The Instigator
wyattn97
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Golan
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should military service be required for U.S. Presidency?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Golan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 509 times Debate No: 72441
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

wyattn97

Pro

A large majority of U.S. Presidents (31/44) have served.

The President is Commander in Chief, and can mobilize armed forces.

The President is in charge of the military during times of war, and must understand combat strategies.

Commander in Chief is the highest military position, it only makes sense to have someone from the military in this position.

The strongest con to a military president is that America will look like a war-hungry nation.

The strongest con to a military president can be easily destroyed because having a stronger military, makes a country less vulnerable.
Golan

Con

The reason we do not NEED to have a military president is because he/she deals with so many more things in a country than war. However the greatest leaders who have led the country to war were in the military. Let us look at Churchill he was quite possibly one of the greatest leaders in World war I and II because he had such intense military training and naturally was a genius. So why did he promptly resign after world war II ended. It was because he realizing that some one better equipped than him was needed to rebuild the country.

Another major reason we do not need to have a president who is in the military is it greatly limits our country's possibility's. Yes we need military leaders, but the economist, politicians (sadly) , thinkers and philosophers who keep the place running when we are not in a time of war. We need all, and if we have to much of one the country suffers the consequences.
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
Its a terrible idea. We have civilian oversight to protect from militarism. Just so many reasons for this to be a terrible idea.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
You may want to change the number of rounds, otherwise you will have no chance to rebut anything the other person says, and in essence automatically lose.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
wyattn97GolanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brings up the point of dealing with war, but Con counters by stating that the US goes through things besides war which is also a highly true point and it's because of this that I give Con the debate.
Vote Placed by TBR 2 years ago
TBR
wyattn97GolanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Not enough of a debate to score.