The Instigator
alexnotmurfs
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SirReed
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Remembrance Day Should Focus Less On Honouring Veterans

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,288 times Debate No: 40254
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

alexnotmurfs

Pro

Remembrance Day is coming up this Monday, so I would like to discuss my feelings on the holiday.

I support taking a little time out of our lives every year to remember the lives lost due to war. However, most Remembrance Day ceremonies go further by lauding the soldiers involved in the war for their "service to their country". The overall effect is usually inspiring and rousing to the young people who experience the display every year.

By continuing to perpetuate the idea that waging war to "defend your country" is an honorable sacrifice that youth should be proud of, we are just sending more young people to senseless deaths.

I am a pacifist and abhor killing in any form. I believe that Remembrance Day celebration should focus on mourning the overall loss of life due to war, and serve as a reminder that peace cannot come from war.

This year, I will be wearing a white poppy for peace, and I hope I will see more out there.

I want to include a song written by Eric Bogle, which sums up my thoughts on this subject and finish with extending my thanks to whoever takes up this debate. Cheers!

Well how do you do Private William McBride,
Do you mind if I sit here down by your graveside?
And rest for awhile beneath the warm summer sun,
I've been walking all day and now I'm nearly done
I see by your gravestone you were only nineteen
When you joined the glorious fallen in 1916;
Well I hope you died quick and I hope you died clean,
Or, young Willie McBride, was it slow and obscene?

Did they beat the drum slowly,
Did they play the fife lowly?
Did they sound the Death March
As they lowered you down?
Did the band play
"The Last Post And Chorus?"
Did the pipes play
"The Flowers Of The Forest?"

Did you leave 'ere a wife or a sweetheart behind?
In some faithful heart is your memory enshrined?
And although you died back in 1916,
In that faithful heart are you forever nineteen?
Or are you a stranger without even a name,
Enclosed forever behind a glass pane,
In an old photograph, torn, and battered and stained,
And faded to yellow in a brown leather frame?

Ah the sun now it shines on these green fields of France,
The warm summer breeze makes the red poppies dance,
And look how the sun shines from under the clouds;
There's no gas, no barbed wire, there're no guns firing now.
But here in this graveyard is still No Man's Land,
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man's blind indifference to his fellow man,
To a whole generation that was butchered and damned.

Ah, young Willie McBride, I can't help wonder why,
Did all those who lay here really know why they died?
And did they believe when they answered the call,
Did they really believe that this war would end war?
For the sorrow, the suffering, the glory, the pain,
The killing and dying were all done in vain,
For, young Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again and again and again and again.
SirReed

Con

I accept, and thank pro for creating this argument! I will be arguing that Remembrance Day, (which coincides with Veterans Day, and as its name suggests is about remembering those who have died in the line of duty [1].) Should be about remembering and honoring are veterans, rather then lamenting that war has happened, or simply trying to remind us that war is bad.

" I support taking a little time out of our lives every year to remember the lives lost due to war. However, most Remembrance Day ceremonies go further by lauding the soldiers involved in the war for their "service to their country". The overall effect is usually inspiring and rousing to the young people who experience the display every year."

How are Veterans lauded on? I'd hardly call a school assembly, with a guest speaker "lauding". And yeah sure their are some processions but they are usually in capital city's, and not nation wide. Does pro think we shouldn't thank Veterans? I think its perfectly fine to thank a veteran for risking their life, leaving their home and family behind, to fight and some times die, for a noble cause. I'd say someone who has endured those things has done a great "service to their country". And are youth should be inspired by the sacrifice's are veteran's had to make, so that if one day if they are called to fight, they can answer the call. Like if they ever have to stop a man with a small mustache from taking over the world...

"By continuing to perpetuate the idea that waging war to "defend your country" is an honorable sacrifice that youth should be proud of, we are just sending more young people to senseless deaths."

