Instigator / Pro
14
1479
rating
3
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2003
PETA should be banned.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
12
Better sources
4
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4
After 4 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
oromagi
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
28
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Description
It is very controversial and I do not like it.
Round 1
Con
#2
thx, Worldthink897
PETA SHOULD be BANNED
OBJECTION: This topic has no subject. That is, who
should ban PETA is left undefined. If we are looking at a
public policy debate (x govt. should adopt x policy) then we need to
understand which govt. is going to ban PETA under what
authority. PRO needs to provide a
subject for this thesis
DEFINITIONS:
PETA is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Aninals
PEOPLE for the ETHICAL TREAMENT of ANIMALS is "an American animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, and led by Ingrid Newkirk,
its international president. A nonprofit corporation with nearly 400
employees, it claims that it has 6.5 million members and supporters, in
addition to claiming that it is the "largest animal rights group in the
world." Its slogan is "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on,
use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way. Today, it focuses on four core issues—opposition to factory farming, fur farming, animal testing,
and the use of animals in entertainment. It also campaigns for a vegan
lifestyle and against eating meat, fishing, the killing of animals
regarded as pests, the keeping of chained backyard dogs, cock fighting, dog fighting, beekeeping, and bullfighting.
The group is the focus of controversy, both inside and outside the animal rights movement and around the world."
BANNED [adj] is "fobidden; not allowed" This dictionary definition is largely in agreement with PRO's personal definition as offered in the comments section of this debate,
BURDEN of PROOF:
Wikipedia advises:
"When
two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other
disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to
justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a
perceived status quo"
CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that any controversial American non-profit disliked by PRO has no right to exist.
PROA:1
[PETA] is very controversial and I do not like it.
OBJECTION: PRO has failed to make a complete argument. If it follows that a non-profit organization should be banned only because the non-profit is controversial and PRO does not like it then we are missing major premises establishing the principles that (1) any and all controversial organizations ought to be banned, and (2) any organization that displeases PRO ought to be banned. If these premises are not to be applied that PRO has failed to explain why PETA deserves exceptional treatment. In the absence of any overarching principle or defense of special treatment, PRO's whole argument fails as non-sequitur.
Why are controversy and PRO's approval relevant and sufficient measures to terminate a non-profit organization?
OBJECTION: In lieu of argument or evidence, PRO links to a website https://petakillsanimals.com/ . A link to somebody else's argument against PETA does not count as an argument against PETA in the course of a debate. The whole point of this exercise is to practice our skills in rational discourse, not to link to somebody else's argument. Nor is it fair to ask CON to prepare a rebuttal against arguments not offered within the strictures of our debate rules. CON has not obligation to rebut any arguments originated from confined to other websites. CON will only rebut original arguments authored by PRO within the 10,000 character confines of this debate.
OBJECTION: PRO's single piece of evidence is tainted by corrupt motivation. PETAKILLSANIMALS is "a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom", now known as the CENTER for ORGANIZATION RESEARCH and EDUCATION which is "an American non-profit entity founded by Richard Berman that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. Experts on non-profit law have questioned the validity of the group's non-profit status in The Chronicle of Philanthropy and other publications, while commentators... have treated the group as an entity that specializes in astroturfing. The organization has been critical of organizations including the Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, The Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine."
ASTROTURFING is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or
organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's
financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots".
That is, Richard Berman takes money ($4 million in 2014 of which Berman pays himself about half- non-profit so no taxes) from the corporations that make liquor and then creates a fake grassroots organization that has a problem with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Berman takes money from Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds and then fights smoking restrictions in bars and restaurants by creating fake grassroots organizations that try to discredit the Centers for Disease Control.
Berman's clients include Tyson Foods, Monsanto, Dean Foods, Coca-Cola, Arby's Wendy's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, McDonalds' who pay Berman to manufacture complaints about PETA in retaliation against PETA's objection to the cruel and unhygienic conditions in factory animal farming and meat processing plants. Berman's website is therefore not some unbiased or unprovoked response to PETA. It is opinion paid for and manufactured by Big Meat and so may not used as an unbiased source of evidence or analysis of PETA's conduct.
