The Instigator
Brenavia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
boredinclass
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

The President should be commander-in-chief of the military

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/8/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,805 times Debate No: 15241
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Brenavia

Con

This section can be used for anything other than debate. Best of luck.

Defintions:

Commander-in-Chief- A commander-in-chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces.

Military- A military is an organisation authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats

President-a president is one who presides, who sits in leadership

President of the United States (POTUS)-The President of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.
(President in the topic refers to the President of the United States)

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Vote Con!
boredinclass

Pro

Alright "Brenavia" let's do this
Debate Round No. 1
Brenavia

Con

Thank you for accepting my challenge "Boredinclass". First off, debate class is NOT boring, and thus your opinions are skewed (that was a joke, don't take it as a real argument).

Contention 1: Qualifications
When the concept of the President becoming commander-on-chief was invented, the world did not believe in electing a leader that was incompetent in their position. This happens all the time now. The first commander-in-chief was George Washington during the Revolutionary War. He was an honest man of the people, repsected their will, and was competent in his position. When he became the first President of the United States, he had all the qualifications neccessary to be an efficient leader. He had military expierience, a background in business, a background in politics, and was competent in all of these aspects. Washington was the best possible primary leader for the United States at the time, and thus was qualified to run that position well.
Unfortunatly, all Presidents since then have not had all of these qualifications, perhaps excluding Andrew Jackson. The Commander-in-chief of the military needs to have military expierience to efficiently use their position, and almost all Presidents have not had this military expierience. Obama, not to make this a big issue, did not have military nor business background, only minor expierinece in politics. He, being the current President, is not fully qualified to be commander-in-chief of our military, and he is not using his position to the extent that he could be. If he wanted, he could single-handedly end military operations in the Middle East, he could, but he isn't.

Contention 2: Checks and Balances
When the Constitution was written, it was designed to give equal power to all parties involved. No one group would be able to shut down the other, but not one group could run without the other. Our government is completley dependent on the different branches, and thus the threat of corruption in one of the brances could shut down the government as a government of the people, for the people, by the people. This is why the Framers of the Constituition wrote Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution, giving Command of the Armed Forces to the President. Only Congress could declare war, but the President could command the military. This disabled the Presidents's ability to control government by using the military, for only Congress could declare war.
Sounds good right? But what if the President does command the military, and Congress declares war. It's all fine and dandy as long as the President has the qualifications necessary to run this position. But what if he or she doesn't? Bad command could lead to more lives being lost, more soldiers killed, more families in grief. But the checks and balances required by the Constitution cannot be changed, for collapse of checks and balances could lead to the collapse of a government of the people. So how can this be changed without removing these checks and balances. The answer is this: if the President does not have the qualifications to use the position of Commander-in-Chief, give the position of Commander-in-Chief to the Sectretary of Defense. This would keep command of the military inside of the executive branch, a leader with the military qualifications to effectivly use their position. Checks and balances would be maintained, and fewer lives are lost. Perfect.

By instating the Secretary of Defense as the Commander-in-Chief of the military, checks and balances will be maintained, and the position is used effectively. While the President may have the qualifications neccessary to use the postion effectively, as with Washington and Jackson, more Presidents in our history do not have the qualifications, and this is likely to continue as a pattern of our primary leaders. This would be the best decision for America's military, civilians, government, and people.

Vote Con!
boredinclass

Pro

Alright I'll start on my opponents case and then move onto my own.
(SOP-separation of powers, XO- executive order)

1.
>>>>he could single-handedly end military operations in the Middle East, he could, but he isn't.
-For political reasons and trying to appease the right. That's why he has not pulled out
-Also, to do so would disrupt the checks and balances, because this is a war and this would cause major political backlash from congress

2.
Obviously harvey has not gotten to that part, or you would know that Commander-in-cheif is ruled for by the constitution.
>>>>a government of the people, for the people, by the people.
-*facepalm* do you really think that this is a true democracy? If it was, then why wasn't al gore the 44th president of the United states?

>>>>Article 2, Section 2
- The actual article--e shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.--

>>>>it's all fine and dandy as long as the President has the qualifications necessary to run this position. But what if he or she doesn't?
-It's all hypothetical, give me one historical example where this has happened.

>>>>By instating the Secretary of Defense as the Commander-in-Chief of the military
-Not only is this unconstitutional, but you're doing th EXACT SAME THING. to attack this argument, I'll extend your contentions- What if he isn't qualified, isn't this also disrupting SOP. Your idea has as many if not more flaws than you propose

This argument is inherently flawed, because POTUS doesn't have as much power as your saying. But if you bothered to read your government book, you'd know that. Also, gates doesn't like an afghan pull-out you double-bind yourself http://rawstory.com...

Now onto my case

If you claim to support the framers so much, then why don't you agree with article 2?, it clearly gives all power to POTUS.