I agree that waging a senseless war of conquest is obviously wrong, and is nothing to be proud of. Like WWI for example where both side went to war for less then meaningful reasons. That being said you can't blame soldiers or veterans for those war's, they weren't the ones who started them. But they had to fight them or face imprisonment[2], so its not about taking away the glamor of war by not honoring veterans, so much as is it about telling governments to be more peaceful. And further more when a war is justified there is great honor in fighting for, and defending one's country. Take WW2 for example, are you telling me that the allies declaring War on Germany wasn't honorable? Germany had invaded Poland and wanted to expand further, and was rounding up Jews, and gassing them by the tens of thousands and eventually millions. And the men who went off to fight and kill for their country ended up stopping a evil dictator from killing even more people, and liberated millions. How may i ask is that not honorable?

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://uspolitics.about.com...












Debate Round No. 1
alexnotmurfs

Pro

Thank you for your points, Con. To respond:

"Does pro think we shouldn't thank Veterans? I think its perfectly fine to thank a veteran for risking their life, leaving their home and family behind, to fight and some times die, for a noble cause. I'd say someone who has endured those things has done a great "service to their country"."

I disagree. I don't believe that any cause is noble to fight and kill for. I am sure that veterans believed that they were doing the right thing at the time when they accepted the call to fight, but I still believe that the actions they took were wrong, and for that reason it wouldn't be morally or intellectually honest for me to thank them.

"And are youth should be inspired by the sacrifice's are veteran's had to make, so that if one day if they are called to fight, they can answer the call."


This is the crux of the issue for me. I think that instead of inspiring young people to take up the torch and fight, Remembrance Day should remind us all to reject war and see it for the evil that it is.

Con also mentions that soldiers had no choice but to fight in WW1, as they would have been imprisoned had they not agreed to fight. Does Con believe that one soldier's freedom is worth another's life? The cost of waging war is always too high and by agreeing to fight, soldiers condemn other young people just like them to death just because they are on the wrong side of the war.

"Are you telling me that the allies declaring War on Germany wasn't honorable? Germany had invaded Poland and wanted to expand further, and was rounding up Jews, and gassing them by the tens of thousands and eventually millions. And the men who went off to fight and kill for their country ended up stopping a evil dictator from killing even more people, and liberated millions. How may i ask is that not honorable?"

Yes, I am asserting that our allied soldiers fighting and killing German soldiers was not honourable.

And not to put too fine a point on things, but Hitler wasn't directly responsible for rounding up, imprisoning, and killing millions of Jews. The individual soldiers who carried out orders in what they may have believed to be the best interests of their country were. German soldiers who were young men just like our allies were roused into action and made to believe that the fight was an honourable one.

Why should our Remembrance Day ceremonies and assemblies focus on thanking the men and women who fought and died for our country, while glossing over the deaths that they were responsible for? Remembrance Day should be about mourning all life taken by war, and warning today's youth not to fall prey to the warped idea that fighting in a war makes you a hero when in truth it just makes you a murderer, or a victim.

Are you aware that Germany also has a day for remembrance? They call it Volkstrauertag, the National Day of Mourning.
"It is an occasion not only to mourn the dead but also to illustrate the tragedy of war and speak out for peace." This is what I believe our Remembrance Day ceremonies should emulate.

Source: http://www.timeanddate.com...
SirReed

Con





"I disagree. I don't believe that any cause is noble to fight and kill for. I am sure that veterans believed that they were doing the right thing at the time when they accepted the call to fight, but I still believe that the actions they took were wrong, and for that reason it wouldn't be morally or intellectually honest for me to thank them."

So you don't think any cause is noble to fight for, well then lets take a historical look at all the causes that you must agree weren't worth fighting for, and the consequences that arise. It'll be fun on the bun!

1.
The moors, who were muslims had invaded Europe, and conquered southern italy as well as Spain and Portugal. In 732 A.D they invaded France. They were turned back[1] by Charles "the hammer" (king of France) [2] , so using pro's logic France should have just let them conquer all of Europe, Western civilization would be nonexistent, and Europe whould be like the middle east, sharia law for everyone!
2.
American Civil War, here's another good example of the consequences of using your logic, if the north had simply let the south have its slaves, then the south wouldn't have had a reason to secede and the civil war would not have occurred. However there were 4 million slaves in the Southern Confederacy[3], all of which would still be enslaved today, and the treatment of slave was horrible[4]. They were whipped and beaten, separated from their families they could even face death if they learned to read! And yet pro thinks that it whould have been fine for the North to not fight slavery and secession, because he belives that no cause if noble to fight for.
3.The Korean War was fought between what we now call North and South Korea, with the U.S and U.N fighting for the south, and China for the North. Again using por's logic we should have not gotten involved in the war meaning that south Korea would be like the north, which is not a very nice place to live, with its starvation and tolataian goverment[5].




