The Instigator
AdamDeben
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points

Are soldiers heroes?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,854 times Debate No: 22037
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

AdamDeben

Con

Say I have a really nice house and you really want to buy it, because you think it'd make your family's life a lot better. However, I reject all of your offers. Because of this, you plan to break into my house and kill me. I find out, so now if you break in, you're risking your life. If you follow through with this plan, are you a hero to your family or do you just have very poor problem solving skills? Even if I was acting like a total a-hole, that still is not the way you handle any situation.

It's dangerous to think that it's not only acceptable, but heroic to participate in such irrational and primitive problem-solving techniques. If risking your life for what you believe in is heroic, then where's your respect for suicide bombers? I don't care who you are, where you come from, or what your cause is. There are better ways to deal with disagreements. I don't hate soldiers; many are doing it to get money for college, but some are doing it just to be heroes.
imabench

Pro

As the Pro I am here to argue that on average, US soldiers are indeed heroes.

Now according to the con's example of what soldiers do, thats the most ridiculous perception of what soldiers do. Soldiers are not people who use guns to get what they want in the name of their families, and to insinuate that they are is absurd. Soldiers are the 1% of this country that is currently taking 100% of the bullets, and they do it voluntarily.

Another thing the Pro tries to do is compare Suicide bombers/terrorists to soldiers, let me enlighten you about some key differences between the two as seen in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

Suicide bombers take civilian shields............................................. Soldiers make themselves shield to protect civilians
Suicide bombers try to kill soldiers and civilians.............................. Soldiers only try to kill the enemy, not civilians
Suicide bombers are at war for radical religious reasons................. Soldiers are at war to restore order
Suicide bombers exist to cause chaos............................................ Soldiers are deployed to restore order
Terrorists take away human rights................................................ Soldiers help restore them
Terrorists try to bring down governments...................................... Soldiers try to install new democratic ones
Terrorists attack people based on nationality.................................. Soldiers attack only those who fire on them first

So there is nothing heroic about what suicide bombers and terrorists do, whereas what soldiers do is very heroic considering the circumstances they are put in, but ill get into that later only if I have to.

"I don't hate soldiers; many are doing it to get money for college"
Thats the biggest lie ever, There are many reasons why soldiers serve. They serve simply because they want to serve, because they want to learn discipline or leadership, to represent their community, country, or family, sometimes they join the military for respect. Sometimes people join the military simply because its the only job available for them, or because they wanted to be patriotic. Point is the idea that people only join the military to be heroes or get money is unfounded.

http://www.glassdoor.com...
http://askville.amazon.com...
http://www.nytimes.com...

So to reiterate my points, what soldiers do is very honorable and heroic compared to those they are fighting and the reasons why soldiers join the military is based on a wide variety of reasons, all of which are reasonable causes.
Debate Round No. 1
AdamDeben

Con

["I don't hate soldiers; many are doing it to get money for college"
Thats the biggest lie ever, There are many reasons why soldiers serve. They serve simply because they want to serve, because they want to learn discipline or leadership, to represent their community, country, or family, sometimes they join the military for respect. Sometimes people join the military simply because its the only job available for them, or because they wanted to be patriotic. Point is the idea that people only join the military to be heroes or get money is unfounded.]

You left out the part when I said "or to be a hero". You said for respect and patriotism. Same thing. Only job available is a financial reason like college. The other reasons you listed are to act like the figures they look up to; heroes. I didn't say those were strictly the only two reasons. They're examples to justify why they aren't malevolent. But that doesn't make them heroes.
They're still putting themselves in a situation to support war. You can't fight an anti-war war. Kids say "I wanna be like him when I grow up" about soldiers. That's dangerous on both sides. If there are no participators on either side, there is no war and then we can make rational decisions.
Soldiers have the right intentions, but they're doing it wrong. If it's heroic to die for your cause, that motivates people to die for their cause. That's bad passion and it leads to war, which is obviously bad. If both sides see it as bad, but they're like "you gotta do what you gotta do" then I don't know what to say. It's stupid. You're not stupid, just the governments are.
imabench

Pro

"The other reasons you listed are....... examples to justify why they aren't malevolent. But that doesn't make them heroes."

Definitions of Heroic:
". Having, displaying, or characteristic of the qualities appropriate to a hero; courageous"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
" Heroic characteristics or qualities; courage."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
"a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities."
http://dictionary.reference.com...
"one who shows great courage"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Those are the universal definitions for acting heroic or being a hero, now lets look at the actions of soldiers again,
Soldiers make themselves shield to protect civilians
Soldiers only try to kill the enemy, not civilians
Soldiers are at war to restore order
Soldiers are deployed to restore order
Soldiers help restore them
Soldiers try to install new democratic ones
Soldiers attack only those who fire on them first

So the actions of soldiers make them heroic literally by definition of what being a hero or heroic is.

"If there are no participators on either side, there is no war and then we can make rational decisions."
First off, war in some cases is a rational decision.
Second, War triggers the need for soldiers, soldiers dont trigger wars because nations always have soldiers but war breaks out only in rare circumstances.

"If it's heroic to die for your cause, that motivates people to die for their cause."
First, that certainly does not inspire everyone to die for their cause, whatever that cause may be
Second, its not necessarily heroic to die for any cause
Third, dying for a cause is not what makes soldiers heroic, it is the many acts of valor they carry out that when you add them all together make them heroic.

