It is not an attack against the well-being nor moral statures of a human to have a couple more cents added to their steak price
2) Even if it was, it is a worthy price to pay for the living state of a chicken. As of now (since the bill hasn't taken effect yet) life for chickens is terrible at best. Here's an excerpt from a recent investigation: "They [chickens] are bred and drugged to grow so large so quickly that their legs and organs can't keep up, making heart attacks, organ failure, and crippling leg deformities common. Many become crippled under their own weight and eventually die because they can't reach the water nozzles. When they are only 6 or 7 weeks old, they...are crammed together in wire cages where they don't even have enough room to spread a single wing. The cages are stacked on top of each other, and the excrement from chickens in the higher cages constantly falls on those below. The birds have part of their sensitive beaks cut off so that they won't peck each other as a result of the frustration created by the unnatural confinement. After their bodies are exhausted and their production drops, they are shipped to slaughter, generally to be turned into chicken soup or cat or dog food because their flesh is too bruised and battered to be used for much else..." I could go on, but the point is clear. Chickens deserve life outside a tourture chamber, but the least we can do is grant some extra space.
3) The "cost" that a human suffers from Prop 2 is miniscule if it can even be considered a cost. And the voting community agrees with me, that's why the bill passed. This further warrants the claim that PETA is, in fact, NOT a detriment to humans.

Debate Summary:
Here are the essentials for you (judges) to know about at this time:
1) HE DROPPED CONTENTION THREE AND CONTENTION FOUR
2) He cold concedes to all my attacks on everything except his claims on morality and utilitarianism
3) His claims on morality gain him no ground, moreover, they gain ME ground, because the affirmative must affirm the resolution (he has to prove that NOT ONLY the well-being of animals is harmed by PETA, but the "moral statures" as well) and everything he has said is fully acceptable as a negative argument.
4) He attempts to shift the debate to be judged ONLY on utilitarianism BECAUSE HE CAN'T IMPACT TO ANYTHING ELSE. The idea of impacting solely to utilitarianism is biased and abusive for the negative.

To my opponent:
I don't care if you bring up dropped arguments, even though that is technically illegal. I just want to further the point that this debate doesn't have to abide by NFL rules.
And I would love to discuss the superiority of LD and Policy at another time, but I am here to debate the resolution at hand, so I'll get back to you on that.
Love, Charlie_Danger
fresnoinvasion

Pro

Overview- My opponent misinterprets my logical arguments as a way to confine this debate to one specific format, however, he is mistaken. Moreover, my opponent has not made one argument for the merits of PETA, thus, we have no reason to believe they have contributed positively to society. However, we do see that PETAs influence on the passage of legislation such as proposition 2 in California will contribute negatively to the humans in society, who, under under utilitarianism, are placed at a level of more value than animals. When we have no positives of PETA present, and a risk of a negative, we have to err pro.

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts"

As a judge you have to ask yourself "what does this resolution mean"? When the resolution could easily be reversed to say, "PETA has contributed to more positive impacts in relation to the well being and moral statures of all living things than destruction" both parties are responsible for proving their point; a "burden of proof". I have constructed an argument illustrating how PETA has caused for a negative impact on humans which went conceded by the con debater when he agrees that PETAs policies have often lead to increases in food prices; although he refers to these changes as "a couple of cents".

He quotes this rant about how bad chickens are living now but the argument fails on multiple levels.

We have to remember that the decision we are making is based on utilitarianism. This means what is best for the betterment of society or what is going to help the most people in the most efficient way. My opponent agreed that "well being" in the resolution refers to utilitarianism, thus, we must base our decisions around this. It is imperative that we have to have a "framework" for this debate. My opponent tries to argue that I am trying to over complicate the debate round with a type of framework, however, it is necessary for this debate round to even exist. If we do not tell the judges the way in which they should vote (based of utilitarianism) then pre-disposed notions will be used to judge the debate. I will say, "who cares about animals" and he will say, "I do. We all should. Vote for me" and the people judging the debate that dont care about animals will vote for me while the ones that do will vote for the opposition. However, by defining the words in the resolution and interpreting (At the same time agreeing with our interpretations) we have made a clearer way to evaluate the debate round. The question a judge must now ask him/herself is "has PETA, in a utilitarian based mindset, done more bad than good" and the answer is obviously yes.

My observation 2 will prove critical in this debate round because it was taken as unimportant by the opposition. He makes a vital concession when agreeing that humans are more important than animals in a utilitarianist based mindset, the same mindset in which this debate should be evaluated. This impacts every negative impact on humans brought on by PETA to outweigh the positive impacts dealt to animals.