SO SOMETIMES WAR IS A NECESSARY EVIL BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE "PEACE" ACTUALLY WORSE!



"This is the crux of the issue for me. I think that instead of inspiring young people to take up the torch and fight, Remembrance Day should remind us all to reject war and see it for the evil that it is."

Ok well, couldn't we thank veterans AND reject war? Soldiers above everyone else want peace! Because there the poor saps who will have to fight.


"Con also mentions that soldiers had no choice but to fight in WW1, as they would have been imprisoned had they not agreed to fight. Does Con believe that one soldier's freedom is worth another's life? The cost of waging war is always too high and by agreeing to fight, soldiers condemn other young people just like them to death just because they are on the wrong side of the war."

No, i think life is very valuable, and is obviously worth more than a trip to jail, but i may have understated punishment for not fighting, Great Britain alone shot 306 Soldiers for desertion[6], and this is missing the point because if war is fought for a actual reason, unlike WWI, then you will have to face consequences like the ones i listed above. So Soldiers in manny situations have a strong reason to fight.


"Yes, I am asserting that our allied soldiers fighting and killing German soldiers was not honourable."

So useing pro's logic we should have let Hitler have his Third Reich, and his final solution (the extermination of jews). And your also arguing that are allied soldiers fighting against the axis was bad specifically due to the loss of life, and yet you'd be ok with millions more Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Gays and Slavs, being killed.Which whould have resalted in manny more deaths in the long run, For the sake of preserving life? That's very hypocritical of you.


"And not to put too fine a point on things, but Hitler wasn't directly responsible for rounding up, imprisoning, and killing millions of Jews. The individual soldiers who carried out orders in what they may have believed to be the best interests of their country were. German soldiers who were young men just like our allies were roused into action and made to believe that the fight was an honourable one."

What you said is completely unwarranted! You provided no sources, and only used your own warped sense of history to make your point. Of coures hitler wasn't
directly responsible for the"rounding up, imprisoning, and killing millions of Jews". Thats because it whould have been impossible for him to kill all those million's people on his own, (his arms would get tired after shooting the 200th jew). It was because of him, and political figures like him that the holocast happened, not soldiers, and to suggest otherwise is silly, Canada had soldiers so did Great Britain, but no holocaust. But sure Hitler was a nice guy, i could really see how his soldiers mistook such a compassionate, kind, loving man, lets see what hitler had to say about jew's[7]!

"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!" (quoted in John Toland, Adolf Hitler. London: Book Club Associates, 1977, p.116)

"Why should our Remembrance Day ceremonies and assemblies focus on thanking the men and women who fought and died for our country, while glossing over the deaths that they were responsible for? Remembrance Day should be about mourning all life taken by war, and warning today's youth not to fall prey to the warped idea that fighting in a war makes you a hero when in truth it just makes you a murderer, or a victim."

Why shouldn't we
"gloss" over the deaths of nazis? The rest of your statmen is pure opinion.

"Are you aware that Germany also has a day for remembrance? They call it Volkstrauertag, the National Day of Mourning."It is an occasion not only to mourn the dead but also to illustrate the tragedy of war and speak out for peace." This is what I believe our Remembrance Day ceremonies should emulate."

Ok, thats nice? How does that prove your statement? We could both honor our vets and talk about the horrors and loses of war, they often go hand in hand.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com...
[4] https://www.boundless.com...
[5] http://www.northkoreanow.org...
[6] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[7] http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk...

Debate Round No. 2
alexnotmurfs

Pro

Rebuttal:

"So you don't think any cause is noble to fight for, well then lets take a historical look at all the causes that you must agree weren't worth fighting for, and the consequences that arise. It'll be fun on the bun!"


