Members of the US military are not heroes
Debate Rounds (4)
My claim is that while people of good intent join the military, that those who serve in the military should not be regarded as heroes due to the nature of the military and the immorality of the actions of the military and its civilian leadership(politicians).
Many well intended people who love their country join the military. They do this for a myriad of reasons among them are, patriotism, personal satisfaction, and to a certain extent for pay and benefits that are offered. If you look at the above definition someone could argue that one who is in or once served in the military could fit that definition. It does take a kind of courage to be in combat, within the context of the military and service many soldiers(used for brevity I know that there are airmen, marines, and sailors too) have great accomplishments. Also, we see that many people in the military do noble things from time to time such as save lives or provide food, or aid.
Most would agree with what I have said above, so what is the problem? In in the past the military men and women were not regarded as heroes in the sense they are today. They were regarded just as noble people who served their country and communities. Regular folks, who did not ask for anything in return.
By viewing the solider as a hero and publicly dawning this title on them problems arise:
1) It perpetuates the idea that the nation is under constant threat when empirical data says it is not so. Here's some limited data"
2) It promotes a culture supporting war and aggression by the united states against other areas of the world. By promoting the military and military men and women as heroes it creates a pop culture around being and/or becoming a solider. It creates more willing participants to go to war. This will lead to more war and adventurism.
3) Adorning hero status on current soldiers reduces awareness of the issues of struggling veterans that have me let down by a government who sent them into perhaps unjustified battle in the first place. By placing emphasis on the "rah rah" good times of being behind the troops currently it does not slow down and takes resources and effort away from veterans who need mental health care, or regular health care or who are homeless.
As Stephan Kinzer puts it "Cheering for them in public and saluting them in clich"-ridden speeches is a way to disguise the fact that our society callously discards many of them. Shocking rates of unemployment, mental illness, homelessness, addiction, and suicide among our veterans constitute a national disgrace. It is far easier, however, to spend a few seconds applauding a smiling soldier than to contemplate a troubled veteran left behind by an uncaring country."
As shown, military men and women are not to be regarded as heroes but rather everyday people who do a job. Do they fit an exact definition of a hero? Surely they do, but to call them heroes or publicly regard them as so is to take away from the peace of society, promote war, and allow for suffering.
By definition of a hero, "A person, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities," the American soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is a hero.
The men and women who make it through basic training have already made many outstanding physical and mental achievements. Those who have participated in combat have taken those achievements to the next level, being an active part of the most powerful, most effective military in the world's history. Whether they shoot a weapon with precision under fire, whether they deploy their ordinance at the precise time, or whether they give the correct order under the correct circumstances, a US militant who is successful under stress has made an outstanding achievement.
Many, if not most, United States militants have demonstrated extreme courage. Being able to function in the face of death, risking their lives for their morals is the definition of courage. Courage is, "the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery."  A soldier or other militant in combat faces more difficulty, danger, and pain while suppressing fear than most people in the world.
The typical member of the United States military possesses noble qualities. In the Vietnam War alone, hundreds of men are recorded o have jumped on top of grenades, thus sacrificing their lives to save those around them.  If you do not consider sacrificing yourself to save those around you a noble action born of a noble quality, I think your sense of what is noble needs to be reevaluated.
Finally, members of the United States military are admired for the qualities stated above. Polls show that people trust and admire their military more than any other US institution.  This is why our nation has such a high emphasis on thanking our veterans and why their are so many foundations (such as the POW MIA foundation) that are in place to support veterans and their families.
This is not even a debate. Pro himself has provided a definition of a hero, I have provided examples that meet the criteria of a hero. The topic for this debate is not, "Members of the US military should not be considered heroes," but it is, "Members of the US military are not heroes." I have proven that a typical member of the US military is a hero, and that is all the debate asks for.
1) By publicly adorning hero status on someone we "make them a hero" when they really shouldn't be regarded as such, as I previously argued.
2) The fact that one can act heroically in some situations without actually being a hero.
The fact for example that Chris Kyle saved some lives of fellow US military member while simultaneously killing(by his account) over 160 people who were defending their homeland from attack cannot make him a hero.
While some things the military does can be regarded as heroic the record is clear on the lack of heroism:
1) All soldiers have not lives up to their oaths and implement unconstitutional orders daily.
2) The killing of women and children in other lands.
3) The killing of Americans abroad
4) The lack of care to soldiers when they leave the military.
5) The indoctrination of false nationalism
6) A culture of collectivism
7) The fact that a standing army in and of itself is unconstitutional.
8) The military's glorification of combat and murder.
9) Blind allegiance to cause or nation without critical inquiry
For all of the stated reason, regarding the military as heroes is dangerous and immoral.
I have already proven that members of the US military ARE heroes, whether my opponent thinks they should be or not, I decline to support that point any further.
I extend previous points that show that a US militant is a hero.
On my opponents debate, he digs his own grave in several places:
"Do they fit an exact definition of a hero? Surely they do"
"The ideas of doing heroic things and being adorned as a hero publicly must be separated"
My opponent establishes in his own arguments that US militants fit the definition of a hero, thus making a US militant a hero. Closed.
Doing heroic things must be separated from being publicly adorned as a hero? So then what should merit being adorned as a hero? Scraping by through high school and dropping out of college? Living an average live of doing nothing?
My opponent has still failed to prove that US militants ARE NOT heroes, and has even provided evidence to the contrary.
If murder and taking orders blindly creates accomplishment and takes courage, then sure I will concede the point. But it is not heroic, it is the opposite.
My opponent's weak argument that a hero needs to fill criteria for being a hero often is simply not valid. The definition of a hero, as cited by my opponent, does not call for these requirements to be repeated.
As I have proven in my previous arguments, the average US militant is admired by the general public, has shown incredible courage, has achieved the outstanding, and does demonstrate noble qualities such as preservation of life and intense dedication. Thus, by the definition cited by my opponent, the typical US militant IS as hero, whether this is a good thing or not.
I thank my opponent for the debate, and I wish him the best of luck in his future debates.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by beanall 2 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con easily won this debate. Pro even admitted in round 2 that by definition soldiers are in fact heroes.
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.