Legalizing Openly Gay Soliders in the Military
Debate Rounds (4)
The military has the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy". They allow gay soldiers in, but you can't tell anyone. They classify it as a mental illness, but don't investigate pontentially gay soldiers. It has already caused severe conflict. Our president, Barack Obama, said, 'The only thing that should be required is patriotism and love of ones country."
I know of a few people who are gay, but are afraid of a discharge from the military, or want to live thier lives without persicution. Even if it is a mental illness, it isn't one that you would go around hurting people, so it isn't fair to discharge openly gay militants, especially since they did not bother to find out the sexual orientation in the first place!
I await my opponents defense. (I would like to modify the resolution. By "military", I mean the USA's military.)
Joe has condition which is quite deadly he cannot inhale Spanish cooking fumes if he does so he will die painfully, as a result he is barred from working in a spanish restaurant despite his yearning to cook there.
Now I challenge my opponent to answer me this in his rebuttal....Joe was barred from doing something he loves for his own personal safety and to protect the resturant legally from lawsuit. How does this case not apply to homosexuals? Homosexuals should be barred from the military as to protect themselves and to avoid a complicated lawsuit if another homophbic US service man decides to hurt the homosexual. Is Joe being discrminated aginst because of his condtion or is he being barred for his own good?
Now onto the topic of OPENLY gay homosexuals, the "Dont Ask Dont Tell" Policy is an effictive policy in stopping anti-gay attcks if a homosexual decided to openly proclaim, flaunt, and discuss his homosexually he almost gurantees his isolation and mistreatment. By proclaiming your homosexually openly you only hurt yourself and the US cannot afford to have one of its service men hurting themselves for a condition that can simply be concealed. Why on Earth would you want to describe yourself as openly gay amongst a band of hardy macho males who probably would not like having to take showers with a homosexual its suicide! Thus, in order to protect the dignity and safety of homosexuals its absolutely necessary to make them kepp thier condtion or orientation a simple secret. DONT ASK, DONT TELL, DONT INVESTIGATE, DONT FLAUNT, DONT DISCUSS, DONT PERSECUTE, DONT PROCLAIM, AND DONT COMPLAIN!
Its simple folks all homosexuals have to do is simply keep it a secret for their own good and for their own good of the military. My opponent's arguments all lay heavily on the assumption that its discrminatory to bar an openly gay person from the miltary, well its simply not we are doing this for their own good! If they cant keep a simple secret then they obviously lack the disciple, morality, inner strenght, and willpower that every other American Armed militant needs and requires to do good by their country. As a result I urge my opponent and my viewers to recognize the massive flaw in
the Pro-Argument. I also beleive my opponents Resolution to be utterly disproved and defeated.
I stand ready for my Opponents's Rebuttal.
James.ticknor forfeited this round.
1. Openly Gay Homosexuals are barred from the military for their own protection and safety.
2. Openly Gays Homosexuals are barred from the miltary beaucase they lack proper disciplane, and cannot wear high heel shoes on the battlefield.
3. Openly Gays are not COMPLETELY allowed to marriage so service in the military is futile and illogical
1. Barring Open Gays IS NOTdiscriminatory if its for their own good.
However, I still believe that if I can successfully disprove my opponent and carry my burdon of proof, I can win this debate. I will follow my opponents system of 1. 2. 3. I will rebut first, then reaffirm my case.
1. "Openly Gay Homosexuals are barred from the military for their own protection and safety." - They are not barred from the military, unless they are openly gay. However, they are allowed in if they use discretion. So they are not banned for safety, or else they would all be banned. Secondly, what are we being protected from? Our fellow soldiers, who are trained to fight the enemy-to uphold justice? If a problem lies within the military, it is not the gays who should be penalized for it, it is the military itself. Our government (including the military) is designed to reform to the specific needs of the people. If our country needs protecting, then it is only logical that we need to reform this law.
2. "Openly Gays Homosexuals are barred from the miltary beaucase they lack proper disciplane, and cannot wear high heel shoes on the battlefield." -Allow me to first point out that the military requires use of a uniform, so there would be no high heels for the cross-dressers (not every gay is a crosser you know...). Secondly, a persons sexual preferance has no reflection on their disipline. My homosexual friend has more integrity and displine than I do, that's for certain. So, that point is no longer withstanding.
3. "Openly Gays are not COMPLETELY allowed to marriage so service in the military is futile and illogical" - That point is irrelivant. Just because I can't marry, doesn't mean that I want to marry. Besides, it is legal in some states. If you get married in that state, then it is still legal in all states. It isn't COMPLETELY allowed because marraige rights are not in the Constitution, therefore granted to states. Homosexuality is not widely socially acceptable, so it prevents states from passing the Gay Marraige Law. Besides, this goes back to my point that we first need to know the cause of homosexuality before we convict it itself.
4. "Barring Open Gays IS NOTdiscriminatory if its for their own good." (Main Point) - Observation 1. If this is my opponents main point, and I can disprove it, I should win this debate. -- My opponent believes that it is not descrimintory, and it's for their own good. But what good is that, when you deny someone the right to serve their country? I have disproved and successfully rebutted all of my opponents points. I am on the AFF, so I fail to see the good of banning them, and in this statement, he does not say WHY it's for their own good.
I thank my opponent for what I am sure is going to be an interesting and well fought debate.
Krakken101 forfeited this round.
Thank you for a wonderful (if somewhat incomplete on both ends = D) debate.
Krakken101 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 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:||7||0|
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.