The Instigator
Bright
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Lithobolos
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The difference between a liberal attitude and a conservative attitude in modern society

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,295 times Debate No: 2236
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (57)
Votes (16)

 

Bright

Pro

I think that gentleman who posted the "America is the World's Leading Terrorist State" debate, has hit upon something of fundamental importance to all of us in today's divided society: The difference between a liberal attitude and a conservative attitude in modern society.

Far from the liberalism of old, where beneficent ideals, were promoted to better society, today's liberals seem to be a very unhappy but vociferous lot. They find fault with those around them, become frustrated at what appears to be an inability to influence, and deem it the government's job to fix all societal ills. When confronted with the inexplicable, grossly complex, or just that which is contrary to how they feel the world should look, liberals choose to lay blame at the feet of the ubiquitous "They".

Their language tends to run toward conspiratorial; supporting such notions as THEY control all the media, or THEY control all the wealth. Being impotent to fix their own problems or influence the world around them, liberals tend to fall into the role of victim, lending an inexplicable amount of credit or power to big corporations, big money, or big government. This seems to be easier than taking control of things that matter to them, and making changes from within.

But the most insidious, and in my view, dangerous thing about liberalism, is their lack of tollerance. You MUST believe the way they do or you are part of the problem. A perfect example of this is in the trend to ban. Banning seems to be the liberal version of accountability. Rather than make someone accountable for their own actions, liberals feel that it is better to ban that which they see as causing a problem. Examples of this can be found in anti gun campaigns, extreme environmental movements, and all the feel good legislation, banning things that might hurt us if used improperly, but which are enjoyed without causing harm to others, by those who might feel differently than the liberal instigating the ban.

Conversely, conservatives, feel that the government needs to get out of the way, and that the individual and/or the groups that individuals form and join, have the power to accomplish great things. Conservative philosophy is one of tolerance, acceptance, and belief in the individual. Conservatism does not discriminate, nor demand that you believe a certain way. It's most fundamental belief is in the accountability of the individual. This means that the individual has the ability to accomplish, and gets the credit and consequences, both good and bad, for that which they accomplish.

The biggest weakness in conservatism is that we are content. We tend to be happy people. We've built our lives the way we want them, or are in the process of making changes that meet our goals. We are busy with family, playing, working, and living life in general. It takes a major event or intrusion to get conservatives to rally around a cause, to protest, or to leave their families, recreation, and work, to go out and march, protest, or rally.

As conservatives, we often do not understand liberals. We wonder what kind of life they must live that they seem to have so much time to protest, gather, rally, or make a ruckus, all for the purpose of removing one more right..one more freedom, of trying to force their agenda on our lives. To us, it seems highly intrusive, and socially dysfunctional, not to mention impolite and irritating.

I personally feel that each and every one of us should be allowed to lead the life we choose, go down whatever path we desire, and build the world as we see fit, as long as it does not harm others. Consequently, I only become agitated when liberal legislation banning this, that, or the other (i.e. anti-gun, anti-hunting, anti-motorized access, etc), intrudes on my ability to feed, entertain, or provide opportunity for my family, friends, and associates.

Anyway, the point of all this is to thank the gentleman who started the anti-American debate, for helping point out these differences, and to suggest that he start looking at hard cold facts, rather than propaganda, or information with an agenda attached to it. If he can accomplish this, he will discover that his views might appear a bit neurotic in the cold light of reason.

Discovering that he has the power to form his own life in a way that suites him best, without having to trash that which he disagrees with, could be a life transforming event for him. I suggest that he explore this path, and start ignoring the over simplified but loudly spoken proclamations that feed into his fears and fantasies, because they only fuel unhappiness and discontent with life…they do not provide solutions or fix problems. In fact they do not even identify problems…such proclamations only invent that which does not exist, and dilute any legitimate attempts to find serious solutions to real problems.

