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

Okay, the first thing my opponent does is attempt to show an a-priori morality as paramount to this debate. I must reject this framework as a-priori morality does not exist. As irrational as that sounds, it is true. My opponent gives murder as an example, everyone hate murder (thinks it is immoral) right? Wrong. The death penalty is considered to be murder, as well as things like abortion or euthanasia, but we have supporters as well as opposers. There is absolutely no "moral" idea that is accepted or agreed upon by every person in the world. If we all didn't want murder or rape in our society, we wouldn't have murder and rape! Furthermore, my opponent bases this off sheer religion. I don't have a religion, does that mean I think its okay to kill people? No. I haven't done so yet. But more importantly, my opponent contradicts himself by proposing a-priori morality (inner morals that everyone shares without law or social opinion) and then duty-based morality (a system of morals or rules set up by a government or religion for its people and itself to follow) for us to follow in this round! 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. (especially if they contradict each other! ) Now on to the affirmative's case: My opponent's first contention says nothing. All he does is talk about how morality can't be looked at, AFTER HE SPENT ALL THAT TIME DEFINING IT. On the grounds of looking at the debate on a moral point of veiw, 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. The most important thing for you to think of right now is that his first contention has no weight and gains him ZERO ground, so it is not a reason to affirm. His contention two gains him ZERO GROUND. On-face, you drop this statement (at least in the form of a contention) because it doesn't give you any reason to affirm. He simply states that we should look at utilitarianism for this debate, which (if you read the resolution) we already are generally doing already. Please note that at this point in the debate, there is no reason to affirm based on his first two "contentions" Okay, the first thing my opponent does in his third contention is put words in the mouth of PETA. He claims: "PETA is attempting to remove all human influence on animals and has frequently stated that they are wishing to achieve 'total animal liberation'. " He DOES NOT STATE any date, source, location or FACT to prove this statement. Why? Because he CAN'T! PETA's goal according to THEM: (Note that I am citing a source, unlike my opponent) "PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds and other 'pests,' and the abuse of backyard dogs. Our goal is to end all unnessesary suffering for animals everywhere. " Unfortunately for my opponent, NOWHERE does their mission statement claim "we want to make animals equal or better than humans". This is going to be a key issue for you voters in this round: My opponent, like so many people, has misconstrued PETA's objective because the media and ex-members (or sheer opposers of PETA for that matter) has given such a false and distorted view on what PETA does and does not support. But, lets contine down his C.3: "Food is necessary for life as is the nutrients found in dairy products" This is blatantly false. Vegans (take note that I am talking about healthy vegans who balance their diet intelectually) live often HEALTHIER lives than that of meat eaters. From a panel of health scientists in New York: "Vegans are approximately one-ninth as likely to be obese as meat-eaters and have a cancer rate that is only 40 percent that of meat-eaters. People who consume animal products are also at increased risk for many other illnesses, including strokes, obesity, osteoporosis, arthritis, Alzheimer's, multiple allergies, diabetes, and food poisoning" Vegetarians have the same benefits, but I'm running out of characters and I must address my opponent's 4th Contention. I will provide more links and hard evidence for my opponent and judges if they wish. His last contention is a contradiction to his first! He claims that PETA is immoral, so he shoud win. His first contention says "Don't judge on 'Morality'"! Even after that hypocritical nonsence, we can look at the UNWARRANTED CLAIMS he presents in this contention: "The head of PETA influenced Yasser Arafat to commit suicide bombings to protect animal rights but ignored the human lives that were lost in order to 'Save' the animals" 1) There is ZERO ACTUAL PROOF that Ingrid Newkirk even TALKED to Yasser Arafat! 2) PETA greatly opposes suicide bombings, moreover anything that hurts a human being. PETA supports life. Period. Animal, Human, Insect, everything. Lets read on: "When PETA officials are known to influence groups to commit murder against other humans, the most immoral thing to do, we see that PETA has committed a moral crime that is universal" 1) PETA does not influence groups to do anything harmful to anything with life. 2) PETA would be listed as a domestic terrorist group if they commited crimes. They are not. A domestic terrorist group named ALF (animal liberation front) has been known to commit bombings on animal testing facilities, and PETA is often blamed as the source. These groups are COMPLELTELY SEPARATE. Okay, so right now, you have no reason to affirm, but many reasons to negate.