The Instigator
Yrael
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
riclanda
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Military policy DADT = BAD

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,725 times Debate No: 835
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (15)

 

Yrael

Pro

Note: I will be using the word "gay" as a catch all for LGBT for the soul purpose that I don't actually distinguish in my own mind or even care.

DADT, short for "don't ask don't tell", is a public law put into effect in '93 by the Clinton administration. It was supposed to be one step up from the old law -which simply banned gays from serving in the military- by allowing them to serve but to keep their gay identity secret. The law mandates that witch hunts will not be done to seek out gay service members (don't ask) and that service members will not tell anyone that they are gay (don't tell). Should a service member become openly gay he/she will be ejected from the military.

I have a few major points on why this is wrong.

1. On a moral level we as a country are asking our citizens to hide parts of themselves. Specifically citizens that at the very least feel they are risking their lives for us. Whether they are or not is another debate. We are in effect silencing a minority.

2. Government is supposed to be a representation of its people. Telling service members to serve gay in secret is to put across the message that being gay is wrong and shameful. Which to some also carries the message to destroy such service members is okay.

3. One of the founding principles of the United States was such that there would be a division of religion and state. Unless one would like to argue that to be gay is also to be un-human then to have this policy is to draw a direct line between the popular religious view that this is wrong and government.

4. The law was put into effect for the purpose of helping unit-cohesion and moral but in fact does the exact opposite. Before this law was in place gay service members truly had to serve in secret and no one knew that they even existed except when they were found. Now that this law has been passed service members know that there are gays serving among them but not who. While I do not personally believe this should effect anything at all when it comes to unit cohesion, if your best buddy is forced to lie to you under law it certainly will.

5. Having openly gay service members would accomplish many things. For one the people who disagree with this policy and do not serve in the military because of it would now be open to do so. For two, the unit cohesion and moral issue would no longer become a factor. Thirdly, gay units are no lesser at their job than any other unit therefor we would see no decrease in military performance. Lastly and finally this would actually save the military money as hiring and training a service member only to find they are gay and kick them from the military is to waste money.

Please keep in mind that this is a debate about whether or not DADT as a policy is a good idea not military power, the U.S, or Gay rights in general.
riclanda

Con

The whole don't ask don't tell thing, i think your opinion is right. People who are asked to hide parts of themselves will not perform well. However I don't think that gay men should be able to serve in the armed forces. I know it makes me uncomfortable to sleep in a dorm with a gay guy. The majority of soldiers are heterosexual, so they would not like to be with a gay guy. I feel that gay men, have as much right to be on the front lines as women. For all the women who are serving, you are doing a great job. Gay men, have a right to serve with other gay men, like women serve with other women. I have nothing against gay guys, but they make me uncomfortable, when I am alone with them. There must be other guys like me in the fact that they feel this way. Life in the armed forces isn't always comfortable, but we should keep them as comfortable as we can in every way, for everybody. This is not only gay men, but women as well.
Debate Round No. 1
Yrael

Pro

Alright I am going to go, sentence my sentence on your arguments.

"I know it makes me uncomfortable to sleep in a dorm with a gay guy. ."

>> I am sorry. I know it does not make me uncomfortable. I realize that this will make some people uncomfortable. However the idea of your comfort or uncomfort with this situation has no basis in this argument. Also there have been studies that have been done on this idea and many of them say that service members would be very uncomfortable with the idea. However similar studies were taken in, I think the number is 13, other countries and after they lifted their equivalent of DADT no actual negative impact was seen. These countries include Australia, Great Britain, and Canada. One being our closest ally to the north and Great Britain being our closest ally in general. Also it should be noted that we are serving beside them in Iraq right now without some kind of detriment.

"The GAO researchers noted that 13 Western allied countries allow homosexual men and women to serve in the military without restrictions and officials from the domestic departments that had prohibited discrimination of sexual minorities reported, ‘they had not experienced any degradation of mission associated with these policies'" (Evans).

"Before Canada lifted its gay ban in 1992, a survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said they would refuse to share showers or living quarters with a gay soldier. But when the ban was actually lifted, follow-up studies found no increased difficulty with recruiting, discipline or performance, and few if any
resignations were attributed to the change in policy. A similar scenario unfolded in Britain, where two-thirds of service members indicated that they would not serve with gays if the British ban were eliminated. Following the lifting of the ban, studies found no increased difficulty with recruitment" (Frank)

"Australia, Israel, and Canada also eliminated bans without experiencing any increase in antigay violence" (Belkin)

"The majority of soldiers are heterosexual, so they would not like to be with a gay guy."

>>This in itself is fundamentally a bad idea. This is in essence saying people "would not like to be" with anyone who is different in any way. I obviously think that if a gay made a move (some type of sexual harassment) on a service member he/she should be kicked out, but I feel the same about any type of sexual harassment. And gay service members are not more prone to sexual harassment. They are human like me and you. Also do you have any evidence that heterosexual people do not like being around homosexuals? To say people do not like being with people who are different is not only a horrible idea but will never work in the real world as people are different on so many different levels. Not just a sexual orientation level.

"I feel that gay men, have as much right to be on the front lines as women"

>> Good, me to.

"For all the women who are serving, you are doing a great job."

>>I think women in the armed forces are doing as well as men.

"Gay men, have a right to serve with other gay men, like women serve with other women."

>>First off I am talking about gays in general here, not just gay men. Gay women also. Furthermore, you say women serve with other women, yeah, but they serve with men also. And gays serve with straights as it is in the status quo. Lastly apply what I said about the other countries having lifted their ban and not having any problems afterwards.

"I have nothing against gay guys, but they make me uncomfortable, when I am alone with them. "

>>See my first argument please.

"There must be other guys like me in the fact that they feel this way."

>>Definitely but we can see through the experiences of other nation's armies that when actually put in the situation there isn't a problem. Also our military policy should be based on what is right not on what the feelings of some.

"Life in the armed forces isn't always comfortable, but we should keep them as comfortable as we can in every way, for everybody."

>>Notice you said "for everybody" at the end of that. Everybody includes the gays. When you are forcing them to hide who they really are at stake of loosing their career is this really right when compared to the alternative of some having to be mildly uncomfortable.

Also one more thing, you are arguing that this would make people uncomfortable and this would decrease the effectiveness of military is what i'm getting from this, but I want you to consider this:

"According to the Pentagon, it has discharged more than 10,000 service members for being gay, including nearly 800 with skills deemed ‘mission critical' by the Department of Defense" (Ralls).

If you want to evaluate this just from a standpoint of what helps the military the most.... here is your answer. Finally from a social standpoint please consider this:

"'In the military,' said the Army JAG officer who deployed to OEF while serving in the Navy, ‘we learn to follow rules, and we promote what we're told to promote.' She said the result was that laws and policies sent clear messages about what was and was not acceptable in the service. ‘The best thing you can do as a soldier or sailor is to stand up for what the military says is right.' If the military said that gays and lesbians were welcome, it would have an enormous impact on attitudes toward them in the service. But
‘when the military is giving the message that there's something wrong and shameful about being gay, then we're also giving the message that to hate gays is acceptable'" (Frank)

Can we as a society allow this?
riclanda

Con

you won i guess, you have a good amount of evidence! i may not agree with all of it but i guess youy win!
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
Wow, a 10-0. Best freakin streak i've ever seen.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Smallclayton 7 years ago
Smallclayton
YraelriclandaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
YraelriclandaTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by qwerty15ster 9 years ago
qwerty15ster
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
YraelriclandaTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by ishamael_89 9 years ago
ishamael_89
YraelriclandaTied
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:30