The Instigator
dbaldwin1215
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
draxxt
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Should everyone in America support our troops, even though they may not support the War in Iraq?

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: 4/18/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,914 times Debate No: 3690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (13)

 

dbaldwin1215

Pro

I would like to open by saying I STRONGLY believe in supporting our troops who are risking our lives to attempt restoring peace in the Middle Eastern countries, who are plagued by suicide bombers and insurgency attacks. Today, at my school, we were all asked by our principal to go into the field to watch the troops fly over in their Black Hawks because they are being deployed to Iraq today. While I was out there, I witnessed SEVERAL students laughing and cracking jokes about the soldiers. I really feel for these soldiers because some of them don't know whether they will make it home alive or in a body bag.

I think if you are in America, whether you're a kid/teenager or not, you should respect your American troops and your military. They are fighting for peace in the world to hopefully prevent another attack on our freedom. It just disgusts me to see people laughing about it and moaning and groaning because they don't wanna be outside watching a simple fly over.
draxxt

Con

Thank you, to my opponent for opening this debate. I feel it will be productive (Whether for myself or otherwise is yet to be seen.)
I would like to explain a few things as a premise or prerequisite to debating.

First off, Do you realise what the resolution is? (Moreover, it's not a resolution, it's a question. If it were to be a resolution, you might include "Everyone in America should support our troops" or to some extent of that. A resolution is a statement, not a question.)

I'm saying this for your benefit as I really don't want you to end up embarassed in the long run.

Second, you are using an absolute structure for your "resolution."
To say that everyone should respect them is against American rights that the troops so steadily uphold. Regardless of whether or not they deserve it, we are given the right, by the first amendment, to choose what we believe.

Now, you use a few terms that may need some clearing up. (As always I'll be using Merriam-Webster. In the case of a word, followed by "as" and a colon, I am defining by Merriam-Webster)
support as: "to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate"
everyone as: " every person"

The resolution, as previously stated is: "Should everyone in America support our troops, even though they may not support the War in Iraq?"

No.
Point blank. If anyone disagrees with my logic, would like me to elaborate, or doesn't know what the First Amendment is, you might want to rethink why you support the troops in the first place.

Thank you for opening this debate and for the reasons shown before you, most logically, you must vote in Negation of this resolution.

Thank you again,
-EG
(Also, for the record, I support the troops, not the war, and a person's right to not support or support either.)
Debate Round No. 1
dbaldwin1215

Pro

I never said that it was their DUTY to support the troops. All I am saying is that there is a time and place for their comments against the troops, or "mocking" the troops. Certainly, a fly over, with some scared troops flying above, is not the time nor the place for those mocking comments. This is why, outside of certain events, there are "protest" zones. "Protest Zones" are for people to voice their opinion about certain issues. I did a report on the First Amendment last year in my government class. I don't want it to seem like I feel people should be obligated to support them. I just think that it's only correct in our nation to support our own nations' goals for world freedom.
draxxt

Con

My opponent brings up an... interesting case. A flawed case but an interesting one no less.
My opponent claims I feel he insinuated (rather long accusation, no?) that it was Americans duty. In one sense I did. Because he did.

Sir, I would like you to, if you really feel this strongly about this topic, to create a more applicable resolution. Your resolution insinuates that everyone should support our troops. This is flawed in and of itself but now my opponent claims his resolution "...that there is a time and place for their comments against the troops, or "mocking" the troops. Certainly, a fly over, with some scared troops flying above, is not the time nor the place for those mocking comments" In this you might say, "Resolved: Moking soldiers in times of direct patriotism is immoral and indecent"
or
"Resolved: Those who mock soldiers should do so in specific areas."
The resolution clearly states that you believe everyone should support our troops.
Please, this is a clerical error on my opponent's side and due to logic and faulty writing of the resolution, I urge you to vote in Negation of this resolution.
Thanks,
-EG
(Also, you might want to concede. Not being mean or looking for an "easy win" as some might say, I just think it would be for the best.)
Debate Round No. 2
dbaldwin1215

Pro

To be a smartass, it brings me joy. And I am actually surprised, draxxt, that you'd even mention me withdrawing as if I didn't have more to say, as if your point is unable to be challenged in any sort of way by now. I concede when I please.

You tried to take the argument in a different direction, but let's bring it back to course (since the main topic of this debate is the troops) which is the question - Should Americans support the troops?