CON argues that PRO has not demonstrated any authority or capacity that should make PRO's personal dislike of PETA relevant to public policy.
CON argues that controversy alone is not a sufficient condition for banning any entity is a democracy. The sitting President of the United States is a non-stop controversy manufacturing machine, for example. Some might argue that Trump displays competency in no other regard except the manufacture of controversy. Still, no just or constitutional argument can be made for terminating the President or his office. Likewise, the Ku Klux Klan is America's most enduring hate group and terrorist organization. Every march, proclamation, picnic, etc organized by Klan members is the subject of outrage and controversy yet all attempts to ban the organization have failed any constitutional check. Unless PRO is prepared to argue that PETA is way worse than the Ku Klux Klan, PRO has little grounds for arguing that mere controversy is worthy of proscription.
CONA:1:
- PRO has failed to identify a relevant government empowered to close down PETA Until we're discussing the policy of some relevant legal authority, all of PRO's objection are too ethereal to really falsify or justify.
CONB:1:
- As an American corporation, PETA enjoys a right to Free Speech.
- The First Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States declares:
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that "the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations."
- That is, PETA's right to complain about current practices, petition governments for correction, raise and spend money as it sees fit are well protected by the constitution. In order to disband PETA, PRO must first show how PETA fails to qualify under these guarantees.
CONC:1:
- A government shutdown of any corporation merely on the grounds of "controversy" is clear censorship and contrary to US values.
SUMMARY1:
- PRO has failed why mere controversy and personal distaste provide sufficient cause to override US Constitiutional protections and American's love for free expression.
- No rational or just basis for banning PETA has been presented here.
CON looks forward to PRO's R2 response.
SOURCES:
Round 2
Pro
#3
I look forward to CON's argument.
1. The U.S government is the authority that would ban PETA.
2. I meant that it would receive no funding from anywhere. It would be like closing a business.
3. I will now give my arguments.
4. The policies of the banning are listed here.
Policies:
1. PETA would receive no funding from anywhere or anyone and investing in PETA would be illegal.
2. PETA's protest would be illegal.
3. Employees forced to find new work,.
4. PETA cannot do anything.
5. In summary, an extensive restraining order would be placed on PETA.
Arguments:
1. PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything. They have even went to great lengths as to criticize Steve Irwin. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/23/peta-steve-irwin-tweet-group-faces-fire-conservationists-birthday/2962313002/
2. Their founder, Ingrid Newkirk, is strictly against pet ownership. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk
3. They shame people for eating meat. What about synthetic meat? https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/the-artificial-meat-factory-the-science-of-your-synthetic-supper/ That is, you do not need to go vegan, yet PETA is ignoring this and continues to shame someone for eating chicken wings.
4. They are notorious for stealing people's pets and euthanizing without permission. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/peta-sorry-for-taking-girls-dog-putting-it-down https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/peta-taking-pets/
5. They want pets to be wild even though pets cannot survive in the wild.
6. They euthanize more than they save. https://blogs.duanemorris.com/animallawdevelopments/2019/02/08/peta-animal-shelter-continues-to-show-high-rate-of-euthanization/
Rebutals:
1. It might not have been a wise move to use a propaganda website for my arguments.
2. The PETA protesters are far from nonviolent.https://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2018/04/a-brief-history-of-the-violence-of-peta-002479281.html
Vote Pro!
Con
#4
thx, Worldthink897
The USFG SHOULD BAN PETA
Let's note the update to thesis and update our definitions as well
DEFINITIONS:
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the UNITED STATES [USFG] is "the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions"
BANNED [adj] is "fobidden; not allowed" This dictionary definition is largely in agreement with PRO's personal definition as offered in R2
The policies of the banning are listed here.Policies:1. PETA would receive no funding from anywhere or anyone and investing in PETA would be illegal2. PETA's protest would be illegal3. Employees forced to find new work4. PETA cannot do anything5. In summary, an extensive restraining order would be placed on PETA
BURDEN of PROOF:
As instigator, PRO has the superior burden. PRO has not challenged the traditional expectation
PROA:2:
[PETA] is very controversial and I do not like it
- Of CON's 3 objections, PRO has responded to the latter: "PRO's single piece of evidence is tainted by corrupt motivation"
"It might not have been a wise move to use a propaganda website for my arguments."
