People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

"Are you aware that on ASPCA's website, on the front page it says 'Together we'll work to end animal cruelty and find loving homes for all adoptable pets.'" Yes, I am aware of this. In fact, I am even aware of the full quote: "Your renewed membership today will serve as a tangible act of defiance against those who abuse animals...and an act of love for all the animals on the streets tonight. Together we'll work to end animal cruelty and find loving homes for all adoptable pets." And the quote that I cited is what ASPCA states as their purpose so this is not a simple headline, not matter what you say. If anything, what you said is a simple headline. Yes, the focus primarily on pets, but most laws against cruelty to animals in the US came as a result of ASPCA's actions. So once again, your point is invalid. They still advocate rights for ALL animals. "Can you tell me where on this site or anywhere else there are rules for debates on debate.org ? I was not aware of this, however, I would like to say that that PETA does not influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. To me their campagins seem to have a great strategy, and effective. Being overdramatic can help get the word out and show people what is really happening to these animals that are put up to animal cruelty." I was actually referring to national debate rules organized for fair competition and debate. Rules of the National Forensics League and Pi Kappa Delta, which as an NFL debater yourself, you should have been well aware of and should follow unless you are advocating that we through out rules that have been established as necessary to fair debate. As for them having a great strategy, they do certain do grab people's attention. So if you take all ethics and morality out of it and don't care how many human deaths you compare to a leather purse or chicken sandwich, then this is a good strategy. I guess I'm just insane for believing that every word and action should be governed by morality. "Additonaly, with the " Holocaust on Your Plate " advertisement, PETA clearly apologized saying "When "Holocaust on Your Plate" was originally launched, we knew that it would be emotionally charged and intellectually provocative. Even if we had used more conventional tactics, people don't like to have it pointed out to them that theyï¿½re causing unnecessary pain and suffering by eating meat. We did aim to be provocative. We did not, however, aim simply to provoke" Yes, they apologized for one of two Holocaust campaigns launched around the same time, the other of which compared farm animals to the Gestapo rounding up Jews and sending them to concentration camps. They apologized for one out of two horrific comparisons. "Wow it's sad to see someone take somebody elses words and completley twist them, the actual quote is "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows … I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation … I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. " — Bruce Friedrich To people reading this debate Bruce Friedrich is PETA's vegan campaign coordinator, and said this at the "Animal Rights 2001" conference. Why my opponet used this in their arguement I am unsure." I'm sorry if I you were offended that I the quote I cited said he approved of only blowing up one building instead of many. Thank you for helping my case by showing that a key member of member of PETA, someone they have allowed to rise to power in their organization, supports destroying property of others instead of more peaceful methods. Many people of tremendous moral stature that sought to change the world acknowledged that it would be immoral to bring the change about through violence. Gandhi. Martin Luther King, Junior. Susan B. Anthony. Jesus Christ. So if you believe that these people were wrong about morality, it is perfectly acceptable to do what Friedrich encourages us to do. If you believe, as I do and most of the world does, that these individuals were incredibly moral, then Friedrich's stance is repulsive. This is precisely why I brought up this quote, to show how radical and immoral some of PETA's words and actions are. Because I advocate morality, not committing felonies, fighting corruption, not freeing animals only to kill them, and using peaceful methods to accomplish my goals, I can not and will not ever support PETA or any other organization that uses similar tactics. Anyone that believes in these same basic principles should also not give their support to this organization. If we seek to be moral members of society, we can never use fear or violence to accomplish our goals. I have shown you how PETA does just the opposite. No matter how the voting goes, I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate and hope that even if I have changed no one's mind about PETA, I have shown them that everything we do ought to be moral. Thank you.