I would like to clarify my point on this. It is not that I believe no cause is worth fighting for. I think that no cause is worth fighting and killing for. There is a difference. There are many ways to fight for a cause that don't involve killing.

"1.
The moors, who were Muslims had invaded Europe, and conquered southern Italy as well as Spain and Portugal. In 732 A.D they invaded France. They were turned back[1] by Charles "the hammer" (king of France) [2] , so using pro's logic France should have just let them conquer all of Europe, Western civilization would be nonexistent, and Europe would be like the middle east, sharia law for everyone!"

The Battle of Tours, to which if I am not mistaken you are referring, was yet another war of conquest. The Muslims had invaded Europe in order to claim more land and resources. When they were forced to retreat by King Charles, he ended up claiming more land and resources for France.

Would I personally prefer for Europe to have been conquered by the Muslims? I don't know. There's no way to know for sure what our society would look like now had that been the case.

And yes, my position still stands that even in this case, fighting and killing should have been rejected.

"2.
American Civil War, here's another good example of the consequences of using your logic, if the north had simply let the south have its slaves, then the south wouldn't have had a reason to secede and the civil war would not have occurred. However there were 4 million slaves in the Southern Confederacy[3], all of which would still be enslaved today, and the treatment of slave was horrible[4]. They were whipped and beaten, separated from their families they could even face death if they learned to read! And yet pro thinks that it would have been fine for the North to not fight slavery and secession, because he believes that no cause if noble to fight for."

Do you honestly believe that there was no other option than to launch a civil war in this case? For example, those involved in the underground railroad were able to free slaves without fighting and killing.

"3.The Korean War was fought between what we now call North and South Korea, with the U.S and U.N fighting for the south, and China for the North. Again using por's logic we should have not gotten involved in the war meaning that south Korea would be like the north, which is not a very nice place to live, with its starvation and tolataian government[5]."

This is a widely debated topic. Many Americans do not believe that soldiers should have been sent to fight in the Korean War.

"SO SOMETIMES WAR IS A NECESSARY EVIL BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE "PEACE" ACTUALLY WORSE!"

As I've already asserted, I disagree. Young people fighting and killing each other is neither necessary or helpful in any way.



"Ok well, couldn't we thank veterans AND reject war? Soldiers above everyone else want peace! Because there the poor saps who will have to fight."






Why are you under the impression that soldiers have to fight? It is up to each of us to work towards peace, including soldiers who can choose not to fight.




"No, i think life is very valuable, and is obviously worth more than a trip to jail, but i may have understated punishment for not fighting, Great Britain alone shot 306 Soldiers for desertion[6], and this is missing the point because if war is fought for a actual reason, unlike WWI, then you will have to face consequences like the ones i listed above. So Soldiers in manny situations have a strong reason to fight."




You mention that 306 soldiers were shot for desertion in Great Britain (I assume you are referring to soldiers who deserted during WW1). And how many young men were killed in battle? A far higher number. If all of those soldiers had refused to fight, first of all it would have been impractical to kill all of them for desertion, and secondly the war would not have taken so many lives on either side.

"So useing pro's logic we should have let Hitler have his Third Reich, and his final solution (the extermination of jews). And your also arguing that are allied soldiers fighting against the axis was bad specifically due to the loss of life, and yet you'd be ok with millions more Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Gays and Slavs, being killed.Which whould have resalted in manny more deaths in the long run, For the sake of preserving life? That's very hypocritical of you."

As I mentioned before, there are many ways to fight for a cause. I would absolutely not have been okay with the extermination of the Jews, or any of the other groups you mentioned. However, I believe that in every situation there is always an option preferable to killing.




"What you said is completely unwarranted! You provided no sources, and only used your own warped sense of history to make your point. Of coures hitler wasn't directly responsible for the"rounding up, imprisoning, and killing millions of Jews". Thats because it whould have been impossible for him to kill all those million's people on his own, (his arms would get tired after shooting the 200th jew). It was because of him, and political figures like him that the holocast happened, not soldiers, and to suggest otherwise is silly, Canada had soldiers so did Great Britain, but no holocaust. But sure Hitler was a nice guy, i could really see how his soldiers mistook such a compassionate, kind, loving man, lets see what hitler had to say about jew's[7]!"