- PRO and CON now both agree that PETAKILLSANIMALS is just some corporate fast food propaganda and need not influence public policy. Perhaps we can likewise agree that controversy or personal preference alone should not guide our public policy decisions
PROB:2:
PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything
- Hyperbole. In fact, PETA has a reputation for its narrow focus on animal issues. "According to experts, they are very tightly focused on their mission and
they are able to generate media attention to the cause." There are plenty of subjects that PETA never addresses for lack of interest. For example, I can find no PETA criticism of Dungeons and Dragons or debating websites. There are also many subjects that PETA is restricted from addressing. For example, PETA does not criticize particular political ideologies or candidates in IRS compliance with its status as a non-profit organization.
They have even went to great lengths as to criticize Steve Irwin
I don't think we have to develop any strong opinion regarding crocodile hunters to agree that such a profession is hardly above critique. Anybody who makes a living poking at wild animals should expect some degree of disapproval. When that poking is reckless enough to provoke a lethal response from wild animals, then lack of caution adds another layer of criticism even before the value of leaving wild animals to live unmolested is tabled. Criticism of Steve Irwin is hardly an indication of extreme ideology
Their founder, Ingrid Newkirk, is strictly against pet ownership
OBJECTION: The source provided does not sustain the argument. Of the quotes provided by PRO, CON sees the following:
- "One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals"
- That "one day" strongly indicates that today is not that day. Newkirk seems to acknowledge that the end of pets is not near at hand
- "I love walking someone else’s dog. I don’t have the luxury of having a
dog myself because I travel too much, but I love walking and cuddling
somebody else’s dog"
- So while Newkirk may envisage a day when dogs are not dependent on humans for exercise, she is not so "strictly" against pet ownership that she does engage in the rituals of ownership by proxy
OBJECTION: Organizations ought not to be held responsible for its founder's beliefs
- Elon Musk, for example, quite unjustly accused a heroic diver/rescuer of pedophilia just because that rescuer pointed out that all of Elon Musk's contributions to the rescue effort were counterproductive
- "Never saw this British expat guy who lives in Thailand (sus) at any
point when we were in the caves. Only people in sight were the Thai
navy/army guys, who were great. Thai navy seals escorted us in — total
opposite of wanting us to leave. Water level was actually very low &
still (not flowing) — you could literally have swum to Cave 5 with no
gear, which is obv how the kids got in. If not true, then I challenge
this dude to show final rescue video. You know what, don’t bother
showing the video. We will make one of the mini-sub/pod going all the
way to Cave 5 no problemo. Sorry pedo guy, you really did ask for it'
- Should we shut down Tesla just because Musk is fond of bombing any critic with cruel defamation?
- PETA itself does not seem to advocate any particularly extreme position regarding pet ownership. PETA's own website has pages endorsing and actively participating in "Take Your Dog to Work Day"
- So, it is not accurate to say that Newkirk is "strictly" against pet ownership, nor does that characterization apply to PETA, nor would it be fair to shut down PETA just because its founder held some unpopular belief
PROC:2:
They shame people for eating meat. What about synthetic meat?
- OBJECTION: non-sequitur. CON doesn't see the connection between lack of support for synthetic and carnivore shaming.
That is, you do not need to go vegan, yet PETA is ignoring [synthetic meat]
- That is quite false. PETA is, in fact, an enthusiastic promoter of synthetic meat
- In 2008, PETA offered a $1 million dollar prize for the first laboratory to use chicken cells to create commercially viable in vitro (test tube) meat by 2012
- PETA regularly celebrates advancements in synthetic meat and even invests in synthetic meat development.