Contention 1- Executive orders
Executive orders control policy and set agendas and are key to presidential power. They avoid political backlash, because you don't have to go through and opposition congress. This also speeds up the time-frame. It increases American leadership. Plus the president is the most informed on foreign affairs. XOs are quick and avoid bureaucracy. This is best for America.

Contention 2- Joint chiefs of staff
Because POTUS has the JCS to back him, we can't loose. if a terrorist sneezes, they know about it. I'll bring it up in my next speech

Back to you con
Debate Round No. 2
Brenavia

Con

Alright, i'll do the same that my opponent did, with going on his arguments then going on my own.

">>>>he could single-handedly end military operations in the Middle East, he could, but he isn't.
-For political reasons and trying to appease the right. That's why he has not pulled out
-Also, to do so would disrupt the checks and balances, because this is a war and this would cause major political backlash from congress"

---Appeasing the right, not doing what the people want. The President is the supreme representative of the people, and should not be involved in petty politics. I do admit that the President has to go through these things, but this only proves that he does not have the qualifications to command the military. Being wrapped up in such politics, it is difficult for the President to run the military. The Sectretary of Defense does not have to deal with the politics of being primary leader, so thus he would be the best choice for this position. This would not disrupt checks in balances, because the position would remain in the hands of the executive branch.

"Obviously harvey has not gotten to that part, or you would know that Commander-in-cheif is ruled for by the constitution.
>>>>a government of the people, for the people, by the people.
-*facepalm* do you really think that this is a true democracy? If it was, then why wasn't al gore the 44th president of the United states?"

---First off, you cannot base arguments on teachers, for I still have a logical opinion and I am not dependent on a single source of information. We, though we may not be a perfect democracy, are still a government for the people, of the people, by the people. Our government was designed by the founding fathers to accuratly represent the people in the best manner possible. Our government is most likely the best government in the world. The way the system works, Al Gore, though he did when the most popular votes, lost in the Electoral College. This is the way our government works. If you dont like it, suggest an amendment to our Constitution, like the way I am suggesting an amendment to put the command of our military in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

">>>>Article 2, Section 2
- The actual article--e shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.--"

--- I do concede to this misquoted source. I used Wikipedia to cite it, and I am sorry that it was incorrect. Please note that though this is the incorrect location, the Constitution still gives the position of Commander-in-Chief to the President.

">>>>it's all fine and dandy as long as the President has the qualifications necessary to run this position. But what if he or she doesn't?
-It's all hypothetical, give me one historical example where this has happened."

--- FDR during World War 2. He did not single-handley command the military. In fact, he gave control of the U.S. Armed Forces to the Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower. He later became President and had the qualifications to command our military, but the fact remains that FDR did not have the qualifications to command the military, realized this fact, and handed the responsibility to Ike. Not all Presidents were as wise, nor will be as wise, as FDR, and he made the right decision. Who is to say future leaders will be this wise? The powers of Commander-in-Chief need to be given to the Sect. of Defense, the man or woman most qualified to run that position.

">>>>By instating the Secretary of Defense as the Commander-in-Chief of the military
-Not only is this unconstitutional, but you're doing th EXACT SAME THING. to attack this argument, I'll extend your contentions- What if he isn't qualified, isn't this also disrupting SOP. Your idea has as many if not more flaws than you propose"

--- This wouldn't be unconstituional of an amendment was made. It wouldn't disrupt the seperation of powers, for the command of the military would still remain in the hands of the executive branch. He has to be qualified to run that position. The postion of Sect. of Defense is given to a man or woman with an appointment of the President and the approval from Congress. Though the President may not be qualified, the Sect. of Defense is, and having military experience, knows how to run the Armed Forces. He or she is the best qualified to command the military.

"This argument is inherently flawed, because POTUS doesn't have as much power as your saying. But if you bothered to read your government book, you'd know that. Also, gates doesn't like an afghan pull-out you double-bind yourself"

--- This is a logical fallacy. If you were paying attention in class you would realize this. You are attacking me personally, saying that I have not bothered to read the AP Government and Politics book. While the POTUS may not have supreme rule, he does have complete power on military decisions. Read the Constitution. Also, Gates is the Sect. of Defense, and his command ability is not decided on a single decision or belief.

"If you claim to support the framers so much, then why don't you agree with article 2?, it clearly gives all power to POTUS."

--- You just said that the President does not have as much power as I was saying, and now you're saying Article 2 gives all power to the POTUS? You obviously don't know you're contradicting yourself.

"Executive orders control policy and set agendas and are key to presidential power. They avoid political backlash, because you don't have to go through and opposition congress. This also speeds up the time-frame. It increases American leadership. Plus the president is the most informed on foreign affairs. XOs are quick and avoid bureaucracy. This is best for America."

--- Under bad leadership, XO are not the best for America. In fact, they can be the worst. It speeds up time frame, true, but placing command of the military under the Sect. of Defense allows this advantage to remain.

