The Instigator
Titleist915
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
warren42
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

How about republican & democrats send their kids and relatives overseas to fight wars

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
warren42
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 574 times Debate No: 68789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Titleist915

Pro

Republicans & democrats should send their kids and family members to war overseas
warren42

Con

I accept this debate and will be negating the statement Pro made in Round 1.
Debate Round No. 1
Titleist915

Pro

Name them
warren42

Con

Well, I expected my opponent to provide more argumentation this round, I assumed Round 1 was acceptance. I assume my opponent meant Republicans and Democrats in Congress, so my arguments will be made based off that assumption.

Nevertheless, I stand in firm negation for the following three reasons.

1. Many congressmen are veterans.
2. This proposal is unfair to the children of the congressmen.
3. This exempts certain lawmakers' children.

Back to my first point, many congressmen are veterans. In 2013, slightly over twenty percent of congressmen were veterans. [1] Twenty percent is an extremely high number, especially when compared with the national average, which is under one percent. [2] I assume my opponent is making this assertion that the children of these congressmen should go to war so the congressmen have a personal stake, and that they have fully weighed the possible consequences. Yet they know the consequences, as one fifth of them were in the military themselves.

Moving to my second point, the proposal is unfair to the children. This should be a quite glaring problem with Pro's idea. We are forcing these children into the armed services, more than likely against their will, because of the mother or father's occupation. We are essentially violating the 8th Amendment, by inflicting unusual punishment (in that we will be forcing them to war against their will) for something that A) isn't a crime and B) wasn't even their doing. These sons and daughters don't get to choose their parent's job, so it's completely immoral to deprive them of their free will for no particular reason.

Finally, my third contention, this plan exempts certain lawmakers' children. Two members of the Senate are independent of the Democrats and Republicans. [3] This means their children would be exempt from the policy. If we were to initiate this awful plan, at least initiate it with consistency.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org...
[2] http://www.npr.org...
[3] http://clerk.house.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Titleist915

Pro

Titleist915 forfeited this round.
warren42

Con

Please extend my arguments, thanks!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Some politicians do have kids overseas.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You really need to clearify your resolution to your argument. Right now your arguement is anti war, but your resolution is pro war.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Titleist915warren42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: The pro case was a single assertion, "Name them" not even with a question mark, and a forfeit. This is a rare case of seven points being warranted. CONDUCT: Forfeit. S&G: Zero punctuation. ARGUMENT: con offered a compelling case, which is in short that pro is a sadist who wants to send the innocent to die for perceived sins of the parents (he put it much more diplomatically), and there are only negative results of it with no positives; which pro decided not to challenge. SOURCES: Con offered three varied sources, including a .gov, and balanced it with one that has a strong liberal bias (strong bias against war, yet still supported his side of the debate).
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Titleist915warren42Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Forfeit plus pro never affirmed the resolution. He offered no evidence for his position at all.
Vote Placed by ButterCatX 2 years ago
ButterCatX
Titleist915warren42Tied
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 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: pro didn't even bother debating
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Titleist915warren42Tied
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: Forfeiture