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

Overview- My opponent misinterprets my logical arguments as a way to confine this debate to one specific format, however, he is mistaken. Moreover, my opponent has not made one argument for the merits of PETA, thus, we have no reason to believe they have contributed positively to society. However, we do see that PETAs influence on the passage of legislation such as proposition 2 in California will contribute negatively to the humans in society, who, under under utilitarianism, are placed at a level of more value than animals. When we have no positives of PETA present, and a risk of a negative, we have to err pro. "Resolved: On balance, PETA (the US non-profit organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) has done more desruction to the well being and moral statures of all living things than positive impacts" As a judge you have to ask yourself "what does this resolution mean"? When the resolution could easily be reversed to say, "PETA has contributed to more positive impacts in relation to the well being and moral statures of all living things than destruction" both parties are responsible for proving their point; a "burden of proof". I have constructed an argument illustrating how PETA has caused for a negative impact on humans which went conceded by the con debater when he agrees that PETAs policies have often lead to increases in food prices; although he refers to these changes as "a couple of cents". He quotes this rant about how bad chickens are living now but the argument fails on multiple levels. We have to remember that the decision we are making is based on utilitarianism. This means what is best for the betterment of society or what is going to help the most people in the most efficient way. My opponent agreed that "well being" in the resolution refers to utilitarianism, thus, we must base our decisions around this. It is imperative that we have to have a "framework" for this debate. My opponent tries to argue that I am trying to over complicate the debate round with a type of framework, however, it is necessary for this debate round to even exist. If we do not tell the judges the way in which they should vote (based of utilitarianism) then pre-disposed notions will be used to judge the debate. I will say, "who cares about animals" and he will say, "I do. We all should. Vote for me" and the people judging the debate that dont care about animals will vote for me while the ones that do will vote for the opposition. However, by defining the words in the resolution and interpreting (At the same time agreeing with our interpretations) we have made a clearer way to evaluate the debate round. The question a judge must now ask him/herself is "has PETA, in a utilitarian based mindset, done more bad than good" and the answer is obviously yes. My observation 2 will prove critical in this debate round because it was taken as unimportant by the opposition. He makes a vital concession when agreeing that humans are more important than animals in a utilitarianist based mindset, the same mindset in which this debate should be evaluated. This impacts every negative impact on humans brought on by PETA to outweigh the positive impacts dealt to animals. "We are despondent that California voters didn't hear animal welfare experts' messages warning of higher rates of death in non-cage systems, increased rates of smothering, increased incidences of aggression and much more," said Kay Johnson Smith, Executive Vice President of the Animal Agriculture Alliance. "Our organization believes that quality animal welfare creates wins for animals, farmers and consumers. It is disappointing to learn that, in the tumult caused by all the various initiatives, consumers didn't hear that message." Prop 2 will raise prices for Californian consumers while simultaneously causing a chill in California's agricultural economy. According to an October 2008 report, compiled by Promar International Ltd., animal agriculture contributes nearly 90,000 jobs, $126 million in property taxes and $590 million in income and sales taxes to California every year" This argument wins me the debate round in 2 ways 1) Prop 2, which was fronted by PETA, actually caused for worse living conditions for chickens living in California. Which if you reject the util framework wins me the round based off strict interpretation of the resolution. 2) It illustrates the raise in food prices brought on by prop 2, hurting humans, which outweighs the betterment of animals (according to util) which does not even exist in this situation. Summary- 1) Who cares. We aren't talking about morality, based on the arguments both of us made in the debate. Utilitarianism is the framework needed in the round to maintain education in the debate as well as ensure judges can vote based on debating and not just their previous beliefs. 2) I have won the framework arguments hardcore 3) I made the argument that prop two hurt both animals and humans. But i also interpret the resolution so that morality means nothing. If the resolution was "god is good and superduperpurple" i can interpret superduperpurple to not mean anything, just like "moral statures" which do not exist. 4) Biased? Really? When you too agreed to utilitarianism? No. Just because you see you are going to lose because of the concession doesn't make it ok to change positions. To my opponent: I've enjoyed this debate. Policy ftw, haha.