- "PETA has been investing in in vitro research for the past six years, because we believe it’s the first
important step toward realizing the dream of one day putting
environmentally sound, humanely produced real meat into the hands and
mouths of the people who insist on eating animal flesh"
- Contrary to PRO's claim, PETA is not ignoring synthetic meat
PROD:2:
They are notorious for stealing people's pets and euthanizing without permission
- Two incidents 8 years apart don't amount to "notoriety"
- Using PRO's own source, we can show that PRO is badly exaggerating the circumstances
- In 2007, a PETA employee was accused of removing the collar of a hunting dog belonging to the local Animal Control Officer. The charges were dropped because there was no evidence that Harris removed the collar. Harris claims that she was only rescuing an uncollared dog loose on the highway. The hunting dog was not euthanized. Nobody seems to wonder why the local Animal Control Officer's own animal was wandering loose
- In 2015, a chihuahua wandering uncollared and untagged in a trailer park was picked up by PETA employees who had been collecting a large number of stray dogs at the invitation of trailer park management in response to recent attacks by stray dogs on local farm animals. Other dogs owned by the same family which were tethered were left alone. The chihuahua was euthanized before ownership was discovered. No charges were ever filed. The DA stated:
- "it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated
with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed
health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent
community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no
criminal prosecution can occur"
PROE:2:
They want pets to be wild even though pets cannot survive in the wild.
- PETA replies:
- "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well
cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of
dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people
to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other
company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world"
PROF:2:
They euthanize more than they save
- PETA isn't really in the business of sheltering:
- "The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors—we
refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters. Most of
the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their
misery come from abysmal conditions"
- "PETA opposes the no-kill movement, attempts to address the animal-overpopulation crisis at its source
through spaying and neutering companion animals as well as by opposing
breeders and puppy mills, transfers adoptable animals to open-admission
shelters, and euthanizes most of the animals who end up at its "shelter
of last resort."
- Lots of shelters save animals. PETA's commitment to reducing animal cruelty makes that group more willing to euthanize than softer but ultimately more cruel shelters more willing to confine animals than give them the freedom of release
CONA:2:
- PRO answered: USFG
CONB:2:
- PRO has ignored PETA's right to free expression
CONC:2:
- PRO has dropped CON's claim of censorship
COND:2:
- The USFG can take away tax exempt status but has no authority to shut down private business, which is a State or local government responsibility
SUMMARY1:
- PRO
has improved the quantity of argument but most of his claims are false or exaggerated and none of the claims warrant Federal shutdown of a business
- No rational or just basis for banning PETA has been presented here
CON looks forward to PRO's R2 response.
SOURCES:
Round 3
Pro
#5
Rebuttals:
I have responded to the free speech argument. According to the Constitution, violent protest is not permitted. I have proven PETA is violent, therefore does not deserve protest rights.
2. If PETA isn't against pet ownership, than what do you say to this:
"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."
"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
And you say she does not hate pet ownership. Even though it is not today, if PETA has it's way, pets would be abolished.
3. The connection between carnivore shaming and synthetic meat is this: PETA does not need to shame meat eaters and they don't have to be vegan like PETA says. They can still eat artificial meat if they consider it unethical.
4. PETA still should've not taken the families dog. They had the power to investigate the ownership of the dog yet they just put it in he truck to be killed.
5. That claim was exaggerated. I am sorry.
6. However, the place was identified as an animal shelter. If they didn't want to be identified as an animal shelter, they could have given a different label to the establishment.
7. See 1.
8. I never said it was only the federal government. I meant all levels of US government, including state and local governments.
Con
#6
thx, Worldthink897
ALL of the NEARLY 90,000 [FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL] GOVERNMENTS in the UNITED STATES SHOULD BAN PETA
Let's note another update to thesis.
BANNED [adj] is "fobidden; not allowed" This dictionary definition is largely in agreement with PRO's personal definition as offered in R2
The policies of the banning are listed here.Policies:1. PETA would receive no funding from anywhere or anyone and investing in PETA would be illegal2. PETA's protest would be illegal3. Employees forced to find new work4. PETA cannot do anything5. In summary, an extensive restraining order would be placed on PETA
PROA:3:
CON argues that personal preference and controversy are insufficient cause for a national ban. The KKK is controversial and widely despised but no Federal proscription would survive judicial review.
PRO concedes that PETAKILLSANIMALS is just corporate fast food propaganda but has otherwise disregarded CON's arguments and objections.
