The Instigator
cbass28
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

Is DATD a good rule

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,381 times Debate No: 8874
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

cbass28

Con

Im sorry for not finishing our last debate so i will let you start
Cody_Franklin

Pro

Before I begin, allow me to clarify a few things:

'good' - proper; fit.

Knowing this definition now, allow me to clarify my burden today; the resolution specifically uses the term 'is'; this denotes present tense, meaning that we are discussing current matters; not the way things ought to be, and not how things were. So, to win the debate today, I will have to show you that, for the present time, the policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", or, DADT, is proper and fitting.

One final clarification; in a nutshell, DADT consists of three elements:

• Superiors are not allowed to ask about or investigate the sexual preference of another soldier.
• Soldiers are not allowed to disclose or openly discuss or display their sexual preference.
• Any soldier found in violation of one or both of the previous stipulations will be discharged from military service.

Now then, let's get on to the meat of the argument.

First, the military is not democratic, and so this rule is necessary to maintain discipline and order. As a disclaimer, I am not saying that homosexuals are incapable of learning military discipline; what I am saying is that, due to the military's extremely rigid, socialistic structure, there is not a lot of room for change or diversity. We can definitely look to a historically set precedent: blacks. For centuries, blacks were forced into slavery, brutalized, segregated, disenfranchised; and it took centuries for blacks to gain equal footing in every day society; another historical precedent is women; they were treated as servants for years, and at one point even lived under the terror of the 'rule of thumb', which meant that a man could not beat his wife with a stick larger in girth than his thumb; yes, beating a woman was acceptable back then; even today, women are often seen as nothing more than mere sex objects; my point here is that, equality is not a quick process; it's a slow progression, and that's exactly what we have to remember when dealing with the homosexual community; look back to what I've said before on chronology; the resolution deals with the present, and at this very moment, our society is not yet unanimously ready to accept gays as equals, especially not the rigid structure of the Armed Forces; at some future point, it's possible that our society will be ready for equality and tolerance; but like I've said, progress is not instant; patience is necessary, and DADT acts as merely another stepping stone on our path to tolerance and understanding.

Second, DADT is fitting because it helps to maintain safety; another precedent I would have you examine would be abortion clinics; many doctors, like Dr. George Tiller (http://www.reuters.com...), are terrorized, and sometimes brutalized by right-wing extremists; in the same way that these clinics, their doctors, and even patients are victimized, choosing right now to liberalize, and even erase policies like DADT would put the safety of the homosexual community at risk; as many parades and demonstrations as you see for "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!", you'll very likely see more in (possibly violent) protest of gay rights, especially in the Deep South states, for example, if we tactlessly erase DADT and alike policies.

So, don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to argue against equality, don't pin me as holding that position; but ultimately, know that for the time being, DADT is proper; it is fitting; it cools tensions, and prevents gross culture shock from occuring; one day, perhaps, we'll be able to allow gays into military service without fear; but, until that day comes, we'll have to accept the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy as a tight fit.

I wish my opponent luck, and hope that this will be a very good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
cbass28

Con

cbass28 forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Pro

My opponent has forfeited. Extend all of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
cbass28

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for taking this debate good luck

To respond to your paragraphs one by one...

1. First you said that the militarys structure doesn't have room for much change or diversity we have changed the militarys structure women could only be nurses minorities could only be low ranks, and the military has a lot of diversity it has latinos,african-americans,asians,caucasian,men,women and people of all religons,homosexuals would just add to the list .Second since when do we have to wait for society to unanimously accept a group of people to give them equal rights we didn't with African Americans and we didn't with women (there still are some sexists and racists out their so we still don't unamiously accept them). Society isn't homophobic a poll shows that 56% are against DADT and only 37% support it and those people who fall under the 37% aren't all homophobic they support DADT for different reasons so our society doesn't need to slowly move towards accepting gays because a large majority does.

2. George TIller preformed several 2nd and 3rd term abortions so pro life extremists saw him as a murderer,that was taken more seriously than DADT. I live in New Mexico a state that has a large part of its population from Texas one of the most conservative states in the country. When the bill to allow Civil Unions was voted on in congress most people were against it but the congress passed it anyway. Their weren't huge riots or major protests people just held up picket signs for a few days affter the vote and then they got over it the same thing would happen with DADT.