Failing that, I would like to lovingly suggest that the gentleman think about moving to a more hospitable country. I'm sure he would find countries like Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, etc, to be much more to his liking. In contrast to his version of America, he will find these benign, beneficent, gentle countries and their accompanying regimes, philosophies, and human rights records, to be conducive to his desires and dreams.
Lithobolos

Con

I disagree with pro's positions on liberalism. To me liberalism; "A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority," is a positive ideology for one to embrace.

I also disagree with the picture my opponent has drawn of America's political landscape. He has accused all liberals with his generalizations and falsehoods that are unfair and hypocritical.

"Their language tends to run toward conspiratorial; supporting such notions as THEY control all the media, or THEY control all the wealth."

This statement is a perfect example of pro's corrosive logic. Being a person that spends to much time listening to all different types of media, I cannot comprehend how my opponent has not heard "conservatives" attack the Clinton News Network or the "drive-by media," the liberal media, the anti war media, the pro-gay, anti-Christian media etc. etc. I also will criticize the view that it is conspiratorial to say the wealthy few own much, much more then the many.

http://www.demos.org...

http://www.demos.org...

As you can see the bottom 90% have to divide 30 percent of the nations wealth. This is important to those who understand that money can buy better education, healthcare, housing and more business and political influence. This is far from being conspiratorial.

My opponent also has accused liberals for wanting to "ban that which they see as causing a problem." I will not deny that many people who claim to be liberal wish to ban things, but those who claim to be conservatives also wish to ban what they view as a problem. If many conservatives had their way many of these things would be banned, limited severely, and some are already banned; violent video games and other media, pornography, drugs, Mixed Martial Arts, birth control, gay lifestyles, abortions, and the purchase of certain items on the Sabbath.

The Christian conservative and the traditional conservative mentality of protecting people from immorality is just as bad or worse then the liberal views on gun deaths and the need for environmental guardianship. This idea that conservatives, or liberals for that matter, are a happier kind of people is also not supported by anecdotal evidence across the country. The amount of fear mongers and culture warriors that come from the conservative side of the spectrum is often worrisome. If one is not careful they might be convinced by them that the Islamo-Fascists are working with the homosexual mafia to get the bibles out of our churches and homes (Humor).

The liberal philosopher T. H. Green said, "When we measure the progress of a society by its growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of those powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves..."

Knowing Green's view and reading my opponent's statement: "This means that the individual has the ability to accomplish, and gets the credit and consequences, both good and bad, for that which they accomplish," I can't help but come to the conclusion that he is denying the fact that society gives more breaks to some while taking advantages away from others. I would agree with the conservative thinker Robert Bork that what is not desirable is an equality of outcomes, but I will say that what is completely and absolutely necessary is an equality of opportunity. That equality of opportunity cannot exist in a laissez faire economy that my opponent seems to be supporting. All people need to have the same chance to be successful in our society and economy regardless of where they are from or how much money their parents have.

All in all liberalism embraces individual liberty and choice but also realizes the simple fact that we are all connected. The extremes of absolute freedom, anarchy, or the extreme of either a far right or far left tyranny will not do. People need both the negative liberties of freedom from government's unjust interferences and they also need the positive liberties of a freely elected government to provide security, education, health care, and provide for the blessings that freedom gives.
Debate Round No. 1
Bright

Pro

I think that it is important to distinguish between the liberal philosophy, and today's liberal philosophy implementation.

On several levels, liberal philosophy has good points. In it's most succinct form, it just plain feels good to help others. But when it approaches Marxism or socialism then liberalism becomes a problem. Both of these system, along with communism which sprang from them, have failed over and over again around the world. There are reasons for this failure that find their roots at the base of human nature, involving forces like competition, freedom of choice, and human motivation.

Be that as it may, this debate is really about the role that liberalism plays in today's America. We see liberals at the root for many of today's problematic proposals…i.e. Universal Healthcare and redistribution of wealth with programs like increased taxes to the wealthy, and increase regulatory and taxes for corporations.

In examining these two concepts, we see that they both feel good. On the surface, who would argue with free healthcare for everyone. Similarly, who wouldn't say that we should get more money for the government to redistribute, by taking it from the wealthy, and giving it to the poor.

