The Instigator
Jamesothy
Pro (for)
Winning
34 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world.

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 8 votes the winner is...
Jamesothy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,264 times Debate No: 5650
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

Jamesothy

Pro

The US Marine Corps is one of the best fighting forces in the world.
Sweatingjojo

Con

"The Marines are one of the best fighting forces in the world."

I negate this resolution, as I feel this resolution represents inappropriate feeling that some people hold which is that "through force, anything is possible." This is simply untrue, and is an ineffective means to ensuring global (or national) prosperity and peace.

So basically, it doesn't matter what the Marines are, but this resolution is false because it promotes military adventurism and seeking conflict instead of diplomacy to solve the worlds problems.

More to come..
Debate Round No. 1
Jamesothy

Pro

I'm sorry. I should have elaborated. The reason I think that the US Marine Corps is one of the best fighting force in the world is because they are a smart group of men and women, they are backed by one of, if not the, most powerful nations in the world, are aided by technology superior to that of our enemies and have one of the best combat records in the world.

Look my friend-
Unfortunately, there will always be violence in the world. Even if we as citizens do not or cannot learn to fight, we need people who can, and will, to protect the ideals of our wonderful nation (as well as the people in it). We have to realize this- even if we don't want to.

So- let us just accept this fact and move on.

Through force anything is not possible. However, it is better to "walk softly and carry a big stick" then to hold up your arms and say something to the affect of "We are peaceful! Come join us in destroying all the weapons in the world!" because then we are basically saying "You- you don't like us do you? Come attack us, we're defenseless!"

Anyway- this is not the argument and if this is the arguement you want to have then fine. We'll set up a different debate. Just contact me.

Moving on-
The US Marine Corps is an extremely intelligent group of people.Theyhave a history of making battle changing decisions in the face of the enemy on the fly and have a record as one of the most feared mlitary groups in the world. They spearheaded many (if not all or most) of the invasions in the Pacific in WWII and also spearheaded both invasions of Iraq.

More to come later-
Sweatingjojo

Con

I'll start with rebutting my opponent, then move on to what I have to say.

1." is one of the best fighting force in the world is because they are a smart group of men and women..."
I know plenty of groups of smart men and women, this certainly doesn't make them amazing at war-making.
2. "hey are backed by one of...the most powerful nations in the world..."
You just contradicted your own resolution. As 16th century Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli explains in chapter 13 of the Prince, "A wise prince...has always avoided...arms[of those that are called to come to help and defend him] and turned to his own." Basically this means that if you need someone else to back you up, then you aren't really all that strong. Thats what you just said about the Marines.
3. " best combat records in the world." So did the New York Yankees, but now they can't even make the playoffs. Things change.

My opponent then talks about the necessity of violence in the world, and how the Marines are able to protect our nation. Remember, the ability for the marines to fight for us does not make them better or worse in terms of being one of the best fighting forces in the world. The militaries of all countries do this for their subjects, however not all of them are great.

Next he speaks of the pointlessness of peace. Now surely one always has to be careful while in peacetime, but the focus should always be to maintain the peace, and not to be going into other countries just for fun, making more people hate us, which threatens our own stability even more. Again, the necessity of the Marines does not make them better or worse.

And this is the argument that I wish to have, as the resolution needed someone to go against it, and I am going against it, saying that it promotes unnecessary violence and war-making.

Your talk of the Marines' greatness only increases the validity of my point, which is that this resolution promotes war-making, instead of diplomacy. Iraq was a terrible idea, and you're saying that they spearheaded it. Yeah.

My opponent confuses peace and diplomacy with being a wuss. I don't advocate that, but I do advocate trying so solve international issues with things other than militaries.

My 2 points.
1. Resolution supports military adventurism instead of peace and diplomacy with war as a distant last resort.
2. Opponent refuted himself in his R2, proving that the marines aren't one of the best.
Debate Round No. 2
Jamesothy

Pro

I apologize for my wording. I should have said

"they are a smart group of men and women who are backed by one of, if not the, most powerful nations in the world, are aided by technology superior to that of our enemies and have one of the best combat records in the world."

When I say backed, I mean funded and sponsored, if you will, by said nation.

Next- the New York Yankees are hardly a fighting unit comparable to the US Marine Corp. PS- It's because the Yankees got rid of Joe Torre that they stink this year (I support the Red Sox so it doesn't matter anyway).

I do not condone or preach of the necessity of violence in the world, but I do realize why being able to keep the peace with an iron grip is important. I, like Ronald Regan did and many other conservatives do, realize this without being "war-hawks".

I would like to point out to my opponent that I said "the Marines are ONE of the best fighting forces in the world." Not the best. If you start to say the Marines (CAPITAL 'M') are not great because you dislike the US, you are being very annoying.

The militaries of all countries do not always protect their subjects!!! How could you suggest such a thing? Many governments condone and support the use of violence to get things done (dictatorships generally). You must not have a very sharp mind for history.

