The Instigator
whiteflame
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Raisor
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Bowe Bergdahl should be convicted and punished for desertion or misbehavior before the enemy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Raisor
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/16/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,576 times Debate No: 89769
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (41)
Votes (4)

 

whiteflame

Con

Disclaimer: We both recognize that this is a contentious issue. Note that neither of us chose our side; we both prepared cases for and against on this topic, and the sides were decided by coin flip 5 minutes before we started.

Thanks a lot to Raisor for debating me. It's my first time doing this topic, and it's been quite a while since I've had a live debate, much less against such a great opponent. The structure for our debate is as follows:

Raisor (Pro)
Whiteflame (Con)

7 min. Pro's 1st Constructive
1.5 min. Cross-examination
7 min. Con's 1st Constructive/Rebuttal
1.5 min. Cross-examination
7 min. Pro's 2nd Constructive/Rebuttal
1.5 min. Cross-examination
7 min. Con's 2nd Constructive/Rebuttal
1.5 min. Cross-examination
5 min. Pro's Final Round
5 min. Con's Final Round

Note: We were establishing some of these rules as we went, so apologies for those short disruptions.
Raisor

Pro

Thanks whiteflame, this was fun
Debate Round No. 1
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Appreciate that, guys.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
This was a really good debate. Impressive from both sides.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Awesome debate, hats off to both of you.

More people should watch this...
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Eh. It's an opportunity for people to post RFDs without having to post scores. In my opinion, very few debates are anywhere near tied, but that's me.

Congrats to Raisor. Good debate and well deserved.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Whiteflame

Not really relevant, but I'm curious to know, what do you think of the "tie" vote option?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Famous

(1) You're wrong that whiteflame conceded he committed the crime of desertion. The crime of desertion has a few criteria to qualify, and "leaving" the base isn't the same as "deserting" the base. You've misunderstood the arguments.

(2) I disagree with that. I think ties are acceptable -- which itself, I'm sure both Raisor and Whiteflame disagree with -- but only in the rarest circumstances. In formal debate, there are no ties. The "tie" option was created due to coding by Phil, a non-debater. I disagree with formal debate that there's absolutely no chance of a tie (ties *do* exist), but to the extent that a tie can be prevented without intervention, it should.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Famous, much as I'm not trying to influence your vote, I'd have to disagree. I didn't agree that Bergdahl deserted the military base. I agreed that he left the base, but we established desertion as leaving with no intention to return. I didn't argue that he left the base (I honestly don't see how that could be argued), but I did argue the latter.
Posted by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
Con agreed that Berdahl deserted the military base. If he concedes that he committed the act of desertion then logically he is guilty of committing the crime (that doesn't mean that he should be punished or convicted).

And I disagree that tying should be left until absolute necessity. If I feel like the debate should be tied then I am justified in tying it. In this scenario for me, the difference was so marginal that I couldn't conclusively determine a winner and when I thought that I had my mind kept switching.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Note: to further clarify, I'm absolutely not saying this was in any way an objective win for Raisor. In fact, I don't have much of a problem with Seagull's RFD. My problem is more with regards to awarding a tie when there are two legitimate means to resolve the dispute. It is my view that a tie is *only* justified when there's no legitimate way to resolve it. For instance, in formal debate, there are no ties.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
re: Famous's RFD

(1) Con didn't "concede" that Bergdahl was guilty of desertion.

(2) If Con did concede that Bergdahl was guilty of desertion, without any weighing mechanism I'd *default* to Pro's position because of the law. Conviction and punishment are determined by violations of the law, and Con didn't sufficiently (read: explicitly) challenge that. I think that's the part of the argument I interpreted more as a kritik than a unique disadvantage to voting Pro, though I'm unsure of the extent to which it is non-unique.

The above isn't necessarily even a problem with famous's vote. Most of his reasoning appears strong, but in my opinion, one shouldn't tie a debate until absolutely necessary. If there are variant interpretations as to how to vote, go with the interpretation where the judge requires less effort. I agree that there's a good interpretation wherein whiteflame could win the debate (e.g. read Seagull's RFD) as well as a good interpretation where Raisor wins (see FT's and my RFD's). I chose the interpretation in which Raisor won because it required less effort from me and less overall construction (which leads to less judge intervention).

Overall, most of its analysis is correct. My problem is essentially two-fold: (1) Con didn't actually "concede" that Bergdahl was guilty of desertion by the *law,* I just feel Pro won that point, and (2) if Pro wins either desertion or misbehavior, I think one should vote Pro because it requires less intervention and partiality to do so, and that's better than awarding a tie.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
whiteflameRaisor
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
whiteflameRaisor
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Seagull 1 year ago
Seagull
whiteflameRaisor
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: tldr; By the end of the debate I am convinced Bowe is guilty, though not convinced he should be punished. As the resolution says "and" I vote for con. Here is the link to the Full RFD http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/85790/
Vote Placed by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
whiteflameRaisor
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments/rebuttals were more compelling. Pro cites Bergdahl's own words to prove he deserted/misbehaved, notes a number of ways that Bergdahl's actions endangered/harmed the military, and emphasizes the importance of upholding the rule of law. Con mostly admits the facts, and instead rests his case on the notion that Bergdahl's actions were justified because of problems in the military. The problem is Con failed to clarify precisely how dissent furthered justice in the context of the military or how it outweighed Pro's points on discipline/order. I was also confused as to how letting Bergdahl off would somehow help fix problems in the military. I liked Con's response to misbehavior - that the problem was a careless military response, not Bergdahl's behaviors - but ultimately I found Con's argument on desertion unconvincing. Neither Con's exceptions point nor his point on the unjustess of punishing Bergdahl after his captivity was strong. At bottom, upholding the law outweighed.