While your followers who have managed to donate some 30 million dollars annually believe PETA's campaigns bring us one step closer to real justice for animals, there is still a significant percentage of animal advocates who disagree with this conclusion as well as PETA's tactics and fundamental philosophy.

Some PETA supporters have taken to avoiding any debate for the fear of what they call "infighting." Animal advocates are reluctant to give any energy into responding to disagreement in fear of disrupting the supposed unity of a movement for animals. However, I will remind you that debate and criticism is a lucrative means of exploring the truth. Debate is and has been a sound practice in academia and has been used effectively to learn more about a particular cause, theory, or discipline.

...

The purpose of this letter is to humbly request your participation in debating Gary L. Francione, Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law under my moderation. The invitation has already been accepted by Professor Francione, so the ball is now in your court.

While Francione recognizes the sincerity of your beliefs, the fundamental differences between yours and Francione's approach make for a disagreement of tremendous importance to how rights may be established for animals. Professor Francione's disagreements with PETA's approach and fundamental philosophy are evident in his Six Principles of the Animal Rights Position where he argues:



3. Just as we reject racism, sexism, ageism, and heterosexism, we reject speciesism. The species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, age, or sexual orientation is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans.



This appears to stand in disagreement that a campaign that is sexist in nature cannot be considered an animal rights campaign. Francione has also vocalized disagreement with PETA's campaign tactics in the form of billboards and public demonstrations.