Upon closer examination, we see the fallacy of this idea, and thus the fallacy of liberalism. Individuals and doctors that I know, who live in Canada, and participate in their socialized medicine program, universally declare that it's a burdensome and costly system that limits healthcare options for participants, and de-incentivizes doctors and practitioners across the board. That's why so many Canadians that can afford it, come to the US for their medical procedures.

This is not to say that there is not room for improvement within our current medical system…but if we want to make healthcare more affordable, we should start with the conservative concept of tort reform. Setting limits on the HUGE litigious hammer hanging over the heads of America's medical practitioners would result in a rapid reduction in costs for both services and prescriptions, while still giving patients all the options and quality they have grow to expect from the US's medical system.

The fallacy of redistribution of wealth by taking from the rich and giving to the poor seems so obvious to the average conservative, but eludes the average liberal mind. The two most obvious problems with this concept are: One the government has proven itself to be terribly inefficient at handling money. Bureaucracy does not beget efficiency. It just will not work. Two, despite talk of companies outsourcing to other countries, there are still only two sources of jobs in this country. One is government and government related or funded entities (none of which pay taxes) and the second is private companies. Private companies play a monumental role in job creation. Increasing their tax burden forces them to cut positions, or encourages further overseas outsourcing. It's always important to remember that private business and corporations are the economic engine of this country…they are the job creators, the tax base upon which governments draw.

You can see plenty of examples of this if you look around the country and counties and cities who may have offered ideal climates for business at one time, but then increased taxes and regulations to the point where businesses left, never to return. Job opportunities dropped to all time lows, and the tax base from whence the local governments drew, was diminished to desperate lows. Everyone suffered.

Putting these Universal Healthcare and Redistribution of Wealth aside for a moment, lets examine another example of liberalism vs conservatism that is less complex and even more obvious…Gun Control.

Gun Control is the perfect example of liberal logic run amuck. They have taken a tool that has been in American hands since our founding, and turned it into a problem of proportions completely out of sync with reality.

People can argue statistics and numbers all day long…both sides of this debate seem to be able to generate oppositional statistics to justify their arguments. So for this debate, I will leave statistics to the statisticians and speak to the core of the argument…philosophy and logic.

The liberal run anti gun camp, feels that guns kill people, therefore they should be strictly regulated and if at all possible, eliminated. Each time there is an atrocity with a firearm, they push for new legislation removing more gun rights from law abiding citizens.

The problem with this is glaringly simple. There are already more than adequate gun laws on the books to stop the vast majority of gun crime…if they were ENFORCED. Introducing new "feel good" legislation that cannot be enforced, when current legislation is already not being enforced is circular logic.

But even worse, it can be lethal to law abiding citizens that actually need protection. This is because the ONLY people that will give a damn about these laws are the law abiding citizen…the ones that are not causing the problems to begin with. The criminal or sociopath does not care about law…they do not give a darn about what new legislation is being enacted…they will do what they wish, regardless. All these new laws do is disarm law-abiding citizens so that they can become better victims.

In summation, the general concepts of liberalism, as enacted in today's society, seem to reflect the philosophy of "You cannot do it without my (the government and/or the liberal's) help. You are not good enough, smart enough, or capable enough to make your own choices, to succeed in life, business, etc. YOU NEED ME. Furthermore, as a US citizen, you should not be allowed to fail or be accountable…we will prop you up.

Conservatives seem to have a philosophy of "You can do it". No matter who you are or where you come from, you can meet your dreams and goals. The government's job is to remove as many barricades from your path as possible. Not to regulate and tax you into oblivion. The government should only be as large as needed to get the job done…it should not grow just for the sake of growing, or provide just to retain power.
Lithobolos

Con

These are some of my opponent's quotes that I will concentrate on to make counter points

"I think that it is important to distinguish between the liberal philosophy, and today's liberal philosophy implementation."
"Be that as it may, this debate is really about the role that liberalism plays in today's America."