What I said was based on common sense. You say yourself that it would have been impossible for Hitler to personally kill all of those people on his own. In that case, it is necessarily true that without the soldiers who carried out Hitler's orders, the deaths would not have happened.




Hitler was not a nice guy, but he was an intensely charismatic leader. He was able to mislead the young men in his service to think that getting rid of the Jews was necessary for the good of Germany. If those young men had refused to carry out his dirty work, how would he have accomplished it?

"Why shouldn't we
"gloss"
over the deaths of nazis? The rest of your statmen is pure opinion."




Because Nazi soldiers were young men just like our allies. Their lives had just as much value.

"Ok, thats nice? How does that prove your statement? We could both honor our vets and talk about the horrors and loses of war, they often go hand in hand."




The reason that Germany's National Day of Mourning is relevant to my argument is that they seem to have a better understanding of the horrors of war.






Closing Argument:



My position in this debate is that Remembrance Day should focus less on honouring veterans.


Young people attend the Remembrance Day ceremonies and are misled to believe that there is honour in waging war, and that serving their country through answering the call to fight and kill other young people is something to aspire to, something worthy of praise.


My argument has been that by inspiring these feelings in youth, we are sending more young people to their deaths.


There is no right or wrong side to a war. No heroes or villains. Just young men and women who are fooled into thinking that they are doing the right thing, in the best interest of their home country.


Instead of continuing to feed these thoughts of honour, heroism, and duty to one's country to our youth, we should be using Remembrance Day as a reminder of all casualties of war. And also as an opportunity to work towards peace.

SirReed

Con

Rebuttals

"I would like to clarify my point on this. It is not that I believe no cause is worth fighting for. I think that no cause is worth fighting and killing for. There is a difference. There are many ways to fight for a cause that don't involve killing. "

I'm glad pro thinks there are some causes worth fighting for, however as i have previously shown there are certian causes that have to involve violence and there for soldiers. And I shall further disprove pors belief that every issuse or cause can be resolved peacefully.

"The Battle of Tours, to which if I am not mistaken you are referring, was yet another war of conquest. The Muslims had invaded Europe in order to claim more land and resources. When they were forced to retreat by King Charles, he ended up claiming more land and resources for France.
Would I personally prefer for Europe to have been conquered by the Muslims? I don't know. There's no way to know for sure what our society would look like now had that been the case.
And yes, my position still stands that even in this case, fighting and killing should have been rejected."

I think we have a pretty good idea of what Europe would look like today if the Moors had been successful. take a look at the middle east, or read the Quran, and you'll be glad Europe progressed the way it did. However i do concede that there is really no true way of knowing what our society would have become. That being said my other two examples are a lot harder to refute.

"Do you honestly believe that there was no other option than to launch a civil war in this case? For example, those involved in the underground railroad were able to free slaves without fighting and killing."

Yes, i honestly believe that the only moral option, in the case of America's practice of slavery was to fight a civil war to end it. Saying that the underground railroad could have been used as a alternative to war is very misguided notion. From 1810 to 1850 around 100,000 slaves were freed by the underground rail road[1], that sounds like a lot but remember the south had 4 million slaves. Also the Underground railroad was very dangerous[2], and many slaves were returned from the north to the south.
And the south would have never giving up their slaves willingly, their entire economy was based on slavery[3], there for war was necessary for Americans of all color's to be free. And we should honor the men who freed them!

"This is a widely debated topic. Many Americans do not believe that soldiers should have been sent to fight in the Korean War."

I think that most south Koreans are happy that the U.S sent troops and intervened in their favor, as their nation is democratic and prosperous. Unlike north korea which is totalitarian and starving...So in the end millions of people are better off because are veterans were willing to fight and die for people they didn't even know. And those people deserve our respect!

"You mention that 306 soldiers were shot for desertion in Great Britain (I assume you are referring to soldiers who deserted during WW1). And how many young men were killed in battle? A far higher number. If all of those soldiers had refused to fight, first of all it would have been impractical to kill all of them for desertion, and secondly the war would not have taken so many lives on either side."