I think the better question here is not of RIGHT, but of morality. As a human we all have freewill. If our brain tells us to do one thing, we'll do it. Why the heck are we even discussing the fact that we have the right to not support them? We have the right to do a hell of a lot of stuff. but we chose to create a set of, I suppose you could say "laws" of morality (well not us, but our forefathers and good O' Moses at Mt. Sinai, but we chose to stick with them, such as thou shall not steal, etc. We stuck with them with a few additions and subtractions) In this basic book of morality that pretty much all humans accept, I'm sure we'd all agree that thankfulness for one's willingness to lay down a sort of valuable possession (in this case, its life. and I don't know what you think, but I kind of think my life is pretty important to me) for one's own sake is probably described somewhere in that invisible handbook that society lives by. So, morally (not lawfully) is the main question. And not only that, but submission and respect if also written in that handbook that society lives by, we're taught from high school to respect, whether the person deserves it or not (I've had some teachers who REALLY did not deserve much) and since we're taught from that age to respect those, whether they deserve it or not, I assume that another thing that will help us get by in society is indeed respect, and troops are basically average citizens gone military. So, again. Morally, should everyone support them, at least by these stretches?

There has also been some faulty action in my opponent as well, because it seems like he's left the debate on the idea of personal attack, and this isn't a debate of who can "burn" the other one with meaningless observations (but it does seem karma always has its way, doesn't it?), but rather the main idea. Which is the troops.

I don't know if this a result of some sort of ADD problems, or what.

by the way, you might want to ease a bit on Thesaurus.com, it's often times difficult to understand what you're trying to say. Honestly, say what you mean, big words don't make anything seem smarter. But you are a good debater, I won't argue with that, and you have many tactics that could bring some more vulnerable debaters down, but sometimes someone is observant enough to take those tactics and... well, reverse it and do the same thing right back.
=]
draxxt

Con

My opponent... Well, as such I shall address you as an adversary. (My diction is in no way unoriginal. In most cases, I cannot help the words I use. If you need a thesaurus to infer what I am saying, use it. It will do you a lot of good in the future.)

Sir, do you realise that you are infringing upon the terms of use section T subsection 1? - http//:www.debate.org/terms/

All of that aside, I would like to address your last and, admittedly, skewing "refutation."

"You tried to take the argument in a different direction, but let's bring it back to course (since the main topic of this debate is the troops) which is the question - Should Americans support the troops?"

Your "resolution" is not a resolution at all. You've even admitted it as a question. You're answer: Yes

My answer: No

The resolution is, or should be (as previously stated and in accordance to the position of words in order to make it a statement) "Resolved: Everyone in America should support our troops, even though they may not support the war in Iraq."

That is a resolution inwhich sides may be taken in Affirmation or Negation. I hope we have both been debating THAT.

"I think the better question here is not of RIGHT, but of morality. As a human we all have freewill. If our brain tells us to do one thing, we'll do it. Why the heck are we even discussing the fact that we have the right to not support them?"

Because, and I absolutely LOVE that you brought up morality, it is immoral to say that everyone should have an equal and unchanging opinion on a subject. Individuality is moral, the idea that being a non-individual is very immoral, would you not agree?

"We have the right to do a hell of a lot of stuff. but we chose to create a set of, I suppose you could say "laws" of morality (well not us, but our forefathers and good O(l)' Moses at Mt. Sinai, but we chose to stick with them, such as thou shall not steal, etc. We stuck with them with a few additions and subtractions) In this basic book of morality that pretty much all humans accept, I'm sure we'd all agree that thankfulness for one's willingness to lay down a sort of valuable possession (in this case, its life. and I don't know what you think, but I kind of think my life is pretty important to me) for one's own sake is probably described somewhere in that invisible handbook that society lives by"

Morals are subjective. For one, as I've stated in a previous debate, euthanasia is immoral.

I.E.
Jimmy is dying a painful death due to a terminal illness (Let's say, Anthrax) Jimmy is given a month to live. He asks the doctor to euthanise him in order to prevent any more suffering. The doctor believes that is a moral action. The parents do not. Jimmy lives for another month (and, heck, why not another two weeks) and he is in pain the entire time. The parents feel they did what is right by keeping him alive. The doctor believes that upholding a boy's dying wish would be the right thing to do.

Morals are subjective. There is no code of ethics lain about in an invisible handbook that everyone abides by. Environmental sources accompany the so-called "Laws or morality" Society is what causes most people to come up with the morals already "set in stone."

My question of lawfulness allowed an example, more than a contention. The first amendment was written in the hopes that we could believe what we wish, express our own morals (within reason) and therefore, Express what we think is moral or not.

Some believe the troops are an immoral protection. That is their perogative and that was my entire intent.

"And not only that, but submission and respect if also written in that handbook that society lives by, we're taught from high school to respect, whether the person deserves it or not (I've had some teachers who REALLY did not deserve much) and since we're taught from that age to respect those, whether they deserve it or not, I assume that another thing that will help us get by in society is indeed respect, and troops are basically average citizens gone military. So, again. Morally, should everyone support them, at least by these stretches?"