Opponents Characterization of conservatism and his views;

"Conservative philosophy is one of tolerance, acceptance, and belief in the individual," "Conservatism does not discriminate, nor demand that you believe a certain way."
"I personally feel that each and every one of us should be allowed to lead the life we choose, go down whatever path we desire, and build the world as we see fit, as long as it does not harm others."
"The government should only be as large as needed to get the job done…"

Liberalism means many different things to many different people. A misapplication of a philosophy by a political party should not be used to attack Liberalism itself. My opponent may not realize the burden he will have placed on his own argument by doing so. By his own logic he would also have to adopt the Republican Party's recent record as "the role that *conservatism* plays in today's America."

If he chooses to accept this then his definition of conservative is in conflict with the reality of Republican Party action.

The Federal government, while headed by Republicans, instead of rolling back government has expanded it and according to the conservative David Frum increased spending faster then under any president since LBJ. Frum also states that the Bush White House has also increased the government's involvement in prescription drugs and energy.
The Republican Party has also attempted to increase the power of the FBI and CIA to spy and investigate Americans, wants to change the constitution to stop states from legalizing gay marriage, continue farm subsidies (corporate welfare).

It seems quite clear that "the role that *conservatism* plays in today's America" is negative. Again I will mention that conservatism today wishes to ban many things, I have already listed many, most of the time to make people "feel good".

Universal Health Care on the other hand is not a "feel good" measure but is in my opinion a right. In society, government is the main way that members of that society interact to provide services and solve problems so they cannot only be free but be prosperous.
My opponent has stated that universal health care systems are bad because they are "burdensome and costly system that limits healthcare options for participants, and de-incentivizes doctors and practitioners across the board." My opponent claims that Canadians hate their national health care system. But I will agree that Canada has faults in its system. According to the New York Times, "Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services." This is not acceptable to me and shows that Canada is not the best example but it is amazing that despite that Canada still has more doctors per person, has a lower infant mortality rate, a higher life expectancy, spends less money on health care per person and also spends a lower percentage of government revenue on health care. This according to "OECD Health Data 2007: How Does Canada Compare". I must also not the fact that Americans go to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs and medical marihuana (something conservatives are often against despite your "no harm" principle).

When it comes to gun control there are "liberals" and "conservatives" who have taken different views on the issue. Philosophically liberalism supports the right or the liberty to bear arms.

My opponent early in his last post mentioned Socialism and said, "there are reasons for this failure that find their roots at the base of human nature, involving forces like competition, freedom of choice, and human motivation."
He then later attacked any idea about income redistribution on basically the same points. My opponent seems to be in favor of a free trade laissez faire economy and has stated that that liberalism and socialism go against human nature. I disagree; first I would like again to point to the income distribution in this country and the growing gap between rich and poor. If the economy as is benefits the rich, what in the motivation and nature of the majority should push them to keep the status quo? Isn't everyone's prosperity in the interests of both the group and the individual? My opponent would also have to explain people who sacrifice fortune for others, those in the military and public school teachers are just two examples.

The market is not a perfect invisible hand that my opponent thinks it is. Philosophically and actually liberalism favors a regulated market economy. Pure capitalism has no moral or ethical concerns when it comes to wages, safety or what products can or should be sold. Regulation is necessary to bust monopolies, raise tariffs, set standards, and protect the worker from exploitation.

My opponent has blamed much of outsourcing on regulations and taxes. But this is an over simplification of the big picture. The big picture is that costs in a modern western country will always be greater then in the third world. The only way a worker in American can compete with a 1 dollar an hour worker in another country is to do his job for 99 cents an hour. That's pure capitalism, a giant race to the bottom. Tariffs and regulation are necessary to make up for the fact we have pay our worker a fairer wage. Also, taxes and regulation on large corporations allow an opportunity for the small business owner to compete. The market is necessary for all the reasons my opponent said, but to let it run amok leaving behind the vast majority of citizens is not the answer.

Liberalism is not about the government saying you need me, but that we need each other. We need police to keep the peace not rent a cops, we need public school teachers to give ALL children an education, not just those with the money for private schools. We need small businesses, that make and keep jobs in America and that are connected to their community, more then we need giant corporations who only care about their bottom dollar.

