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

Of course I have to be repetitive, because you just don't understand the argument. Hopefully the voter base of this website understands the argument and doesn't vote based off their pre-determined notions about PETA. You failed in the theory debate, you failed at the heart of the argument, you failed at this debate. So voters.. You're sitting there right now thinking, "who do I vote for" and have for the past 5 rounds of "debate". Your job is to decide whether or not PETA has done more bad to all living things than good, but how do you determine what is ultimately good and bad? There's a lot of different ways one can define "good" or "bad" and many different ways one can evaluate positives against negatives, my opponent provides no method in which to evaluate the round. If we do not provide a way to evaluate the debate, in round, you, the judges, are left to apply what you define as good or bad in the debate round, and judge based off of that. PETA is a very large, popular, organization and most Americans have an opinion as to whether PETA is a good or bad organization. Debate.org, being a website filled with opinionated people, probably has a great percentage of its' users swayed one way or another in relevance to PETA. These are the people judging the debate round; people with biased opinions before the debate even began. Most are able to look past their bias and vote based on the arguments provided in round, however, there is still the issue as to what exactly is "good" and "bad" referring to? The only way to ensure that the round is evaluated solely off in round discourse is to provide a type of "framework" that outlines what exactly the judge is to evaluate the round off of. In this round I provided the framework of "utilitarianism" which means "strive for utility/best for the greater good" because of the words "well being" in the resolution (provided by the con debater). When defining "well being" on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, they provided a definition that reads, "utilitarianism, according to which well-being is to be maximized". Therefore utilitarianism, or what is best for the greater good should, and will be the framework in which to evaluate the round. The con debater could have provided an opposing framework that does not leave the decision based solely on biased opinions that the readers have before the round even starts. Then my opponent concedes a couple key things. I said we can't look at morality as an issue in the debate, and he says, " I agree with my opponent, if we decide to impact the debate this way, its just end up with people voting based off their own opinions, not this debate". and. "He simply states that we should look at utilitarianism for this debate, which (if you read the resolution) we already are generally doing already". He concedes that we should only look to utilitarianism as a weighing mechanism in this round. However, with his arguments he constantly says we can't look to any definition or framework which would just cause for biased decisions, which he agreed to in his second argument. You have to look to utilitarianism as the framework in the debate, and when you do, I win. He says that he goes in depth with all of his arguments, HAHA. Seriously? He makes all these broad statements that have absolutely no factual backing. I have explained how utilitarianism favors humans over animals which he just says it doesnt without any explanation. Look back to round two when his entire "refutation" of humans>animals is just him complaining about the argument and saying how it should not be looked at in the round but he concedes the essence of the argument. He says, "cool" directly after my quote, showing that he agrees with what I said. But later he trys to say that he went on this in depth explanation of how humans are not greater than animals under utilitarianism but it is simply not present in the debate round. You label my arguments "useless rants" so that you don't have to answer them but will lose because of it. Round winning rant 1- You can't fiat the fact that PETA is good. The resolution starts at PETA=?(neutral) not PETA=Good, prove it wrong. I made arguments against PETA when you have made none for PETA. If there is any risk that what I said could be 1% true you have to vote pro because the neutral balance was shifted to the PETA=bad side. You could really vote pro on presumption here because theres a greater risk that PETA is bad, based off the arguments in round, than PETA being good. Round winning rant 2- You did concede util. I showed how you did earlier. You can't change your mind now, knowing that you messed up. AAA quote- WTF? Don't buy it why? Because the con debater says not to? I provide a perfectly legitimate quote illustrating how prop 2 will actually cause for more bad than good because of the many reasons stated in the quote from the Animal Agriculture Alliance. He says that if you do your research youll see that they supported prop 2 but this is clearly untrue or else he would have done the research and put it on the debate. He concedes Prop 2 raises food prices. This is bad for humans, thus utilitarianism impacts negative human impacts to a greater extent than positive animal impacts. I've won every argument here. It's blatantly obvious that I have won. But let's let the vote bombing against me begin!