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

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)