"We are despondent that California voters didn't hear animal welfare experts' messages warning of higher rates of death in non-cage systems, increased rates of smothering, increased incidences of aggression and much more," said Kay Johnson Smith, Executive Vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. "Our organization believes that quality animal welfare creates wins for animals, farmers and consumers. It is disappointing to learn that, in the tumult caused by all the various initiatives, consumers didn't hear that message."

Prop 2 will raise prices for Californian consumers while simultaneously causing a chill in California's agricultural economy. According to an October 2008 report, compiled by Promar International Ltd., animal agriculture contributes nearly 90,000 jobs, $126 million in property taxes and $590 million in income and sales taxes to California every year"

This argument wins me the debate round in 2 ways
1) Prop 2, which was fronted by PETA, actually caused for worse living conditions for chickens living in California. Which if you reject the util framework wins me the round based off strict interpretation of the resolution.
2) It illustrates the raise in food prices brought on by prop 2, hurting humans, which outweighs the betterment of animals (according to util) which does not even exist in this situation.

Summary-
1) Who cares. We aren't talking about morality, based on the arguments both of us made in the debate. Utilitarianism is the framework needed in the round to maintain education in the debate as well as ensure judges can vote based on debating and not just their previous beliefs.
2) I have won the framework arguments hardcore
3) I made the argument that prop two hurt both animals and humans. But i also interpret the resolution so that morality means nothing. If the resolution was "god is good and superduperpurple" i can interpret superduperpurple to not mean anything, just like "moral statures" which do not exist.
4) Biased? Really? When you too agreed to utilitarianism? No. Just because you see you are going to lose because of the concession doesn't make it ok to change positions.

To my opponent:
I've enjoyed this debate. Policy ftw, haha.
Debate Round No. 3
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
fresnoinvasion

Pro

"Don't forfeit any rounds so we can keep this debate popular!"- Con debater.
Debate Round No. 4
Charlie_Danger

Con

I apologize for forfeiting a round, but I haven't lost any ground in the time I was gone. You still have just as much reason to negate as you did before the round I was absent in.

I apologize to all of the viewers of this debate, my opponent has conceded all his offensive arguments (except for Prop 2) and made a false, biased claim about utilitarianism, and, at this point, can't possibly win unless you believe his biased, one-sided, false claim about utilitarianism and vote off of that while closing your eyes to all of the multiple offensive negative arguments. I expect that my opponent's lack of clash and diversity makes this round far less interesting than I intended it to be.

Let's go down my opponent's speech:

Overveiw: "My opponent misinterprets my logical arguments as a way to confine this debate to one specific format, however, he is mistaken" Okay, prove it. Oh, you can't AND it's too late in the debate to do so? Looks like HE'S wrong.
"...my opponent has not made one argument for the merits of PETA..." Let me say this again, I AM THE NEGATIVE. I SIMPLY NEED TO PROVE THE AFFIRMATIVE FALSE, THEN I WIN. I don't need unique reasons to negate, I just need to prove that the affirmative is wrong. If the resolution was inverted: "Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has had more positive impacts to the well being and moral statures of all living things than detriments" then I would need to provide unique reasons.
"we do see that PETAs influence on the passage of legislation such as proposition 2 in California will contribute negatively to the humans in society, who, under under utilitarianism, are placed at a level of more value than animals. When we have no positives of PETA present, and a risk of a negative, we have to err pro." At this point, he concedes all of his arguments except for Prop 2. I'm not going to waste any more of my limited space repeating my arguments. He has ignored them, read my previous speeches. The important thing to know here is that THE OVERVIEW FALLS.

Useless rant 1: "As a judge you have to ask yourself "what does this resolution mean"? When the resolution could easily be reversed..." TOO BAD THAT IT ISN'T. The resolution is the resolution, not whatever it might look like in the mirror. Please re-read the rules you agreed to. This statement is false and must be dropped.
"I have constructed an argument illustrating how PETA has caused for a negative impact..." And you 1) Dropped it, 2) ignored my in-depth attack against it. This statement falls.

Useless rant 2: "He quotes this rant about how bad chickens are living now but the argument fails on multiple levels....We have to remember that the decision we are making is based on utilitarianism." As much as I want to yell, copy, and paste my earlier arguments, I trust you as a reader/judge to look at what I have said, as well as the fact that I NEVER CONCEDED TO UTILITARIANSIM, and that I DID NOT SAY I DID, and that I STATED WHY WE CAN'T USE UTILITARIANISM. My opponent clearly missed this, and, like I said before, he cannot impact to ANYTHING except for his biased interpretation of utilitarianism. His claims fall, again.

