A socity that is controlled by the millitary would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept this debate and await my adversaries first round
I await your response with glee.
Lets look at the topic that we are debating.
A society that is "controlled" by the military would have unity and lawfulness.
There is a lot of flaws withing this statement.
Lets define some of the terms we are going to be discussing.
Military - The armed forces of a country.
Society - The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
Unity - The state of being united or joined as a whole, esp. in a political context. Harmony or agreement within an entire group
Controlled - Determine the behavior or supervise the running of, or to main influence and authority over
My adversary is claiming that if a society was controlled by the military, they would be stricken with virtues of goodness and unite as a whole.
This claim is kind of outrageous when we think about what it entails.
Repercussions of controlling anything
To control something in the context my adversary is claiming, is to run and or oversee. When anything starts to control people by nature they will resent it. So if we look at this claim from the perspective that it could bring lawfulness, that is a possibility but would happen more out of fear that respect.
Take Hitlers Germany for example, this society was probably very lawful, but they were lawful because of the consequences that they would suffer if they disobeyed. Most whom turned against Hitler were literally sent to their families door steps chopped into pieces and in body bags. So as far as being lawful, that is a possibility but then you would have to look at the possibility of a revolution at some point. That is even within the constitution of america, if someone were to start to try and run this a single entity instead of a democracy, we can and should rise up against it.
Unity on the other hand is far from the case. That is probably not a possibility at all. Let's take a look at Hitlers military run society again, sure people obeyed out of fear, but the country was in shambles. Some of the best times for countries is when America helped liberate them from under the dictatorship that it was suffering from. More often than not, societies that impose tyranny are often military societies.
Even psychology when you control someone, they build up resentment. Take for example if you have a girlfriend. If you tell her she can't go out, can't see her friends, can't watch TV while she is home, and the only thing she is allowed to do is cook. 90 percent chance she is going to leave you unless you have something to offer her that will make her stay through all of that. Even if she stayed, studies show that she will resent you. This is not unity, and the same thing can be said for society. When you try to control something resentment builds up, take a look at how people resent our government.
Even in the workplace people often hate their boss because of the control he/she has over them
For my adversaries case to be true, he most show that any society that is controlled by the military will always be lawful and have unity. As i have shown, this is an impossible statement to argue for.
He may have had a better time if he would have said something like
" If America adopted some of the core principles of its military, it would be a better place"
This statement is far more debatable and most would probably agree with. This is not his contention howerver, and he has failed to meet his BOP
Your points concerning Germany are true for that example. However, I never once stated how this government would operate and therefore you have taken assumptions on both the form of governance for this theoretical country/society and the sociology/ psychology of the people of this nonexistent state.
My stance was that " A society that is controlled by a military force would have a high degree of unity because of military principles and organization."
You claimed in your closing that the original point of debate was that "any society that is controlled by the military will always be lawful and have unity", which demonstrates that you do not grasp the topic fully. I draw this from your use of will.
As I stated above, people are individuals and always will be and all people are different so it will, by definition, be an impossibility to have a society that "will always ..... have unity."
I believe that you have not fulfilled your stance as the opposition because you have made only assumptions and have not provided enough subjective information to declare victory.
We are debating
"A society that is controlled by the military would have high amounts of unity and lawfulness"
I will now offer rebuttals
" I never once stated how this government would operate "
You do not have to state this is how the society would operate, I made a point to show that throughout history when a military runs a society, this is often what happens. This is true with Hitlers Germany, Korea, In some ways afghan, The Kony situation, Stalins reign and many more. It often is the case when a society is ran by the military, these situations happen.
I have defined unity for you. Unity is bringing people together, and when you are referring to this as the society that the military is controlling, I have shown that it is not really the case. I didn't feel the need to go into the actually portion of unity within these societies, but since you are claiming that it is a high amount, I imagine that it is abundantly obvious that this is not always the case especially with the previous examples I have given.
What I mean by always being lawful is due to the fact of the fear it would instill in people. If you look at the topic we are debating, you are specifically addressing "what happens when a military controls a society". So you could say the society would be lawful because of the force that would be exerted, but there would never ever be unity within it. You could argue the fact that unity could be brought by fear as well, but this would last only to the first chance someone had to revolt. That is not unity, it is the society bearing temperance.
A militia is not only referring to only the one in the USA. A militia can be any form of armed defense a country has. These could be ones that are modern and even ones that occurred throughout history.
Since we are debating that " a society" that is "controlled" by the "militia" would produce these effects, it can be any society in any situation. You can not just pick and chose the principles you want the militia to uphold and say that is the case across the board, because that is an error in logic. Which is why I also said that it would have better suited you to make this " the USA has a militia that could promote good values within our society". That could be easily argued, but you are taking a stance that "a" society ran by "a" military will always produce high amounts of unity and exhibit lawfulness. No where in any of your arguments have you shown this to be true or even led me to believe that is is remotely possible.
"As I stated above, people are individuals and always will be and all people are different so it will, by definition, be an impossibility to have a society that "will always ..... have unity."
This further proves my point and in a way he has disagreed with his own stance.
"I believe that you have not fulfilled your stance as the opposition because you have made only assumptions and have not provided enough subjective information to declare victory."
First it is not my job to meet the BOP. It is your job to show that your stance is correct. My job is to show that it can be inaccurate or provide reason to doubt.
Saying my stance is subjective is just wrong. No other way to say that. Subjective information would literally be erroneous to this debate, and is not how anyone should debate. You are saying provide evidence that fits the circumstance.
I would much rather produce objective evidence that shows what happens when a society is ran by the military all throughout history, which I have done in great detail.
As far as making assumptions, showing what happened throughout history is not making assumptions. That is as factual as you can get. How you chose to perceive the information can be subjective due to intellect levels and personal beliefs, but the facts still remain the same. History can not be changed. The only way you could argue that I was making assumptions is because I was stating that there is a high probability that your stance would not be true due to what we can see throughout history. This is more of a plausible theory than just an assumption because it is backed with evidence to support it. If anyone is making assumptions , it would be you. You are claiming that something will happen with no evidence to back it up. That is being entirely subjective and making assumptions based off of what you think a military is or should be.
I have shown through multiple examples in history and even cited psychological studies to show that " a society that is controlled by the military will exhibit high amounts of unity and lawfulness" is not always the case. I have did my part in undermining his original stance, and even gave examples in history to show that his stance can be construed as false.
My adversary on the other hand has offered no evidence to support his theory other than his own limited understanding of what a militia is. He regards this to be true in all circumstances without giving any credence to other types of militia. Thus he has failed to meet his BOP and resolve his resolution. He has not shown any factual evidence to support any of his claims and just debated from his personal perspective.
The bop was not met.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty clear Con win. Con shows historical and psychological reasons that the resolution should be considered false, such as Hitlers Germany, Korea, ect. and resentment. Pro pretty much drops all this. Pro argues that military life would unify people by establishing military principles into the populace, but Cons case is sufficient to counter this without any kind of historical or logical evidence on Pros side. Spelling for the many spelling errors in the title
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.