PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Ahh, my opponent has brought points in that have enforced her resolution. 1. My opponent's proof that PETA strongly harms the environmental and conservational issues is this: A. Peta opposes hunting B. Hunting supposedly provides a huge environmental benefit C. The number of hunters is declining "rapidly" due to PETA's opposition to hunting D. Hunting is good E. Complete redefinition of good in the next to last argument F. Hunters spend money on the environment and this also provides huge environmental benefits. G. Therefore PETA "has done a large amount of harm to environmental and conservational issues" While the above argument might have actually done a little to prove her resolution my opponent has failed to meet several basic requirements: 1. Proof that PETA is affecting the hunting industry 2. Proof that without the hunting industry, the environment would be much worse off than it currently is. In response to the supposed proof that PETA is affecting the hunting industry, CBS news stated this: "The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails. " http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.usatoday.com... In response to my opponents rather audacious claims that the environment is doing poorly do this decrease: "Additionally the drop in hunting number coincides with a "13% increase in wildlife watching since 1996." "The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities" So where my opponent got her figures, I'd be suprised to see. So as for my opponents claims that PETA affects the number of hunters, I have yet to find even the slightest notion that PETA has contributed to a drop in hunting. "Ecologists depend on them for research. Hikers, bird-watchers, and wildflower viewers all prefer habitats that are uncontaminated and full of wild things." 2. "They imply that all labs are bad, and all of them must be SHUT DOWN." Until my opponent can provide logical and factual evidence showing such implications I do not feel required to respond. 3. "Their job is to create the laws." I was under the impression that our Congress made the laws in the US? 4. "I never said they weren't a non-profit." Round 3 quotation: "PETA doesn't want to run out of things to do, so they can continue to run as an organization, they try to make it seem much worse then it really is. So they continue to make money" Referring to PETA, and then in the next sentence using the word "they" implies that PETA is the equivalent of they. Your sentence by this logic would render: So PETA can continue to make money. Which is implicative that PETA exists to make profit. 5. "they are trying to make other things illegal, things that are not cruel." Could you please give me some examples? And additionally how these hurt environmental or conservational efforts? Otherwise this is just opinionated information and is not factual and thus not debatable. Furthermore you contend that they do not continue to act as a watchdog for animal cruelty? 6. No, I believe that is what you were attempting to do to me. I was simply informing you that it is basic conduct on this site, and in general debates not to bring personal information up outside of what was said in the actual debate. 7. "Personal opinions have everything to do with a debate. If we just stacked facts next to facts and compared them it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a list of facts. It is our opinions that make it a debate." Wrong. It is our logic, reasoning, and manipulation of facts along with (in this case) typing skills which influence a debate. Personal opinions have absolutely no place in a debate. Otherwise the debates would turn out as shouting matches. Example: Me: I like the color blue. You: No yellow is better Me: I think blue is prettier You: I think yellow is prettier Me: Nuh Uh You: Yuh huh! Instead of it being a debate where logic and reasoning and facts dictate the winner. Example: Me: The color blue is a much more calming color than any other color. You: I contend that resolution, yellow has been found in this test to cause much more relaxation in a double blind study (Enter reputable source here) Me. While my opponent makes an excellent point, (points out huge flaw in study) prevents 3 more case studies showing blue to be much more calming, etc. (enter sources) You: Points out more flaws in study presents logical reasoning etc. 8. As you have yet to show an example with factual standing, I await this point. 9. "what other reason would they have for posting this video, then to imply that all pig farms are horrible and we should shut them all down?" Perhaps to display their achievements of revealing illegal activity to the authorities, send a message to other farmers who are participating in the similar abuse, and encourage others to aid them in quelling animal abuse? 10. Anyone reading my sentence can tell that I was using a thing called "figurative language" and clearly wasn't being literal. I was alluding to the fact that cows are made to milk for much longer than they would otherwise in the wild. (Longer in terms of time period not the actual time they are milked) A 400-page United Nations report from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that cattle farming is "responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases."[28] The production of cattle to feed and clothe humans stresses ecosystems around the world,[26] and is assessed to be one of the top three environmental problems in the world on a local to global scale.[29] The report, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the environmental damage from sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are cited as the greatest adverse impact with respect to climate change as well as species extinction. The report concludes that, unless changes are made, the massive damage reckoned to be due to livestock may more than double by 2050, http://www.fao.org... Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0679768114 http://www.virtualcentre.org... Additionally I will not respond to anything posted in the comments section as that is bad conduct.