PETA has done more bad than good (See full res. below)

I am glad that I get the honor of being your first opponent, Levin, good luck in all your other debates! Although my opponent did NOT propose any definitions, but instead modified the resolution. Were this any other debate, it would be the affirmative's demise, however, since it helps further clarify the topic, I accept it. But I STILL negate the resolution. On to the flow... Response to his Contention 1: (If I may, I will name the first argument here Subpoint A, and the second Subpoint B) Sub.A: The first thing the AFF says in this contention is how an advertisement depicting the horrid similarities between concentration camps and meat farms. The thing my opponent overlooks is that these similarities are EXTREMELY alike. The, as my opponent states himself, warrant-less argument that the ad offended holocaust survivors falls just on it's lack of evidence, but even after that, you reject the example he DID present (which, for all we know, could be entirely made up) because having such a hurt or twisted feeling after viewing the video should be the motivator that gets you up and opposing the industry, like PETA most likely intended. However, PETA did NOT intend on attacking holocaust survivors. If "Keith's grandpa" was NOT motivated to join PETA after seeing the obvious comparison, he may be succumbing to the common sociological fault of rebelling against them without reasonable cause. Most likely he either: A) Followed the common, yet dramatically unjust and unwarranted, negative opinion about PETA (or) B) Refused to aid anyone who hurt them (or "offended" in this matter) From anywhere in between these, it means that the best PETA's ad could have been was a well-thought out recruiter video, at worst a poorly executed advertisement. Whoop-de-do. Does this have a negative impact to all living things? No. The lives saved by the new members of PETA GREATLY outweigh some offended veterans. Sub.B: Immediately the AFF says he COULD provide more evidence. Just so you know, the only evidence that is going to be used in debate is the evidence you show in debate. Hearsay is worthless in debate. What he DOES present is the Rudy Giuliani advertisement. He, conveniently enough, left out the fact that Rudy Giuliani was willing to do the ad. If he wasn't, why wouldn't he sue? Response to Contention 2: Okay, here's the first comment: "PETA has failed in their goal to stop factory farming, meat processing, the eating of meat or the killing of animals at shelters." 1) The battle is continuous. If they had failed (past tense, my friend) then the organization would cease to exist. 2) The ideology of animal liberation is exactly what it says it is: and Ideology. It is basically impossible to achieve it, like a crime-free society. And, like the crime-free ideology, just because the goal seems unreachable, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve it. He goes on to say that "PETA has lofty goals but it seems they are more concerned with making news than making a difference." Unfortunately for the AFF, making news often leads to making a difference. When someone "gets the word out" about a cause, or even product, it gains support and popularity. This is not bad. He gives us a more specific example: "PETA protesters have been sighted around the country in front of animal shelters. They are protesting the euthanasia policy of most shelters. However, how many of these protesters walk away with animals? The answer, very few of them. If they spent their time adopting animals the problem of overcrowded shelters would be much less severe than it is." PETA encourages ALL its members and non-members to adopt from their bank of rescued animals, (there are multiple sources I can place for this, but for the sake of time and headache: http://www.peta.org... Just browse if you don't believe me) and you have to remember that members of PETA are rational people (regular people), meaning that they know that if you have a house with 99 cats, it's not good for them, or that if adopting a pet in a small living space or with insufficient funds to pay for the animal(s) is not good either, they won't do it. Do NOT cry "hypocrisy" on these caring individuals unless you have statistical proof for your argument anyway. Next, he claims that 2.8% of americans are vegetarians, and shows a ridiculously outdated article about the rise in vegetarianism. Well, first-off, the "2.8" statistic is outdated (2003) and overruled by the NEW POLL by THE SAME SOURCE. Today, there is 3.4% vegetarians in the US. (http://www.hinduismtoday.com...) Now, keep in mind that the US population is skyrocketing, (http://www.npg.org...) (you can see it live here: http://www.census.gov...) and you can see that this percentage increase is in the HUNDRED-THOUSANDS. This 1% increase is clearly very significant, so already my opponent's point has been turned against him. And "The Times article correctly points out the fad of vegetarianism in the late 1980's..." Because it only studied the late '80s my friend. "What happened? Vegetarianism is certainly not taboo but it is not really popular" Another claim proved extraordinarily wrong. So, when my opponent says: "PETA has done nothing to change the popular opinion about eating meat. It has done nothing to stop factory farming. In fact, factoring farming has only grown." He has no proof, no evidence, no warrant, and no leg to stand on here. When he says: "PETA has had no impact on the cause of animals. The only impact it has had is on the people that it offends with its contraversial campaigns." He has lost all the minimal evidence he provided, and looses his impact here, and more importantly, the debate. Thank you for the first round. Reasons to Affirm: 0 Reasons to Negate: 1