The Instigator
CMBlovesdebate
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
studentathletechristian8
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it

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  
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: 11/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,601 times Debate No: 10006
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

CMBlovesdebate

Pro

Don't Ask Don't Tell is the military term referring to the policy regarding gays and lesbians. The policy, signed in 1993 by former president Bill Clinton, was implemented as a compromise with legislature which opposed a repeal of the prior ban on gays in the military.

According to the Department of Defense the policy states: Established under the premise of privacy, discretion and protection, the policy bans gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people from serving in the military and prevents military officials from asking interrogatory questions or pursuing investigations of soldiers suspected of being homosexuals. Any service member that openly reveals their homosexuality through words or actions is discharged from service.

On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama reaffirmed a promise he claimed during his campaign- to end the ban against gays in the military, thus ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy.

The policy was made for the protection of gays after a Allen Schindler Jr., U.S. Navy Radioman, was murdered because he was a homosexual.

President Obama will be jeopardizing the safety of gays who currently serve and will serve if he ends the policy; much less, if the policy is banned, it has potential to create tension so potent in our armed forces that it would distract our soldiers from being able to efficiently perform their assigned tasks.

The policy should not be banned. Hiding ones sexual identity should be a small price to pay if they are truly dedicated to serving their country.
studentathletechristian8

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate.

As Pro and Instigator, my opponent has the duty of affirming the resolution.

Remember, the resolution is, "The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it." My opponent must uphold both cases of the argument. If I am able to refute one of them, the entire resolution shall be negated. All I must do is either prove that the DADT Policy should not remain active or that Obama will not hurt more by banning it.

My opponent spends a decent length of her post to describe a brief history of the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. I accept her information.

I shall propose one key definition:

hurt- to cause bodily injury to; to cause bodily pain.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Banning the DADT policy will not hurt Obama, because banning a piece of legislation does not cause bodily injury. It causes some people to agree or disagree with the decision, but does not "hurt" the person banning it.

I have successfully negated the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
CMBlovesdebate

Pro

Your definition of hurt is correct, but your comprehension of the title is incorrect. When I say Obama will hurt more, I do not mean Obama himself will experience an increase in pain; I mean that if he bans the policy he will indirectly open the door to harassment against homosexuals in the army. Thus, the number of homosexuals that will experience pain from harassment and discrimination will increase. The entire reason for the policy was to end the harassment against homosexuals- not to prohibit their equality rights.
studentathletechristian8

Con

My opponent has not refuted my argument about Obama becoming more hurt by banning the DADT policy.

My opponent accepts my definition of hurt, and since I was able to prove that Obama will not hurt more by banning the policy, the resolution remains negated.

However, I would like to give my stance on the DADT policy. It is unfair to fight discrimination of homosexuals with a discriminatory DADT policy. When in combat or preparing for combat, soldiers are more focused on staying alive and serving a country than on the fact that one of their comrades may be checking them out. Just because homosexuals are not treated equally by some does not constitute a policy that bans essentially most homosexuals from the armed forces. Some people despise black people, Indian people, and Mexican people. Should we ban them from the army too? If they want to help fight, then let it be. How does sexual orientation affect the way someone can trigger a gun or command a troop? It doesn't. There is no constitutional finding that can support the DADT policy.

I have negated the resolution in one way or another. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
CMBlovesdebate

Pro

The entire formation of the policy was for the safety of homosexuals, obviously because some heterosexuals were uncomfortable with their presence. Such instances represent the feud: Allen R. Schindler was brutally murdered, to the point that he was barely identifiable. He was an American Radioman Petty Officer in the United States Navy and was only 22 years old. Also, Barry Winchell, an infantry soldier in the United States Army, was murdered in 1999 by soldier, Calvin Glover because he was gay. By banning the policy we are opening the door for potential murder of homosexuals.

The policy requires that homosexuals conceal their sexual orientation-homosexuals know the policy when they sign up. They know the consequences. When signing up for the armed forces, one's sexual orientation is never brought up- if a homosexual chooses to reveal their sexual orientation, then that is their decision to subject themselves to discharge. The policy has protected them and created comfort for "homophobic" heterosexuals. Also, there is no reason for them to reveal their sexual orientation; it is against the armed forces regulations that members can even partake in sexual activity soldier with soldier, and since their sexual orientation is not needed, what is the point of revealing it, if it is going to cause discomfort amongst other soldiers? There is no reason. Since the policy has not failed it's duty, there is no reason to demolish it. Even if a homosexual was discharged because of their sexual orientation, it is also because they were committing a sexual act with another homosexual soldier- their business outside of the military is not under military jurisdiction.
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
CMBlovesdebate

Pro

CMBlovesdebate forfeited this round.
studentathletechristian8

Con

studentathletechristian8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by logicalmaster17 7 years ago
logicalmaster17
more semantics, you suck sac
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jemenai 6 years ago
jemenai
CMBlovesdebatestudentathletechristian8Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
CMBlovesdebatestudentathletechristian8Tied
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 dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
CMBlovesdebatestudentathletechristian8Tied
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