PROB:3:
PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything
- CON showed in R2 that PETA is quite focused on the welfare of animals. PRO ignored the counter.
They have even went to great lengths as to criticize Steve Irwin
- CON argued that poking wildlife for human fun is the extreme position and criticism of such behavior hardly indicates extremism. PRO ignored this argument
Their founder, Ingrid Newkirk, is strictly against pet ownership
- PRO showed that Newkirk's opposition to pet ownership is quite moderate:
- Newkirk call for abolition "one day"- not even necessarily in our lifetimes. PETA has not lobbied for any anti-ownership legislation
- Newkirk supports present-day ownership to the degree that she cares for her friends dogs and permits PETA employees to bring their pets to work
- PRO countered:
If PETA isn't against pet ownership, than what do you say to this:"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind. You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them … One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
- CON already included a truncated version of this quote in R2 to demonstrate moderation. "One day" makes Newkirk philosophy aspirational. Neither Newkirk or PETA have lobbied for legislation prohibiting cats and dogs. PRO's expansion of the quote amounts to repetition only.
- PRO has ignored CON's argument that the USFG has no authority and ought not to have authority to close a business based on the founder's personal belief.
- Henry Ford was a famous racist, anti-semite and Nazi sympathizer but would it be fair or just to therefore shutter the Ford Motor Company founded by him?
PROC:3:
They shame people for eating meat. What about synthetic meat?
- CON objected to the non-sequitur which PRO now explains:
The connection between carnivore shaming and synthetic meat is this: PETA does not need to shame meat eaters and they don't have to be vegan like PETA says. They can still eat artificial meat if they consider it unethical.
- PRO ignores CON's R2 counterargument that PETA is an enthusiastic supporter of artificial meat. PRO can not show that PETA shames synthetic meat eaters because PETA actually actively supports synthetic meat
- Contrary to PRO's claim, PETA is not ignoring synthetic meat
PROD:3:
They are notorious for stealing people's pets and euthanizing without permission
- PRO ignored CON objection that two minor incidents 8 years apart, only one of which ended with euthanasia does not support PRO's claim of "notorious"
- PRO ignores CON's evidence that PETA returned the Animal Control Officer's lost dog without euthanization
- PRO extends his complaint regarding the one dead chihuahua:
PETA still should've not taken the families dog. They had the power to investigate the ownership of the dog yet they just put it in he truck to be killed.
- I think we can agree that the loss of a family dog is regrettable while placing 100% of the blame on the owners for allowing the dog to roam free with wild dogs unleashed, uncollared, and without indentifiction. Any animal control agency or business would and often do make the same mistake in the same circumstance. PRO has failed to show that this incident suggests extremism or even incompetance on PETA's part.
- PRO has ignored CON's evidence that the police found no evidence of culpability on PETA's part.
PROE:3:
They want pets to be wild even though pets cannot survive in the wild.
- PRO concedes this claim is exaggerated:
That claim was exaggerated. I am sorry.
PROF:3:
They euthanize more than they save
- CON explained that PETA specializes in taking animal most shelters would refuse. PRO counters:
However, the place was identified as an animal shelter. If they didn't want to be identified as an animal shelter, they could have given a different label to the establishment
- the word "shelter" does not imply "no-kill" If it did, we shouldn't need the adjective "no-kill" to distinguish non-euthanazing shelters from euthanizing. Most businesses identifying as animal shelters
- In fact, even the adjective "no-kill" only indicates that the shelter or agency sets a goal of 90% adoption rate. Most "no-kill" shelter euthanize many animals every year and most no-kill shelters fall short of their stated goal.
- Of the estimated 14,000 animal shelters in the US, fewer than 4,000 are labeled "no-kill"
- Since the overwhelming majority of businesses that identify as animal shelters regularly kill many animals, PRO's demand that only PETA give up the label "shelter" while demonstrating practices that conform with all other US shelters amounts to prejudicial exceptionalism.
CONA:3:
- PRO answered: USFG
CONB:3:
and
CONC:3:
- PRO has ignored PETA's right to free expression
- PRO counters:
According to the Constitution, violent protest is not permitted.
