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

"Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more destruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts" Basically, the negative impacts of PETA on the well being and moral statures of all living animals outweigh the positive impacts. A true issue comes when attempting to define the phrase "moral statures"; for it is common knowledge that what is moral to one, is not moral to another. However, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines the word "morality" as "refer[ing] to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons". This definition comes the closet to being an overall definition of morality thus should be preferred in this debate. This definition is real-world. Some issues can be resolved on a moral basis no matter what your religion is. Murder, for example, is unanimously deemed immoral by every religious group. My definition illustrates this fact by implying only those issues that are unanimously deemed immoral by basic human nature are what define morality. Contention 1: Prefer "well being" - The reason the "well being" of all living things is going to outweigh the moral stature of all living things is because "well being" is much more easily defined than "moral stature". I provided the probably one of the most least biased definitions to be found on the internet yet the definition could still be interpreted in multiple ways, each of which would provide one side or another an upper hand on the debate. From a Christian, moral, perspective PETA would without a doubt cause more negatives than positives being that the opening book of the bible places humans above animals; thus, expelling human resources for the protection of animals would not fall under their moral standards. Similar arguments could be made for many religions while contrary arguments could be made for different religions. Allowing the debate to become a morality debate in which the ballot ultimately comes down to an individuals predispositions creates a sterile and un-educational debate in which both sides, and the audience, receive nothing. Contention 2: Well being means utilitarianism "Well-being is most commonly used in philosophy to describe what is non-instrumentally or ultimately good for a person. The question of what well-being consists in is of independent interest, but it is of great importance in moral philosophy, especially in the case of utilitarianism, according to which well-being is to be maximized"- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Utilitarianism, or the strive for "utility" is the best framework in which to evaluate this round because of the words "well being" in the resolution. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy clearly states that in a strive for well-being, utilitarianism is the best framework in which to evaluate your actions. Contention 3: PETA fails PETA is attempting to remove all human influence on animals and has frequently stated that they are wishing to achieve "total animal liberation". Because PETA officials believe animals and humans have the same moral stature they have stated there is no difference between a poultry farm and a nazi death camp. Because of their extreme views of animal equality, if they were to achieve the goals in which they are setting out to we would not have any animal made products. That means no meat, no milk, no leather, and no animal testing. Food is necessary for life as is the nutrients found in dairy products. However, the most important is the halting of animal testing that would come to be if PETA achieves its goals. This impacts are already evident as seen with the passage of Prop 2 in California which stated poultry animals must have room to "roam" around, more than doubling the space required to keep a chicken in. The effects of this plan are not yet evident because the plan will not be implemented until 2010. However, the raise in food prices that will surely come do to poultry farm renovations and less amount of food able to be produced on a single farm will be evident in the not too distant future. Because of PETAs policies that they have had a hand in implementing have produced a negative impact onto humans it will outweigh the positives of the animals. Contention 4: PETA is a terrorist organization, this wins me the morality debate. 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. 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. No matter your belief about animal rights it is clear that PETA has committed a moral crime in doing this and are obligated to vote PRO because PETAs actions fall outside the scope of morality for every living person, not just certain groups. My character limit is quickly dwindling and I am left to end my argument here. Hopefully this ends up good, good luck con debater.