PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Proceeding with refuting my opponents arguments and accepting my opponents apology for the prior forfeit, I begin. 1. My opponent shows not one example or logical reason how not only have they done nothing for the environment (which I'm presuming in this case to mean animals and creatures that exist in said environment) but what they have done to bring, and I quote "a large amount of harm" I do not think it would benefit anyone if we were to forget the original resolution. 2. Many things are illegal however, many illegal acts occur. PETA simply makes sure the law is enforced. My opponent has not provided a statement in a case where they do say all labs treat animals poorly nor how this has hurt the environment or other conservational issues. Or how their "bad qualities far exceed any good ones". 3. My opponent has done nothing to refute well documented video evidence which needless to say helped to enforce the law and prevent further illegal actions of abuse, except to state that in some cases animals are well taken care of. So with this logic we are to assume that social workers not only do not help out the community but actually cause harm to it. As social workers are uncovering and preventing future child abuse as PETA is uncovering and preventing future animal abuse. My opponent in essence is stating that there are plenty of cases where child abuse doesn't occur. Since child abuse is ALREADY illegal, no one needs to enforce it. Because they are helping children being abused they are doing a bad thing and all they want is to make money. 4. Founded in 1980 and based in Norfolk, Virginia, the organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost exclusively by its members. Therefore they are not in it "to make money" as my opponent incorrectly assumes. What does my opponent care if the organization is attempting to do good and is funded by its members and not by her tax dollars? I fail to see how they cause any harm whatsoever. "About Peta", July 10, 2006. http://www.peta.org... "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Give.org, April 12, 2006. http://charityreports.bbb.org... 5. My opponent is criticizing a watchdog organization for doing what it is designed to do. To watch. It would be the same as criticizing the local media. Why do they continue to try to discover crime and corruption when it has already been made illegal and has stopped. Why are they telling us people are still practicing crime and corruption. Simply because people will continue to commit crime and become corrupt. It is the duty of watchdog organizations such as the media and PETA to protect the rights of the citizens (in the case of the media) and to protect the rights of animals (in the case of PETA) simply because something is illegal does not mean it will occur. I primarily think this is what my opponent fails to understand in large. Simply because something has been found out and made illegal does not mean that it will not continue to happen. 6. My opponent responds to the comments section. I do have to say that is very poor conduct, at least as it is considered on this site. I did not make those comments after I accepted the debate. They are not at all revelant to the debate simply because they are comments and not a debate argument. Therefore you have absolutely no grounds to respond to them. 7. Personal opinions have no place in a debate. Only when they are backed up with relevant facts are they necessary. 8. Perhaps you should have defined "harm conservational and environmental pursuits" as it is a huge category in which animal abuse easily fits. As animals are a large part and factor in the present environment. Furthermore PETA's name primarily indicated that you wished this to be about animal abuse as PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. A indepth explanation of your meaning usually is a good thing to do in the opening round. 9. Pictures have no place in this debate unless you are using them as factual proof of something. 10. A. You cannot judge how animals feel as you cannot feel their emotions for them. Additionally you have provided no proof that they prefer being milked 24/7 to living in the environment. B. No we do not. However I fail to see where this pertains to your argument. C. I agree stereotyping is not a good thing, however I fail to see how this pertains to your arguments. D. No as shown by my evidence (none of which you have refuted the validity of) PETA has done a great deal in fixing past problems and continues to fix every rising problems. Simply because animal abuse has been put to an end once, does not mean it will happen again. To assume so is to be ignorant as assuming that Social workers are unnecessary because child abuse has already been put to a stop once. I do have to diverge with my opponent and ask the voters in this debate to recognize the importance and validity of watchdog organizations which not only have been a great check and balance for our government but similarly, have done the same in our society. Thank you.