- This is quite false. The US Constitution defines the function, scope, and limitations of the USFG only. While the First Ammendment to that august document restricts the USFG from abridging the right of the people to assemble peacably that leaves the regulation of non-peaceful assembies to USFG discretion and in no way mandate the prevention or restriction of violent protest.
I have proven PETA is violent,
- One dead chihuahua does not establish a history of violence
therefore does not deserve protest rights.
- Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) ruled:
- "These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the
constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a
State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law
violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action"
- Again, let's apply the KKK test.
- The Ku Klux Klan maintains the legal right to found non-profit organizations, the right to protest and march, the right to lobby governments in spite of history that credibly attributes the murder of thousands of US citizens
- So let's use the KKK as our benchmark for violence.
- To argue that PETA has no right to protest due to violence, PRO must establish that PETA has murdered more US citizens then the Klan, which organization the Supreme Court has ruled may lawfully protest.
- So far, we have one dead chihuahua that wasn't PETA's fault. CON argues that we may reasonably conclude that PETA is not more violent that the Ku Klux Klan.
- PRO assertion is disproved.
COND:3:
- PRO has now expanded the scope to include all 90,000 US governments, so CON's complaints about Federal jurisdction need not apply any longer
SUMMARY3:
- No rational, just, legal, or constitional basis for banning PETA has been presented by PRO as yet
CON looks forward to PRO's R4 response.
SOURCES:
Round 4
Con
#8
thx, Worldthink897
ALL of the NEARLY 90,000 [FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL] GOVERNMENTS in the UNITED STATES SHOULD BAN PETA
PRO has dropped all arguments in R4.
PROA:3:
CON
argues that personal preference and controversy are insufficient cause
for a national ban.
PRO
concedes that PETAKILLSANIMALS is just corporate fast food propaganda
but has otherwise disregarded CON's arguments and objections.
PROB:3:
- CON showed in R2 that PETA is quite focused on the welfare of animals. PRO ignored the counter
- CON
argued that poking wildlife for human fun is the extreme position and
criticism of such behavior hardly indicates extremism. PRO ignored this
argument
- PRO showed that Newkirk's opposition to pet ownership is quite moderate compared to, say, Henry Ford's racial views.
- PRO has failed to show extremism.
PROC:3:
- PRO can not show that PETA shames synthetic meat
eaters because PETA actually actively supports synthetic meat
PROD:3:
- PRO has ignored CON's evidence that the police found no evidence of culpability on PETA's part.
PROE:3:
- PRO conceded this claim is exaggerated:
PROF:3:
They euthanize more than they save
- the
word "shelter" does not imply "no-kill"
- PETA give
up the label "shelter" while demonstrating practices that conform with
all other US shelters amounts to prejudicial exceptionalism.
CONA:3:
- PRO resolved this.
CONB:3:
and
CONC:3:
- PRO has ignored PETA's right to free expression
- The US Constitution does prohibit violent protest
- One dead chihuahua does not establish a history of violence
- Since US law has clearly found that the Klan's history of violence does not merit a ban, PRO must show that PETA is significantly more harmful to US interests than racist terrorist organization.
COND:3:
- PRO
resolved this.
SUMMARY3:
- No rational, just, legal, or constitional basis for banning PETA has been presented by PRO as yet
CON looks forward to PRO's R5 response.
Round 5
Con
#10
thx, Worldthink897
ALL of the NEARLY 90,000 [FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL] GOVERNMENTS in the UNITED STATES SHOULD BAN PETA
PRO has dropped all arguments.
PROA:5:
CON
argues that personal preference and controversy are insufficient cause
for a national ban.
PRO
concedes that PETAKILLSANIMALS is just corporate fast food propaganda
but has otherwise disregarded CON's arguments and objections.
PROB:5:
- CON showed in R2 that PETA is quite focused on the welfare of animals. PRO ignored the counter
- CON
argued that poking wildlife for human fun is the extreme position and
criticism of such behavior hardly indicates extremism. PRO ignored this
argument
- PRO showed that Newkirk's opposition to pet ownership is quite moderate compared to, say, Henry Ford's racial views.
- PRO has failed to show extremism.
