Greenpeace Is Evil

I'll first defend my case and then proceed to deconstruct my opponent's. Before I start, however, I'd like t remind CON of the resolution: "On the whole, the environmental organization Greepeace has caused (or has attempted to cause) more harm than good in the world." That's what we're debating. I don't define evil because it's not in the resolution. 1. DDTs As defined by the WHO, DDT is a "moderately hazardous" substance by the WHO [1]. "Moderately hazardous" is Class 3 out of four classes, with the fourth class being slightly toxic [2]. This class is comparable to the EPA Toxicity Class II. DDT, contrary to what Greenpeace thought, is not some Agent Orange-esque cancer-causing arsenic compound. So, even if this is in the supply of our food, it's outweighed by the millions of lives that DDT has saved. I'd like to note that my opponent's first source from Greenpeace measures the amounts in parts per million, whereas DDT is toxic at a dosage of several thousand times that (5-30 grams) [3].My opponent has failed to justify the lives lost by anti-DDT activism, including that of Greenpeace, thus, you can vote PRO on this issue. 2. GMOsThe notion that I don't like organic foods is absurd. The problem arises in third world where not everyone can access free-range happy chicken eggs, or GMO-free peanut butter. IN the third world, food itself is a problem: not only can you really not get "organic" unless you grow it, a lot of times you can't get food at all. It would be better to give everybody organic food, but that's simply not possible. What is more feasible is GMO-based foods. I'm not arguing for GMOs in America, we're discussing the millions who are suffering deficiencies in the Third World (like VAD) whose problems can be alleviated by GMOs."Yeah its cheap to make, and you can put good stuff in it, but really, are you trying to poison the starving people!?"I think this quote from PRO accurately shows the problematic assumptions in his case. We can't do that. It's not practical, at all. Organizc food is much more expensive [4], and, without widespread pesticides or preservatives, not plausible for charitable use outside the US.Overall, I've given loads of evidence that Greenpeace has actively campaigned against that which is beneficial. My opponent has yet to justify why they were correct in doing so, and as such, my case stands.3. CON's CaseAgain, we're looking at the whole here - on the net. Greenpeace, I'm sure, has done at least one or two nice things in their existence, but that is vastly outweighed by the harm done. Greenpeace itself doesn't hire hitsquads to murder (although they do extensive damage to property) but they kill and main via the consequences of their lobbying -- like I said earlier, trying to prevent foodstuffs from reaching the third world or trying to ensure that the environment is protected from DDT at the cost of a million human beings per year. There's really not much to be said here - PRO hasn't proven in any way that Greenpeace has done more harm than good. Even if I grant every contention made in his case, that leaves Greenpeace with one saved fisherman, some fish, and whales. These things are far outweighed by the consequences of their actions. [1] World Health Organization (Page 22)http://www.who.int...;[2] Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org...[3] Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org...[4] Mint Personal Financehttp://www.mint.com...