The Instigator
melorules
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Deathbeforedishonour
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Should the age required to go to war be raised to 21?

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,776 times Debate No: 18424
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

melorules

Pro

The age of kids to go to war should be raised because people under 21 do not know exactly what they want to do in life and they use the army as a free alternative. by going to war you are almost guaranteed to not go to a 4 year college. It is ridicules to say that somebody can go to war and possibly die before being allowed to drink a beer.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

I thank my opponent for a chance to debate.

Rebuttal

My opponent states in his argument that eighteen year olds are 'kids'. This is false, because according to the law; eighteen is the age of adulthood.

As adults they are accountable for whatever choices that make, such as in this case sighning a contract that could put their life at risk. When they sighn their name on the military contract they pledge their time and life to defending and serving their country. Some may sighn on for just benefits, but the military is not about benefits it's about serving and defending their country. They sighned the contract, therefore they have to honor the comitment they have made.

Also, the majority of our fighting men and women are below the age of 21; if they don't fight; who will?



My argument

When a man or woman turns eighteen they are officially adult citizens. As adult citizens they are accountable for whatever they do. This includes sighning contracts. In order to become a member of any branch of the armed services, people must sighn a contract that says that they are pledging their time to serving their country. This includes by means of violent conflict. They point of being a soldier is to fight in war or wait for one to start. They sighned the contact they are bound by it until it expires.

Also, What is the difference between eighteen years old and twenty-one years old? The answer is three years. Every contract is at a minimum of four years. If we have soldiers who only fight for one year, then we will have less battle hardened recruits. The best soldiers in our military are those with lots of experience, therefore it would be beneficial to the country and it's military to let eighteen year olds serve combat roles in foreign as well as domestic wars.


Conclusion

Seeing how that all adult citizens are bound by their commitments, and that they are aware of the facts that they could have to fight in war; and that it would also be very beneficial to the U.S. military to allow eighteen through twenty-one year olds to fight; they should fight.

Vote Con


http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
melorules

Pro

melorules forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

My arguments still stand.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
melorules

Pro

melorules forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Well I guess I win this debate.. If there were any people following this debate who were hoping for a interesting one, I share in your dissapointment.

Vote Con!


Debate Round No. 3
melorules

Pro

melorules forfeited this round.
Deathbeforedishonour

Con

Well... Vote Con!

heres a video :]

Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
melorulesDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
melorulesDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by seraine 5 years ago
seraine
melorulesDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by 000ike 5 years ago
000ike
melorulesDeathbeforedishonourTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro misspelled ridiculous, and his opening was a bit difficult to read. So, S/G to Con as well. Con was also the only one with a source. Interesting topic gone to waste.