AAA Quote: Don't buy what my opponent is trying to do, which is take someone's words WAAAAAAAAAAAY out of context. This quote has nothing to do with support nor opposition to Prop 2. You will know that the AAA was in extreme support for Prop 2 if you do your research.

Prop 2: "Prop 2 will raise prices for Californian consumers" Too bad that that increase is lower than 50 cents per chicken strip. He doesn't state how "high" these prices are because he doesn't want you to know how DEVESTATINGLY LOW THEY ARE.
"animal agriculture contributes nearly 90,000 jobs, $126 million in property taxes and $590 million in income and sales taxes to California every year" Cool. So, are we going to loose any of those jobs, or raise those taxes or cause any significant impact? NO WE AREN'T.

Here are my opponent's Key Voter Issues:
"1) Prop 2, which was fronted by PETA, actually caused for worse living conditions for chickens living in California. Which if you reject the util framework wins me the round based off strict interpretation of the resolution."
This is false for many reasons:
A) There is no evidence, moreover, none presented in this debate that infer or prove that Prop 2 hurt chickens
B) In fact, Prop 2, as proven and clarified by both parties above, was designed and made to make chickens lives better, which means that we can turn this and show that in actuality, Prop 2 positively impacts chickens, thereby making Prop 2 a reason to Negate
C) This is a warrantless claim that should be dropped on-face just for this reason
"2) [Prop 2] illustrates the raise in food prices brought on by prop 2, hurting humans, which outweighs the betterment of animals (according to util) which does not even exist in this situation."
This is false for even more reasons:
A) To buy this claim, you must instantly assume that Humans > Animals, which we have agreed not to do in this debate. He contradicts himself AND breaks the rules.
B) I have proven that the price is miniscule at best
C) Even if you did buy that Humans > Animals, is a life described in my previous speech worth less than 45 cents?!
D) Utilitarianism does NOT mean Humans > Animals
E) The only way that this argument can be accepted is if you bought his B.S. util definition and ignored all of my speeches

Here are the real things that you need to look at during this round:
1) All of the arguments my opponent initially presented were dropped by him, and Prop 2 was just proven false
2) He has just repeated himself and ignored my attacks
3) The only way my opponent can win is under a completely wrong definition of Utilitarianism
4) I win under any and all fair framework, more importantly, I win under the resolution
fresnoinvasion

Pro

Of course I have to be repetitive, because you just don't understand the argument. Hopefully the voter base of this website understands the argument and doesn't vote based off their pre-determined notions about PETA. You failed in the theory debate, you failed at the heart of the argument, you failed at this debate.

So voters.. You're sitting there right now thinking, "who do I vote for" and have for the past 5 rounds of "debate". Your job is to decide whether or not PETA has done more bad to all living things than good, but how do you determine what is ultimately good and bad? There's a lot of different ways one can define "good" or "bad" and many different ways one can evaluate positives against negatives, my opponent provides no method in which to evaluate the round. If we do not provide a way to evaluate the debate, in round, you, the judges, are left to apply what you define as good or bad in the debate round, and judge based off of that.

PETA is a very large, popular, organization and most Americans have an opinion as to whether PETA is a good or bad organization. Debate.org, being a website filled with opinionated people, probably has a great percentage of its' users swayed one way or another in relevance to PETA. These are the people judging the debate round; people with biased opinions before the debate even began. Most are able to look past their bias and vote based on the arguments provided in round, however, there is still the issue as to what exactly is "good" and "bad" referring to?

The only way to ensure that the round is evaluated solely off in round discourse is to provide a type of "framework" that outlines what exactly the judge is to evaluate the round off of. In this round I provided the framework of "utilitarianism" which means "strive for utility/best for the greater good" because of the words "well being" in the resolution (provided by the con debater). When defining "well being" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they provided a definition that reads, "utilitarianism, according to which well-being is to be maximized". Therefore utilitarianism, or what is best for the greater good should, and will be the framework in which to evaluate the round. The con debater could have provided an opposing framework that does not leave the decision based solely on biased opinions that the readers have before the round even starts.

Then my opponent concedes a couple key things. I said we can't look at morality as an issue in the debate, and he says, " I agree with my opponent, if we decide to impact the debate this way, its just end up with people voting based off their own opinions, not this debate". and. "He simply states that we should look at utilitarianism for this debate, which (if you read the resolution) we already are generally doing already". He concedes that we should only look to utilitarianism as a weighing mechanism in this round. However, with his arguments he constantly says we can't look to any definition or framework which would just cause for biased decisions, which he agreed to in his second argument. You have to look to utilitarianism as the framework in the debate, and when you do, I win.