PROC:5:
- PRO can not show that PETA shames synthetic meat
eaters because PETA actually actively supports synthetic meat
PROD:5:
- PRO has ignored CON's evidence that the police found no evidence of culpability on PETA's part.
PROE:5:
- PRO conceded this claim is exaggerated:
PROF:5:
They euthanize more than they save
- the
word "shelter" does not imply "no-kill"
- PETA give
up the label "shelter" while demonstrating practices that conform with
all other US shelters amounts to prejudicial exceptionalism.
CONA:5:
- PRO resolved this.
CONB:5:
and
CONC:5:
- PRO has ignored PETA's right to free expression
- The US Constitution does prohibit violent protest
- One dead chihuahua does not establish a history of violence
- Since
US law has clearly found that the Klan's history of violence does not
merit a ban, PRO must show that PETA is significantly more harmful to US
interests than racist terrorist organization.
COND:5:
- PRO
resolved this.
SUMMARY5:
- PRO failed to show any rational or legal justification for banning PETA.
- PRO doesn't agree with PETA (nor does CON on most matter) but the preservation of unpopular speech and unpopular organization is enshrined in American society by the First Ammendment to the US Constitution.
- CON has shown that PETA is no more radical than most animal non-profits and far less radical than many well protected US nonprofits.
- Most of PRO's strong opinion was shown to be informed by fast-food corporations and fake news. When we stick to facts, PETA is shown to be far less extreme than that organizations reputation in some corners of US society.
- PRO has failed to fulfill his mission, which was to show that PETA has no right to exist, no right to speech or community service.
- Therefore, CON recommends that VOTERS award ARGUMENTS to CON
- Since PRO conceded over-reliance on biased sources and exagerrated the content of other material, CON recommends that VOTERS award SOURCES to CON.
- Thanks to Worldthink897 for an interesting topic and
- Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.
- PLEASE VOTE CON
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro affectively missed three rounds.
1. The first just pointing to a link, but not saying anything about the content.
2. The second saying he would post later...
3. And the third, forfeiting the final round.
This debate is a foregone conclusion, but without putting the work into reading it, I do not feel comfortable awarding the various other points.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
pro's sources were doubtful and oromagi showed they were biased. Also he forfeited more than con.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no associated argument by Pro. "That says all" is not a valid argument. It says all WHAT? WHY? HOW? - etc. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by Pro's rebuttals, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.
Sources: Pro's sources reflected bias, inconclusively and self-contradiction. Example: "PETA is notorious for it's criticism of everything." Con successfully rebutted this point as being "hyperbole" made by several Pro sources, such as https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/23/peta-steve-irwin-tweet-group-faces-fire-conservationists-birthday/2962313002/ By contrast, Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages which fully supported Con's arguments. Example: the focus of PETA of four specific goals to achieve. points to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation: no argument in r1, just a linked source [needs both sourcing and argument, forfeit r5. Con was professional and credible in all rounds. Point to Con
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6; 6 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Seriously, this could be called a two round forfeit, but that is pretty far from a full forfeiture.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
seldiora
54 minutes ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
full forfeit, and pro sources were not that good
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no commentary by Pro. Bad form. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by rebuttal, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.
Sources: Pro's sources were biases, inconclusive and self-contradicting. Example: Peta founder was demonstrated to criticize pet ownership, yet engage in proxie pet care, as Con demonstrated. Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation. Con was professional and credible in all rounds.
>Reason for Mod Action: While the reasoning for the points awarded is fine, per the Voting Policy, there needs to be explicit mention of at least one argument/counterargument to award argument points. In addition, there needs to be explicit mention of what Pro did to warrant him losing conduct points. I actually agree with your analysis, for the record, and I am sorry for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
Oh wait that is Oromagi...
Who is that activist flag guy?
PETA gets free speech protections.
Although I see Pro is definitely trying his best, I doubt that he can win against Oromagi.
No kill shelters are far more unethical than kill shelters and this is one thing peta got right. This is the worst common criticism of peta. They use so many ignorant extremist tactics but they get bashed for this? They get some stuff right, just deal with it
As in, no protest, funding, employees fired, relations cut off. Closed.
Banned in what sense?