It would have been very nice if all the soldiers of WWI had thrown down their guns and embraced
their fellow man, howerver that a idealist's dream and simply couldn't have happened. And as i've already said WWI was a near pointless war, which didn't solve anything or stop any terrible wrongdoing, so i wish it didn't happen, but it did, so let's honor the men who died in that conflict, and others.

"As I've already asserted, I disagree. Young people fighting and killing each other is neither necessary or helpful in any way."

As I've proved war is sometimes necessary, and can be very "helpful", with things like stoping slavery, the holocaust, totalitarian communism, that sort of stuff. And we should honor the soldiers who had to fight against those horrible things.

"Why are you under the impression that soldiers have to fight? It is up to each of us to work towards peace, including soldiers who can choose not to fight."

Because some things have to be solved through war, and require the use of soldiers, (see above)
and i'm not arguing that war is good we should try to work towards peace. But not at any price, like letting slavery exist or letting a dictator kill his own people, etc.


"As I mentioned before, there are many ways to fight for a cause. I would absolutely not have been okay with the extermination of the Jews, or any of the other groups you mentioned. However, I believe that in every situation there is always an option preferable to killing."

So how would you have stoped the holocaust? By asking Hitler nicely to not kill the jews? WHAT OPTION IS MORE PREFERABLE? The only solution I see is too send in the Allies and the Russians to destroy Hitler's forces. And thats because that was the only solution, oh sure if we had a time machine we could go back and stop Hilters rise, but realistically speaking, sending in soldiers to liberate concentration camps, and occupied countries was the only feasible solution. And again i think we should honor those incredibly brave men (and women) who destroyed the axis.

"What I said was based on common sense. You say yourself that it would have been impossible for Hitler to personally kill all of those people on his own. In that case, it is necessarily true that without the soldiers who carried out Hitler's orders, the deaths would not have happened."

Yes, but like i said Canada and Great Britain had soldiers but no holocaust, so there no correlation between soldiers and genocide. And sure hypothetically speaking, if Germany didn't have soldiers then the holocaust would not have happened. But consider this, what if we could go back in time, and warn everyone, and
completely disarm Germany! But how would we do it? Most countries aren't so keen on completely disarming themselves...so maybe we should disarm them by force? They might fight back, and a few thousand people will die, but we could save millions of lives! oh wait a sec i just described a war didn't I? So i guss we'll have to let germany rearm... well they just invaded Poland but thats ok, we won't stop them because war is bad! Now They invaded france and are gassing jews but i'm sure we can find some sort of peaceful way to solve are little problem...no need for war....no need for soldiers to fight it... But what if we just killed Hitler? Then Germany won't rearm, and the'll be no holocaust! Maybe even no ww2! (if the russians play nice) So maybe, just maybe it was Hitlers falt all along? Meaning the fact that Germany had soldiers, would have not been a problem. So in the end its still Hitlers fault.

"Because Nazi soldiers were young men just like our allies. Their lives had just as much value.
"

Yes their lifes did/do have value, but they were still fighting for a Genocidal maniac, and invading other countries, so lets not feel to bad for them.

"The reason that Germany's National Day of Mourning is relevant to my argument is that they seem to have a better understanding of the horrors of war."

In your opinion, but mabye they don't want to honor people like Hermann Goering? Doesn't mean we can't honor our vetrans.

Closing Thoughts
This debate in some ways has turned into a discussion about pacifism, we must remember that not every issue is resolved peacefully, and there are men and women who have, and have to fight for the greater good, they risk their lifes, face physical and mental pain, and had to leave their loved ones behind. So honor your veterans for the sacrifices they've made!


Sources
[1] http://askville.amazon.com...
[2] http://www.pbs.org...
[3] http://www.articlemyriad.com...



Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by alexnotmurfs 3 years ago
alexnotmurfs
It seems my formatting got all weird at some point during the last post. It didn't show up that way until I submitted. I apologize for any difficulty with reading it.

Also, I did forget to include my sources for this last round:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
http://historywarsweapons.com...
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Thank you for engaging in this debate, SirReed. I look forward to your closing arguments and wish you all the best in voting!
No votes have been placed for this debate.