3. The people that feel most strongly about this issue are the people against DADT if we changed it(which is what most americans want) a very small group of people would protest tensions would not be that strong and there wouldn't be much culture shock since DADT didn't exist before 1993

DADT Polls http://www.quinnipiac.edu...
Cody_Franklin

Pro

Keep in mind that my opponent hasn't actually made any kind of case as to why DADT is a bad policy, and has chosen to merely refute my arguments; because of this, just know that, for the remainder of the debate, we will be debating on my terms (since that's all that my opponent has chosen to focus on).

On my first contention, he makes the argument that we've changed the military in the past, and that there is a lot of diversity; I completely agree. However, my opponent still doesn't address the fact that change takes TIME; we can't just toss homosexuals into a military that may not be ready for that change yet. He also goes on to discuss how all we need is a majority, not a unanimous decision; again, look to the fact that the military is NOT a democracy; the United States itself is only a loose representative democracy; we only vote for people who hold office; Congress, for example; we don't declare war; Congress does. We don't vote on legislation; Congress does. He even says in discussion of my second contention that "most people were against [the bill] but the congress passed it anyway". A majority doesn't determine everything; we elect our leaders, and so we have to accept the decisions that are made, even if we don't like them. DADT is no different; even if a majority out of the survey's 2000+ people don't like it, that's simply the military policy of the time. My point here is that, a small civilian majority, as what my opponent offers, shouldn't be allowed to influence the inherently socialistic structure of the military; it may sound like I'm preaching against democracy, but I'm sorry to say, the military doesn't vote on policy.

However, even if you take it from a 'most votes wins' standpoint, look at the survey he provides: 49% of voters say that society pays too much attention to the needs of gays and lesbians, 21% say too little attention, and 22% say it's "just right". We can see here that, taking some statistics from my opponent's own source, the number of people of people that believe we're catering too much to homosexuals is higher than the other two groups combined.

Look at another statistic: Voters rejected (50% to 44%) that "ending discrimination against homosexuals is as necessary today as ending discrimination against blacks was in the 1960s." We can see that, if society prioritizes equality for gays underneath where it prioritized equality for blacks, it will naturally take a longer period of time before society and the military are able to accept gays, and finally take down DADT; look back at the historical precedent argument that I've given you: Equality is something that we strive for, but DADT needs to act as a stepping stone towards equality; I'll grant my opponent that we're probably relatively close to being ready for total equality, but we're still not QUITE there yet; so, for the moment (since we are debating the present time), DADT is a good policy because it fits the present trend of social and military acceptability.

On my second contention, he discusses this idea that, because Dr. Tiller was seen as a murderer, that his profession was taken "more seriously than DADT." If this was true, then gay rights wouldn't be such a controversial issue, there wouldn't be so many gay rights protests, and gays wouldn't be discharged due to sexual orientation; I'm sure the military takes this policy extremely seriously, for one. Plus, his civil union example isn't exactly valid in the round; Texas is just one state, but removing DADT would affect the entire Union; the impact would be far more widespread, and therefore, the effects would also be more widespread. To prevent this kind of violence, we have to be patient until we have a more accepting military, and a more tolerant society; until that day, we have DADT in place to ensure that order and peace remain.

He has this third point, which I assume is addressing my summary and conclusion; thus, while it's not necessary to cover that pseudo-refutation, I will do so anyway.

He's trying to minimize the impact of my arguments here, by saying that protests wouldn't be 'that strong', and that there would not be 'much' culture shock; the problem here is, in trying to maintain a stable society, even a bit of violent protest and tension is a bad thing; even if you accept his unwarranted argument that the impacts are relatively small, also accept that this doesn't make the negatives go away; my opponent is merely trying to sweep them under the rug.

So, in brief conclusion to round 3, the argument that's going to rock the flow for you today is going to be that, due to the rigid, socialistic structure of the military, and the fact that the majority doesn't determine military policy, we have to look to DADT as a stepping stone to equality; know that while it may not be the perfect policy, or the most efficient policy, or even a popular policy, it's still a good policy, because it is both proper and fitting in today's military and social culture.

Thank you, vote PRO, and I'll stand down to hear my opponent's final arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
cbass28

Con

cbass28 forfeited this round.
Cody_Franklin

Pro

Flow through my arguments from Round 3, and understand that, because my opponent has forfeited 2 out of the 4 rounds, you'll have to default CON.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Due to multiple forfeits, I award all points to PRO.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by tribefan011 8 years ago
tribefan011
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Steven123 8 years ago
Steven123
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 8 years ago
Agnostic
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 8 years ago
Youngblood
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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:24 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
cbass28Cody_FranklinTied
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