The Instigator
Vania.Ruiz
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
wsu4ever
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

The US federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghan,Iraq,& South Korea

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Vania.Ruiz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,830 times Debate No: 13492
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (4)

 

Vania.Ruiz

Pro

First of all, let me specify that this is a policy debate, please no PFD'ers, or LD'ers. There is a max limit for the topic so, once again the following plan text: The United States federal government should end the military deployment of animals in Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, & Kuwait.

Animal soldiers are not a relic of the past. Troop surges in Afghanistan and de-mining missions in Kuwait, Iraq, and South Korea have lead to a substantial increase in the presence of military dogs. The U.S military has about 2,800 military dogs, the largest canine force in the world. This year, military official expects the cost of dog food to go up from $80,000 to $200,000 from last year. Military exploitation of animals is grounded in widely held beliefs that animals are property and only exist as disposable tools of war. Animals do not choose to join a conflict. They do not understand the basic geopolitical reasons why humans fight.

Viewing animals as property is intrinsically wrong and must be rejected because animals are not objects lacking dignity or feelings. Animals are not "things" and a system that treats them as mere property is intrinsically flawed. YOU have an ETHICAL OBLIGATION to vote for the plan. The logic reducing animals to objects is the same logic that has justified the slaughter of millions of humans. Earth is doomed until we stop viewing living beings as property. Rejecting the militaries use of animals rejects the utilitarian logic driving exploitation in the status quo.

You are not voting for the plan because it magically solves every instance of animal exploitation. Instead vote for my policy, because it is intrinsically good. Reject the negatives future based disadvantages, because their utilitarian and consequential rational will always recreate human domination over the non-human.
wsu4ever

Con

Hello, i'm new to this, so i do not clearly understand your "rules" for this debate, so if i brake them i am sorry i just simply did not know what you ment by "PDF or what not."

Anyways, i would like to start talking about your Canine topic. You explained that dogs are being taken over there to help with the war, and if i read correctly you do not agree with that. Personally i think its a great idea to bring dogs over there to help. Dogs are known for there protectiveness against predators. i believe that dogs have a sense where they can sense evil, or just they know when something bad is going to happen due to a person. I think that bringing the dogs over there can help keep the troop or solider more alert because his dog or "companion" would be there to help him be more alert to when something is going to happen. A perfect example ( In the link below) which to sum it up, a stray dog wondered onto the U.S. base and the soldiers took friendly to this dog, and treated it as its own. Anyways, a suicide bomber was going to sneak up on the troops at night, go inside there tent, place were they sleep and explode, well before the bomber could make it to the door, the dog attacked the bomber and pretty much saved all those soldiers, because the bomb detonated before he could get inside.

Also, even if the price in dog food went up X amount of money that you claim it will go up, it wont be a drastic change, it would go up maybe 3 cents a bag. I'm sure people can sacrifice 3 cents to help save lives in Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Vania.Ruiz

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate policy.
What I meant by PFD(not PDF) and LD was Public Forum Debaters, or Lincoln-Douglas Debaters.

To state: Military dogs are being exploited in ways that you could never understand because you are still thinking in the utilitarian logic that's driving the status quo today. A very, very perfect example(evidence of card below) :
Davenport 2009,
Dogs cannot handle the psychological stress of combat. During his 6 months tour in Iraq a 5 year old German shepherd started thrashing in his sleep. For two years the Department of Defense Military Working Dog Veterinary Service has been studying the effects of combat on dogs. Although he doesn't like to use the term post-traumatic stress disorder on dogs, war can affect them emotionally.
Also touching on your Stray dog & companion subject.
Dogs are not needed in combat. They should go back home to good owners who will care for them and be loved for, I'm not saying that they are not loved in the military, but they will have an ultimately safer home.
Once again, you are still stuck in the utilitarian logic, and everyone has an ethical obligation to vote for the plan as it saves LIVES.
wsu4ever

Con

Well i do believe dogs due deserve a very good safe home, mainly because i love dogs myself. But! War animals have been used throughout history, example the Persians used elephants, In the Civil War we used horses. Dogs are just another way to make it easier on our troops. Our Solders are alone over there, away from family and friends, all they got is themselves to depend on. Wouldn't you want a friend over there? Not saying that our Troops don't make friends among themselves, but a dog can have a drastic impact on how a solider preforms in battle, and ECT. Now i'm not trying to be harsh, or hurtful when i say this, but take for example that stray story from above i gave. Would you rather loose your dog, or a potential family member? Those dogs deserve Purple Hearts for the things they go through, to in some cases save lives. I believe that every little thing that could help our troops out is best. Slowly taking away things little by little, for say dogs, could impact them and we might not even realize it.

About your Psychological stress comment, some Troops can not handle it either. Some dogs can, some people can. Not everyone is ment for the military, only experience can tell whether or not they are.

I am also not disagreeing that your plan would save "lives" but it is not needed, due to the fact that people go through the same post-traumatic stress that dogs would go through, in most cases even worse.

( BTW, i am still not understanding your rules, but i am assuming i am not breaking them because you have not said anything :] )
Debate Round No. 2
Vania.Ruiz

Pro

Vania.Ruiz forfeited this round.
wsu4ever

Con

wsu4ever forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
haha...i just vote bombed myself for the fun of it.
& i would have actually kept this going, but as for myself, no internet for those two days:/
So sorry too, because I could nto keep this going.
Posted by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
or Vote bombed you. lol.
Posted by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
i only vote bombed myself cause you did :] and i totally forgot about this debate. i got caught up in school i'm sorry!
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
Dogs do many things such as sniff out bombs and find people. This would be a very stupid thing to do.
Posted by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
lol. . i took it too seems like a touchy topic.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Damnit. I would have taken this in a HEARTBEAT.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I never even knew about this..
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
I would SO take this if I weren't up to my eyeballs in homework.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ainsley 6 years ago
Ainsley
Vania.Ruizwsu4everTied
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 Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
Vania.Ruizwsu4everTied
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 angela.siebrecht 6 years ago
angela.siebrecht
Vania.Ruizwsu4everTied
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 wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
Vania.Ruizwsu4everTied
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