Resolved: The repeal of DADT was the favorable decision for the United States.
Debate Rounds (4)
This round is for acceptance only.
I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, and for obvious reasons, I stand on the PRO side of this debate and affirm the resolution at hand. I don't really have any definitions nor parameters for the debate at hand in particular; if my opponent has any parameters or definitions for the debate, I will gladly analyze them and state whether I agree or disagree with them. Now, to the iteration of my argument:
Contention 1: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was unjustly implemented.
The sole intention of DADT when it was implemented in 1996 by the Clinton administration was to allow the military to be able to discharge homosexual members of the military if and only if they have come out about their sexuality and are openly expressive of their sexuality. It was clear within the policy that the military had no right to directly search for the answers. This was, however, not the case...
A report from Stanford University detailing the reports from the Servicememebers Legal Defense Network reports the following:
"SLDN has documented death threats and other specific violations of the new policy from March 1, 1994 - February 28, 1995, and concludes that many military officials continue to ask questions about sexual orientation, conduct witch hunts and condone harassment of lesbian and gay servicemembers in direct violation of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue." SLDN concludes that the chief reasons for the continuing violations are lack of information, lack of adequate training and guidance regarding the new policy, and in some cases, willful disregard of military policy by commanders and investigators."
The report continues:
"SLDN reports the following findings from its monitoring activities during the past year: 1. 340 total violations of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass." 2. 37 cases with "Don't Ask" violations. 3. 18 cases with "Don't Tell" violations. 4. 65 cases with "Don't Pursue" violations. 5. 62 cases with "Don't Harass" violations. 6. 15 actual or attempted witch hunts among the "Don't Pursue" violations. 7. 10 cases where servicemembers faced death threats in violation of "Don't Harass" because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation."
Contention 2: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is impractical.
According to the reports from the military itself, senior analysts on the DADT policy, and the members of the military, the openness of homosexuals within the military would not affect the unit cohesion of the military nor aid with its objectives in any way, shape, or form. The newspaper Air Force Times reports the following:
"A common concern of many service members, borne out in polls, is that sexual orientation affects job performance. But the service members interviewed by Military Times generally said it does not.
“I don’t care about your sexuality,” said Navy Ensign Mario Tarver, now in flight training at Vance Air Force Base, Okla. “If you can get the job done, load up my plane so I can go perform the mission, I have no problem with you.”
“I would think in the vast majority of cases, 99 percent, there would be no impact,” said Navy Intelligence Specialist 1st Class David Rister, who worked with a Special Forces unit in Iraq in 2007 and now is assigned to a Hawaii-based P-3 squadron."
The report continues:
" A gay female lieutenant colonel in the Army Medical Corps agreed. “You can’t afford to be that darn picky,” she said. “You’ve discharged thousands of really good soldiers. That’s tragic. You’ve discarded them … because you don’t like what they do in their personal life.”
Contention 3: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a violation of rights.
Last, but not least, of course, is the question about where ethical principles comes into play. DADT is clearly a violation of rights because it inhibits the rights of free speech, which would include the expression of self.
The only argument that my opponent seems to bring up on this debate is the conflict that the homosexuality of a soldier in the American military is going to liquidate the efficiency of the military, although I have clearly posted information directly from the American military regarding the opinions of the military when it comes to homosexuals being open. What it shows is that most of the military is fine with having homosexuals being open in the military. Even if, by the way, this would cause some sort of conflict within the military, we have to understand that military is America, and as long as this military is subject to America, they are subject to American idealisms, justice, and the Constitution. The judicial branch agrees with me: DADT destroys free speech and expression.
This is the final round of our debate, so I'm just going to go over my opponent's rebuttals and explain to the judges why I should be the winner of this debate.
Rebuttal 1: In my original argument, I explained that DADT was not implemented correctly as well as opened forroom for violations and that DADT is a violation of free speech. My opponent makes no mention of that. The only thing that he mentions at all is about military cohesiveness, and even then, he doesn't refute anything against my evidence nor the general structure ofmy case. At that point, the judges can pretty much extend my case across the flow for the entirety of the debate.
Rebuttal 2: At the point, then, where my opponent does not refute my evidence in the slightest, then there really is no warrant to anything that he's saying. I explained how people in the military don'treally care much about homosexuals being active norhas it affectedthe cohesiveness of the military in any way through my evidence. My opponent doesn't explain how cohesiveness has been destroyed in the military after the passage of this legislation. Has there been a reduction in the amount of people in the military? Has themilitary been less functional? Nowhere in his rebuttals nor in his originalargument does he explain anything about how this affected the military, so his argument is baseless at best.
Rebuttal 3: Americans conflict in their idealisms on many occassions, but under the surface, there is a single, solid belief in the Constitution and in the rights iterated therein, and one of them is the freedom of expression and speech. This is what I mean. This is what I am saying when I talk about how the military is still America and should uphold justice as such. Unless, of course, my opponent is saying that the freedom of speech is not necessary whatsoever.
Reasons for voting PRO: So the reasons why the judges should vote for me are pretty obvious at the very least. My entire case goes entirely unchallenged and unresponded to. My opponent's arguments are baseless at best and don't really respond to anything that I have said so far. For these reasons, vote PRO.
american5 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by belle 5 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|
Reasons for voting decision: Con barely even tried. no attempted at backing up or elucidating his claim that gays being in the closet makes america safer.
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.