"Contention 2- Joint chiefs of staff
Because POTUS has the JCS to back him, we can't loose. if a terrorist sneezes, they know about it. I'll bring it up in my next speech"

--- First of all, it "lose", not "loose". Secondly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a great idea. Now, take the President, switch him with the Sect. of Defense, and nothing changes except our efficency and effectivness. This is also abuse because you aren't giving me time to debate you're next speech, and thus are taking advantage of the situation. If you truley wanted a good debate, you would mention in your second speech, allowing me time to refute it.

Now on to my arguments.

The President as Commander-in-Chief is a good idea, especially during the time in which the Constituion was written. The first choice of President was George Washington, a man with military, political, and business experience. Though some Presidents have had all three of these qualities, though I can only think of two Presidents who all of the qualities. In the long run, the Sect. of Defense is the best choice for this postion. The more leaders of the military who are Sect. of Defense, the more lives are saved because of good command decisions. If you like America, if you love soldiers, if you are patriotic in any way, you would agree that the Sect. of Defense is the best man or woman for the job. Making an amendment to the Constitution to allow the Sect. of Defense the best.

Vote Con
boredinclass

Pro

Alright I'll go on a line-by-line and the summarize why I won

>>>>Appeasing the right, not doing what the people want. The President is the supreme representative of the people, and should not be involved in petty politics.
-He shouldn't, but he is, and even if the SOD was instigated as the CIC (commander in Chief), he would get involved with politics just as much

>>>>This would not disrupt checks in balances, because the position would remain in the hands of the executive branch.
- He just contradicted himself. First he says that to give power to the executive branch would disrupt SOP and then he says that the executive branch wouldn't disrupt it

>>>>though he did when the most popular votes, lost in the Electoral College. This is the way our government works.
Then you just conceded that this is not a government for the people, or by the people, and certainly not of the people

>>>>FDR during World War 2. He did not single-handley command the military.
- What is an impact, we're America and the fact remains hat we have big guns and no matter who the commander-in-chief is, we can still blow any enemy off the face of the earth (and handley isn't a word)

The SOD would still disrupt the SOP. Extend his contradiction
Also, he gives no example or citation of how the SOD becomes more qualified

>>>>If you were paying attention in class you would realize this
-If you'd pay attention in government, you'd realize that the president should be CIC

>>>>Read the Constitution.
-I have, It's pretty vague, but if he had complete power, why cant he declare war?

>>>>You just said that the President does not have as much power as I was saying, and now you're saying Article 2 gives all power to the POTUS? You obviously don't know you're contradicting yourself.
--As the contender, I declare Multiple worlds good. All I have to do is find flaws with your case, then I win. even if they contradict

Basically, my opponent is also calling you unqualified to choose the CIC

>>>>The more leaders of the military who are Sect. of Defense, the more lives are saved because of good command decisions. If you like America, if you love soldiers, if you are patriotic in any way, you would agree that the Sect. of Defense is the best man or woman for the job.
-The fact he can site no place where the SOD did a better job than POTUS at his own job. If you really are patriotic, then you

>>>>First of all, it "lose", not "loose".
-It is "Its" not "it", and it's "Effectiveness" not "effectivness." and it's efficiency not "efficency"

>>>>This is also abuse because you aren't giving me time to debate you're next speech, and thus are taking advantage of the situation.
-I'm not bringing up new JCS evidence. there is no abuse

>>>>switch him with the Sect. of Defense, and nothing changes except our efficency and effectivness.
-He can't prove it plus The JCS is highly sensitive to the degree of their influence- Herspring 5, They won't work without the president

>>>>If you like America, if you love soldiers, if you are patriotic in any way, you would agree that the Sect. of Defense is the best man or woman for the job. Making an amendment to the Constitution to allow the Sect. of Defense the best.
-Basically, he is also calling the founding fathers, which he claims to love, stupid. They chose him for a reason

The fact of the matter that the president would still have power over the military, we did not elect the SOD, we elect the president, who APPOINTS the SOD.

1. He dropped that it avoids political backlash, this solves for the president involvement in politics
2. He dropped that it gives American Leadership
3. The president solves armed conflict
4. He dropped that President is most informed on foreign affairs Therefore, he is most informed
5. Because I refuted all his points while building up my own

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Nails 5 years ago
Nails
"Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were defended while con's were refuted"

This betrays no knowledge whatsoever of what happened in that debate. I am highly skeptical that you actually made any sort of thorough evaluation.
Posted by Brenavia 5 years ago
Brenavia
Nails, I didnt vote on bias alone. That was a false assumption. In fact, I only came across it because he was debating it.
Posted by Nails 5 years ago
Nails
To Brenavia concerning voting on the debate between me and boredinclass: please don't vote for your friend simply on that basis alone. I highly doubt you would be fine with that if it were done to you.
Posted by boredinclass 5 years ago
boredinclass
@socialpinko, we're good friends
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Xenith967 5 years ago
Xenith967
BrenaviaboredinclassTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: sorry beenan but boredclass is right and u r wrong
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
BrenaviaboredinclassTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: They both had terrible conduct but pro did successfully take apart all of con's arguments.