Debate.org members* should join the boycott of KFC

============================= DEFINITIONS ============================= Debate. org members: Members of a website called debate. org. These members are based in different countries such as the USA, Britain, Canada. Many of these members, sign up for debate. org yet fail to post any debates. [1] ============================ ARGUMENT ============================ You say that the debate. org members would be organized by PETA which is supported by celebrities. First of all, just because some celebrities support something, does not make it a good organization. Many more celebrities are for KFC. Most people do not even know the truth about PETA. PETA is a very hypocritical organization that kills most of the animals it "saves. " Public records show that PETA finds homes for 1 out of every 300 animals. They kill most of their animals, and even the PETA manager admitted this. Public records prove that in 2009 PETA, killed 97.3% of the animals received. I see that you are basing your argument off of what PETA claims. PETA is nothing more than a group of people making money reporting false cases. PETA rakes in nearly $30 million each year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken. [2] PETA lures people in by making false reports in order to get money. So after all this, do you think we should believe them on how KFC treats its chickens? You claim that Debate. org members are not just ordinary people, that they have the ability to persuade people in joining them. This is true to an extent, most people who sign up for this website never even get past ten debates. If all 17,756 were as good a debater as the members on the leader board, then KFC would have a problem. But they are not. There are only about 200 members who can actually debate on this site. Another thing to consider, there are others out there who are just as good debaters that would support KFC. Since KFC is in fact a better choice than many other fast food restaurants, they would have more facts to argue with. Nothing matters without the facts. You say that there are many other ethical alternatives to KFC. While this is true, there would still be a loss of pleasure. No one can find the secret recipe, therefore some people will never be able to eat yummy KFC chicken again! KFC is known for its secrete recipe. For years, Colonel Harland Sanders carried the secret formula for his Kentucky Fried Chicken in his head and the spice mixture in his car. Today, the recipe is locked away in a safe in Louisville, Kentucky. Only a handful of people know that multi-million dollar recipe, and each is obligated to strict confidentiality by contract. The Colonel developed the formula back in the 1930s when he operated the Sanders Court & Cafe restaurant and motel in Corbin, Kentucky. There, his blend of 11 herbs and spices first developed a loyal following of customers. [3] You say that people could simply visit Britain to get their KFC. Many people on debate. org cannot afford to fly out to Britain to get their chicken. Anyway, how do you know that all the birds over there are treated right? PETA has simply not targeted them yet. What I said about KFC being healthy does indeed apply to this debate. Like I said before, why should we boycott something that is better than the rest? We need to focus on getting other restaurants to follow KFC. If we buy at KFC, other restaurants will see that they need to change the way they prepare meat to get more customers. But if we boycott KFC, other restaurants will not have to worry about "health competition. " You say that it would be okay if KFC simply closed because other restaurants would simply open up. This goes along with the point I listed right above. Other restaurants would have no need to be healthy if their competition was gone. You then say that other restaurants would simply open up other restaurants and all the KFC employees would be okay. This would not be the case however. Many other people are unemployed already and looking for work, only a select few would get a job if any spots were open. Also, people are not opening new shops in today's economy. Less and less people are eating out, so place like McDonalds and Wendy's would most likely leave their stores the way it is. Therefore, more unemployed. In the end, there would be way more Cons then Pros in closing down KFC. So why should debate. org members boycott it? Like I said before, if they were going to boycott anything why not McDonalds? They have frozen unhealthy fatty foods that are hurting Americans. KFC is McDonalds biggest enemy. Why would we want to give McDonalds total control? For this reason, I heavily urge a CON vote. I thank my opponent for this very fun debate. He had many good points that I enjoyed. I would also like to thank the audience for reading. Sources: (1). . http://www.debate.org... (2). . http://www.petakillsanimals.com... (3). . http://www.kfc.com...