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

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