He says that he goes in depth with all of his arguments, HAHA. Seriously? He makes all these broad statements that have absolutely no factual backing. I have explained how utilitarianism favors humans over animals which he just says it doesnt without any explanation. Look back to round two when his entire "refutation" of humans>animals is just him complaining about the argument and saying how it should not be looked at in the round but he concedes the essence of the argument. He says, "cool" directly after my quote, showing that he agrees with what I said. But later he trys to say that he went on this in depth explanation of how humans are not greater than animals under utilitarianism but it is simply not present in the debate round.

You label my arguments "useless rants" so that you don't have to answer them but will lose because of it.

Round winning rant 1- You can't fiat the fact that PETA is good. The resolution starts at PETA=?(neutral) not PETA=Good, prove it wrong. I made arguments against PETA when you have made none for PETA. If there is any risk that what I said could be 1% true you have to vote pro because the neutral balance was shifted to the PETA=bad side. You could really vote pro on presumption here because theres a greater risk that PETA is bad, based off the arguments in round, than PETA being good.

Round winning rant 2- You did concede util. I showed how you did earlier. You can't change your mind now, knowing that you messed up.

AAA quote- WTF? Don't buy it why? Because the con debater says not to? I provide a perfectly legitimate quote illustrating how prop 2 will actually cause for more bad than good because of the many reasons stated in the quote from the Animal Agriculture Alliance. He says that if you do your research youll see that they supported prop 2 but this is clearly untrue or else he would have done the research and put it on the debate.

He concedes Prop 2 raises food prices. This is bad for humans, thus utilitarianism impacts negative human impacts to a greater extent than positive animal impacts.

I've won every argument here. It's blatantly obvious that I have won.

But let's let the vote bombing against me begin!
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Thanks for the detailed RFD sherlock.

I had fun in this debate, thank you fresnoinvation for debating with me. I hope to do it again sometime.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
I apologize to both debaters for my tardiness in writing a full RFD. I vote on many debates and I simply missed coming back to this one. I voted three weeks ago and gave points to Con for argument, sources, spelling and conduct. This is the first debate where I gave conduct to a person missing a round. I found Pro's final round statement of "let the vote bombing against me begin", to be in poor taste, and his repeated assertions that Con misunderstood, Con failed, etc are in bad form especially when Pro is losing the debate. Ironically, this debate was not vote abused as it scored very closely. Pro lost this debate due to a poor argument, not vote bombing.
I don't like PETA. I donate to the ASPCA, but do not support PETA due to the extremism they practice. I only voted on the arguments presented as my preconceived notions support Pro.
Pro and Con agreed on Utilitarian principles, some what, but Pro never addressed that the Utilitarian principles for this debate must be viewed in the context of all living things, not just humans. Pro supports his position without any reference material and claims the common knowledge of judges will support his position. I disagree, I don't have time to Google claims. Put a source in the debate. You could have started with a link to Prop 2 in California and supporting the terrorist organization claims that seem to fall on ALF and ELF, not PETA. You have ample material to support your position, but did not use it. For all the material on morality, Pro never brought his position up to the level allowing him to affirm.
Spelling/Grammar - Con won this one as Pro did not perform a simple re-read over his argument. Simple stuff. Several spelling errors and poorly worded sentences on Pro's part left Con with an easy win in this area.
Pro, you were not vote bombed or abused in this one - you simply lost.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Yea, go for that more detailed RFD.
Posted by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Really late, I leave for a week tomorrow so I am sorry for not posting a solid RFD. I sided with Con on this one, but the debate was solid. Pro's attempts at reframing the debate were not convincing. I can give a better RFD when I return, but I'm too tired right now. Good debate though.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Note Panda's comment!

We don't need any framework or value/value criterion to imact to in this debate.

You didn't need to waste your time with all of that.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
I have prom tonight and will be busy tomorrow, but I will post my argument before the time runs out. Don't worry..
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Lets debate on something else Luke, I want to debate someone who opposes my veiws on this topic entirely.

I would suggest Prop 102, but I would only do that in LD format. We should do it to train some novices next year!
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Hehe, he didn't say it had to be LD.
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
I would debate you Charles just for the heck of it if I weren't so lazy as to debate LD format. Maybe I'll make up a topic for us and challenge you.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
I'll find something online to link concerning the method. I know tort law does not apply, but the method serves well in other formats. I use the method in political debates. I will find something and send you a message.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
Charlie_DangerfresnoinvasionTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Refer_Madness 7 years ago
Refer_Madness
Charlie_DangerfresnoinvasionTied
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 Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Charlie_DangerfresnoinvasionTied
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 dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
Charlie_DangerfresnoinvasionTied
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 fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Charlie_DangerfresnoinvasionTied
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