The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

PETA is crazy

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,204 times Debate No: 42735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




PETA is a crazy organization of radical vegetarians. Con goes first.


I accept your challenge. As it is my first challenge to except on this cite please disregard my noobiness and treat me as if i where a fellow debater. I will argue that PETA as a whole is in fact not crazy, but some of its members may be a tad extreme in there support and that PETA as a whole should not be held accountable for the actions of few compared to the actions of many. Not to say that those few who are a tad extreme should now be held accountable for their own actions.
Debate Round No. 1


My first piece of evidence will be these links to PETA protests:
All of these were participated in by many members of PETA.

My second piece of evidence is that they are hypocrites. They denounce killing animals, yet they euthanize 90% of all animals that are sent to their animal "shelter."There also hypocrites in that they denounce animal testing yet they are proponents of testing new potentially drugs on humans; which are animals. The third way they are hypocrites is that in protests they subject humans to treatment that they would sue over if done to any other animal. All the members of PETA actively support these actions and voluntarily allow themselves to be tortured during protests in ways they would never allow for other animals.



I will use this round to negate all of my challengers evidence. I will attempt to prove PETA is not crazy by disproving all my opponents evidence as unclear, circumstantial, or incorrect.

As for your first piece's of evidence. I have read them and though they are radical in a sense I would not deem them as crazy. Crazy in its definition to me means mentally deranged, esp. as manifested in a wild or aggressive way. Though they protest in miss-truths such as cow-milk causes autism (Autism is Genetic but speculations have been made that environment plays a small part.) I don't believe what they do is what you say as crazy or aggressive in any way (I will explain the Whips and Chains Later). We are entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

As for your second piece of evidence. "that they are hypocrites". I will first explain why PETA Euthanize's animals. In the same sense its why we pull people out off of life support or in other more brutal words "Put people out of there misery." Sometimes animals come in with injury's that are cant be treated, cured, or fixed in anyway such as rabies.

This link will give you PETA's side on why they euthanize. As for Human testing vs Animal Testings, Humans as a species may be in the animal kingdom many of us do not consider ourselves as such. Our better sense of morality, and rationality set us apart from others as well as a more advanced race and uniquely special. Some people say it is the soul but to say it is the soul would just be complicated and dumb, its more that we are able to self reflect, or take that mental and spiritual leap of stepping outside of himself and seeing himself from an alternate perspective, or realizing consciously that he is alive, that his heart is beating, that he is walking the planet, that he will die someday, and that the moon is overhead. (I do believe animals hold some morality)

As for your third. "The whips and chains" From your link is what i assume you are talking about if not please provide more evidence of self torture, but with the evidence provided it is un-sufficient. The whips and chains protest the whipped plastic cows not human beings, they only dressed up in dominatrix wear.
Debate Round No. 2


I should have been more clear with the definition. The definition I am using is "1. Foolish or impractical; senseless" and "2. fantastic; strange; ridiculous."
In the first link 10,9,7,6,4,3, and 2 are ridiculous. 8 isn't crazy. 5 is strange. 1 is impractical. This shows that all of them except for 8 are crazy.
Everything in link 2 is ridiculous.
Link 3 I now realize doesn't actually have any relevant information.
"We are entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment."
This argument isn't relevant to this debate since the debate is about whether PETA is crazy or not (but yes I do agree that they are entitled to free speech.)

According to the link and con PETA euthanizes animals to "put them out of their misery."While I do agree with euthanizing them in those conditions there are a lot of animals that are brought to the shelter that haven't been abused or hurt and are in good shape. here's a quote from Peta Kills Animals: "New records show PETA killed a staggering 89.4 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2012." The key word here is ADOPTABLE. Adoptable pets are not going to be the ones who are injured and in pain. Adoptable pets are going to be alive and well and they kill 89.4% of that group. So that "putting them out of their misery" thing doesn't work for many cases. Here's a quote from wikipedia about their practices. "two PETA employees were acquitted in 2007 of animal cruelty after at least 80 euthanized animals were left in dumpsters in a shopping center in Ashoskie over the course of a month in 2005; the two employees were seen leaving behind 18 dead animals, and 13 more were found inside their van." While they were acquitted there isn't any doubt that they left the animals in a DUMPSTER.

It doesn't matter how humans view themselves; humans are still animals. So PETA's advocacy of human testing over Animal testing is still hypocritical.

About the self-inflicted torture it appears I was wrong about that.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Peta Kills Animals


My opponent has stated his definition of crazy as being "1.Foolish or impractical;senseless" and "2.Fantastic;strange;ridiculous". I move that these definitions make my opponents arguments invalid on the grounds that these are subjective emotions. What may be seen as crazy for my opponent doesn't necessarily mean society as a whole or that the majority of the population agrees and understands PETA as "Crazy". In theory I could think 10,9,7,6,4,3 and 2 are acceptable. PETA's strategy is most likely to be seen as outrageous so that the public with be attracted to them, negative or positive, they will get there points across making them very smart logical people capable of seeing the flaws in humanity's attraction to the things the deem strange or crazy. This would show that though there protest's are crazy, themselves as people are not. Since this argument is based around PETA being crazy radical vegetarians and not there protest being crazy, and that you cannot prove that every single PETA or the Majority for that matter are Crazy in the eyes of the population, I feel as if you have no facts to back up your claims and that you have been insufficient in showing that PETA is "CRAZY". To me its like your calling the guy who dresses up to advertise a restaurant crazy because it gets attention.

As for your second paragraph, Hypocritical People are not crazy people. And sense this is euthanasia which is a humane way of ending a life deemed so by the government (also subjective) and not dumping all the puppies in a pool of acid, I don't see how this makes PETA in your definition, crazy.

My argument was not to prove that PETA is not crazy but you to prove that PETA was. I feel that all you have deliver is subjective and opinionated evidence with no facts. Your arguments were as follows.

""My first piece of evidence will be these links to PETA protests:;

-These are links to websites of PETA protest's. They show PETA members doing strange protest to captivate audiences for public appeal in order to get there message across and spread throughout the media. Though some of these protest are in my opponents eyes viewed as crazy I consider them strategy's.-

"My second piece of evidence is that they are hypocrites."

-Though this may prove your subjective definition on the grounds of "Foolish or impractical; senseless". It ways upon the actions of few compared to the actions of many. Because some PETA members are hypocritical in there standings does not mean that they all are.-

With this evidence I feel "PETA is a crazy organization of radical vegetarians" was not proven with facts but was based on your own personal beliefs. Since this is the final round and I have no way to object to anything you say afterward I hope you will not decide to change your argument to somethings more suiting such as "I meant PETA as an organization" or "PETA as this guy I know" such as you changed your definition.

I hope the public will rule in my favor on this matter. Happy Holidays.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by SkepticalDefender 4 years ago
No, they are crazy, they take animal protection rights way too far, I'm sorry but basically vandalization of a fur coat is not the measures that should be taken
Posted by theta_pinch 5 years ago
Well played The_Art_Of_Logic, well played......
Posted by theta_pinch 5 years ago
PETA stands for people for the ethical treatment of animals. Some things they do are large protests, making parodies of games such as pokemon, and suing places for things like Mario's tanooki suit. They also have their own animal shelter which makes them hypocrites because 80% of animals that come in don't come out; as in they kill the animals.
Posted by STALIN 5 years ago
wtf is Peta?
Posted by kbub 5 years ago
I'm tempted... but I was never a big fan of PETA... would an argument saying PETA is justified in taking so-called "extreme" measures be an acceptable way to counter the "PETA is crazy" topic?
I'm not very clear on how the arguments are meant to be set up.
No votes have been placed for this debate.