" If both sides see it as bad, but they're like "you gotta do what you gotta do" then I don't know what to say. It's stupid. You're not stupid, just the governments are."
What the frick are you talking about? No war has ever been fought because "you gotta do what you gotta do" and governments aren't stupid for fighting wars since wars are in some cases necessary.

Look if you're against war fine, and if you blame the governments for being warmongering, then thats fine too, but saying that soldiers aren't heroes by claiming that soldiers lead to all wars or are comparable to suicide bombers is flat out wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
AdamDeben

Con

Soldiers are not malevolent. I did not claim that in fact I claimed the opposite. In this debate, I defined heroes first (it was in the comments, but that doesn't make it not apply) as role models. So I'm only drawing the conclusion that although the risks they take for defense of the country are respectable; they are nothing to base your life off of. Your role models should not be participants in war. If they did something outside of war that was really cool, then fine. But in the context of war, their actions should not serve as a role model; because passion to die for is a dangerous thing. The PRO has failed to provide any good reason to look up to soldiers as role models. I don't care if I lose this debate from technicality. You just should not base your life model on acts of war. As long as that information is clear, I don't care if I got their, there, and they're, messed up and lost through grammar (hypothetically).
imabench

Pro

" I defined heroes first (it was in the comments, but that doesn't make it not apply) as role models"
Congrats you must be so proud, you gave your definition to a word based on your opinion and didnt even bother to put it in the actual arguments while I showed what the universal definition of heroic and hero is and actually put it in the debate like youre supposed to....

" If they did something outside of war that was really cool, then fine. But in the context of war, their actions should not serve as a role model"
A fireman risks his life to save someone he doesnt know.................. Its not in a war....... Heroic
A Soldier does the same thing also for someone they dont know........ This is in a war....... Suddenly its not heroic.....

Flawless logic there Con..... (sarcasm)

"because passion to die for is a dangerous thing"
Soldiers arent passionate about dying they just accept the fact that any day they could die while on duty, just like any fireman or police officer...

" The PRO has failed to provide any good reason to look up to soldiers as role models"
Have you not read a single thing ive posted yet? Soldiers while on duty put their lives on the line to help protect those who cannot help themselves, they are people they dont even know, they make themselves human shields to protect others, they are only deployed to restore order to a region of lawlessness, they willingly give up their own freedom and security to help others, they do not ever fire upon an enemy until they are fired upon first, and they are the 1% of this country willingly taking 100% of the bullets so the rest of us can enjoy the life that our ancestors, many of them soldiers too, fought tooth and nail to give us.

"You just should not base your life model on acts of war. "
Not everything that soldiers do are based only on acts of war you know....

I dont know what the Con has against Soldiers, but the actions of soldiers are very comparable to any other person one could consider a hero and the only reason why the Con DOESNT think that soldiers are heroes is because he thinks that soldiers cause war or something insane....

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Flame 5 years ago
Flame
@AdamDeben: Are you really that ignorant? Wow just wow. i am not even going give a detailed explanation as to why Pro embarrassed you. It's freaking obvious.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Not only that, but this is one of the few topics that really, truly pisses me off.

I'll concede that not all soldiers really deserve the title of "hero". If you're sitting behind a desk and pushing papers for some Four-star general, you're not really doing anything a civilian couldn't.

But for those soldiers who actually ARE putting their lives on the line to make sure you can sit here and start bitching about how they're all idiots, they truly are heroes. So if you wanna take away being a soldier because you think they're horrible decision makers, have fun trying to stop the next 9-11 and speaking Arabic under a terrorist-ran regime once they attack our defense-less nation and take over.

It's truly just flat-out offensive. They're out there taking bullets and dying for people like you who just sit on their a.ss and complain about fvcking everything. It's dissapointing.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I just don't even want to vote on this. Imabench is the obvious winner. Con never really gives a coherent argument, just bitches the entire time. If someone wants to put my vote up there, give Conduct,Args,sources to Pro. I just refuse to vote on this.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I doubt he actually served in the military, he comes off as one of those "all governments are retarded, money ruins everything, war is never justified" kind of nuts...
Posted by Doulos1202 5 years ago
Doulos1202
I am assuming Con has actually served in the military... If not I suggest not speaking for those presently serving especially when you have little knowledge of why members joined in the first place.
Posted by AdamDeben 5 years ago
AdamDeben
Definition of Hero:
Role Model
Posted by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
neither debater defines what a hero is, but then proceeds to debate it with conflicting perceptions....because of this, voting will boil down to who's implicit definition seemed more sound.
Posted by DakotaKrafick 5 years ago
DakotaKrafick
imabench is in a serious debate...? without trolling...? WTF IS GOING ON HERE
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
AdamDebenimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted Cons weak "argument" right off the bat, with Con barely putting up a fight. Pro also actually posted sources, and definitions.
Vote Placed by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
AdamDebenimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Its insulting to our troops to suggest that they should not be heroes. For shame
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
AdamDebenimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: this is a valid rfd as is
Vote Placed by Flame 5 years ago
Flame
AdamDebenimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro demolished Con's absurd argument. By demonstrating statistics, common sense, and definitions. Con for some reason did not respond to pro's major rebuttals to his argument.