You've actually conceded to my point there.

You say society has instilled a moral in us. That helps my "morals are subjective" notion. Not only that, but taking the independance and option of believing we should not support the troops is contrary to individuality's nature.

"There has also been some faulty action in my opponent as well, because it seems like he's left the debate on the idea of personal attack, and this isn't a debate of who can "burn" the other one with meaningless observations (but it does seem karma always has its way, doesn't it?), but rather the main idea. Which is the troops."

I never strayed from the topic which is not "The troops" it is "Everyone should respect the troops" the troops are just a bi-factor in this debate. The real factor is the American populous followed by the troops.
I would defy you to prove a point where I belittled or "burn(ed)" you in any way. You may do so in the comment box.

"I don't know if this a result of some sort of ADD problems, or what."
You claim that this debate should not be about personal attacks and yet you exhibit the purest of hypocrasy directly after your elaboration of the personal attacks.

My opponent applies flawed logic and has actually conceded to my opinion in one case.
For the logic and the reasons shown in this and all previous rounds above, You vote Con.

Thanks,
-EG
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by dbaldwin1215 6 years ago
dbaldwin1215
Sir, the media will be the media. They only show the bad things about the war to get people to want to fight and turn it around. It's a form of propaganda.
Posted by draxxt 6 years ago
draxxt
Ma'am, I in no way agree with what you said. It is slanderous to say that I believe myself higher than my opponent. Please, don't vote on bias against me or even simply for your friend, but for logic. I have provided said logic. Try as he might, my opponent did not.
Thank you for a thrilling debate.
Posted by SexyCracker 6 years ago
SexyCracker
Hey draxxt.

psst.

I know you think you're the shiz.

but hey, I got a secret to tell you.

..........you're not.
Posted by SexyCracker 6 years ago
SexyCracker
Wow. I think it's really funny when someone's assumptions are wrong, because it looks to me that dbaldwin just posted.
Posted by draxxt 6 years ago
draxxt
I would like to remind my opponent that it is his turn and, though I requested he concede, I meant in a more dignified manner, not timing out. (Assuming that is what is happening.)
Posted by draxxt 6 years ago
draxxt
Thanks. I'll think of something soon.
It wont be a fallacy this time, either.
And, to my opponent... And I really didn't want to bring this up but...
Just because you did a paper on something doesn't give you full authority on the debate with the citation in question.
A more reliable source is something you've said in this debate that backs up the 1st or something you wish to say that backs up the first, not something you might have done.
Posted by Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
I've been okay, draxxt. My personality and debate style is more of a 'contender' position; I don't start debates that often so I don't think I'll be challenging you :P

I buy your case. Creative way into the resolution.

__________________

"it means endorsing their fighting for peace, risking their lives for us."

I do NOT support what the troops are ordered to do in Iraq so under your definitions, I do not support the troops. HOWEVER, I support them in another sense. I support them in the sense that I think they should be used like a real army; a necessary evil in order to maintain peace of american society. What we're doing is not maintaining peace, but disrupting it. They're risking their lives, sure, and I don't want them to because they don't need to. There is no war in Iraq. There's an occupation.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
The army, though (Rather, any armed force) doesn't decide its fate. Higher ups do.
And that is why I can support an agent of cause without supporting all causes from said agent.
"

This is not a valid argument for a volunteer army. It makes a decision which higher ups it will entrust its fate to.

Your first paragraph was incomprehensible to me for some reason, so I can't rebut it yet... "doing's of justice" as separate from the cause?
Posted by draxxt 6 years ago
draxxt
Not at all, sir, If you support a being in it's doings (let's say of justice) than that is a just reason to support agents of cause.
If that agent of cause slips up, however, that gives reason for reprimand/ disappointment/ lack of support in an area. One does not have to deal in an area specifically and claim that as his absolute.
No one, thing, institution, or governmental action is perfect. No government is perfect. No army is perfect, nor are its headings.

The army, though (Rather, any armed force) doesn't decide its fate. Higher ups do.
And that is why I can support an agent of cause without supporting all causes from said agent.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 4 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by draxxt 5 years ago
draxxt
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 6 years ago
aaltobartok
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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 Chuckles 6 years ago
Chuckles
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by ChevySdyme99 6 years ago
ChevySdyme99
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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 beem0r 6 years ago
beem0r
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by paul_tigger 6 years ago
paul_tigger
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Korezaan 6 years ago
Korezaan
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 6 years ago
Pluto2493
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 6 years ago
left_wing_mormon
dbaldwin1215draxxtTied
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