I do not speak of the "pointlessness of peace"- you do. How is it possible for one to be in a constant state of war?
We do not go into countries for "fun" as you say. There will always be a reason (however much you don't like it) because the Commander in Chief needs the approval of congress to go to war. We do an excellent job of keeping the peace and not "making more people hate us". You can never please everyone so yeah, I guess we will make some people hate us.

I ask my opponent to provide foundations to the claim that "Iraq was a terrible idea, and you're saying that they spearheaded it. Yeah." In what way was going into Iraq a terrible idea? (See videos)

War is always a last resort and you still haven't answered my resolution.

"proving that the marines aren't one of the best."
How?
Sweatingjojo

Con

Still, by being backed by something, as Mr. Machiavelli has shown, means that one is actually weak, so they can't be one of the best fighting forces in the world.

If you don't condone or preach the necessity of violence, then why would you think that it matters if the Marines are good or not at war-making? This resolution is false, because it promotes violence through the world, which certainly is a bad thing.

Who cares about other countries militaries? I'm talking about the Marines, and it seems like you had been up to this point as well. Okay so you're saying that because dictators use violence to get things done, then we should do it too? Thats what it sounds like.

The United States seems to have achieved the "constant state of war" One war or another, the United States has been fighting in some form of military conflict, big or small, for the past 10 years. People promoting the Marines as one of the best certainly do not help matters, with their fanatic jingoism that belittles other countries and makes the United States less respectable. The Commander in Chief does NOT need Congressional authorization to end the military into an area and engage whatever he deems as hostiles. The war powers Act of 1973 made this possible.

Since the 1980's the United States has had a thing for drawing the ire of those in the middle east, with our unwavering and unquestioning support for Israel and interference with their countries with the sole objective of making a profit. This makes people not like us, and the invasion of Iraq made things exponentially worse.

You use two videos to defend our invasion of Iraq. The first one is a montage relating to 9/11, which includes pictures from a forest fire that likely didn't occur in lower Manhattan (at 1:44.) This despite the fact that not a single 9/11 terrorist was from Iraq, and that Saddam did not have any connections to Al Queda. Your other video is of a solider who fought vailantly in Iraq. Unfortunately, he is not the arbiter of everything, andI would not use him as a reliable source any farther than I can throw him. What one (or even x number) of veterans say about the iraq war doesn't mean one thing or another. I will point you to http://ivaw.org..., Iraq Veterans Aganst the War. Clearly there is belief on both sides from people that have experienced far more than my opponent or myself. The Iraq war was unjustified because we did not have a reasonable cause for war. Certainly if it was becuase Saddam was a dictator, then we would have gone in there 20 years ago, and would likely have taken out most of the middle eastern and african countries' leaders. We also didn't find any WMDs, which was our stated reason for going in. Iraq was a blunder of epic proportions, and pro-military fanaticism which preaches the ideas that we can do anything, because we're Americans helped us get into this mess.

I have answered your resolution, I find it incorrect because it promotes warmongering, as I have shown.

Also, you contradicted yourself by saying that the Marines' support is what makes it great.

Thank you for the fun debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by theitalianstallion 8 years ago
theitalianstallion
The Swiss Guard.
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
The SAS and the SBS the best armed force in the world.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Yeah you're right. Oh well.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"That one was a mis-statement sort of, I meant to say that if one's strength is provided by something else, then one isn't really strong"

"Still, by being backed by something, as Mr. Machiavelli has shown, means that one is actually weak, so they can't be one of the best fighting forces in the world."

These two statements say exactly the same thing.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
@Sadolite

That one was a mis-statement sort of, I meant to say that if one's strength is provided by something else, then one isn't really strong.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Well no, the type of case that I ran is called the resolutional Kritik. One can either be for or against the resolution. I was against it, although I opposed it on different grounds than most people would expect.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Sweatingjojo... if you agree to debate on a topic, you can't then say the resolution is "inappropriate"!
All you can do is try to argue that the Marines aren't, and/or that the SAS or some other special force is significantly superior.
Given that the special forces of the World hardly ever fight each other, and even when/if they do, we don't hear of the outcome, this is very difficult to judge. Also, the hedging of the resolution means that even if it were provable that the SAS or Navy Seals were better, Pro is still not wrong.

Why is Pro currently losing? Heh heh, welcome to Debate.org
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
"Still, by being backed by something, as Mr. Machiavelli has shown, means that one is actually weak, so they can't be one of the best fighting forces in the world."

This statement shows to me in my opinion a complete denial that the military no matter what branch has to have funding to exist. To extrapolate that the military is weak because it needs to be funded in order to exist is illogical. Con wants to make the argument that a military can only be strong if the soldiers themselves pay for everything and act as a completely autominous unit with no connections to anything that might assist them.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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 
Vote Placed by kcougar52 8 years ago
kcougar52
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
JamesothySweatingjojoTied
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