My opponent's brand of conservatism does not say, "You can do it". It says, "No matter what societal or economical forces are arrayed against you, You Are Alone, and your community will never help you because your success and wellbeing have nothing to do with this country."
Debate Round No. 2
Bright

Pro

Bright forfeited this round.
Lithobolos

Con

During this debate I have attempted to point out the failings in my opponents arguments and to present my own arguments in favor of liberalism. I believe I have been successful. Here I will try to summarize what I have argued.

I have shown that the "conservative" philosophy my opponent supports disregards the well-being of the majority by presenting a view that government, the most powerful tool of the people, should not provide any positive rights such as health care, education or economic regulation.

I have shown the hypocrisy of my opponent's arguments that liberalism attempts to ban everything while conservatism is "tolerant". I even presented a long list of scapegoats some conservatives would like to ban or limit, from Mixed Martial Arts to birth control.

I demonstrated why Universal Health care was a better system when it comes to the well being of Americans. I even used empirical statistics comparing the U.S. and Canada (A country my opponent first used as an example).

My opponent's apparent view of laissez faire economics was also shown to be faulty. It is clear that an unregulated economy is bad for workers and for the country. It has been shown that safety regulations, minimum wages, progressive taxes, and tariffs are necessary. Thus liberalism is the greater good when compared to Bright's governmental formula.

My opponent can either compare his conservative philosophy or conservative action in America recently. When compared to either the philosophy of liberalism or its practice my opponents arguments are found wanting. I have used conservative writer David Frum's own criticism of the Bush administration as evidence of this.

It is clear that Liberalism is better in theory and in practice to conservatism

I have shown Liberalism to be what it is and have distinguished it from what it is not. Liberalism is not totalitarianism and it is not anarchy. Liberalism is not about feeling good but about the best interests of the all.

The great liberal philosopher T. H. Green wrote, "When we measure the progress of a society by its growth in freedom, we measure it by the increasing development and exercise on the whole of those powers of contributing to social good with which we believe the members of the society to be endowed; in short, by the greater power on the part of the citizens as a body to make the most and best of themselves..."

Liberalism is a balance between self-interest and civic virtue. Liberalism embraces individual liberty and choice but also realizes the simple fact that we are all connected. People need both the negative liberties of freedom from government's unjust interferences and they also need the positive liberties of a freely elected government to provide security, education, health care, and provide for the blessings that freedom gives.

Thank you for taking the time to read our arguments and thank you to my opponent for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
I have reconsidered. I am a coward. I am not prepared to deal with the consequences of being labeled a deserter. I know the war in Iraq is wrong. The next time I am sent to Iraq, I will know that I am going there supporting the interests of corporate cronyism and imperialism. I will know that terror cannot be fought with greater terror. I will know that I played a direct role in the death of anywhere from 300,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis and counting. I will not blame those who refuse to serve in Iraq because they know it is the right thing to do. I will not blame those who do serve in Iraq because it is they think it is the right thing to do. I will have to live with myself.
Posted by Bright 9 years ago
Bright
It's amazing, but one act of cowardice can negate any acts of heroism that MIGHT have been accrued. Thus I must agree with Ms Rshortman, in that your service to this country should have put you on the heroic list, but your act of cowardice with criminal intent by willfully breaking your contract, and abandoning your team members in the field, so that they are forced to take up your share of the burden, automatically negates that. It puts you on the list of self righteous and cowardly idiots.

No, you are no Rosa Parks. Her act of "defiance" was true heroism. She had no commitment or contract with the city or state within which she lived. She was not even breaking a law. She was defying an unjust tradition. And her defiance of this tradition led to an actual law that protected others. This was all done within the context of civilian...not as a federal employee contracted to serve in the military.

But as is with most folks of a liberal mentality, you will show great efficacy in rationalizing and intellectualizing your way into that which makes you feel good…while ignoring the much tougher path of complying with that which IS good. Honor is what binds the people of good…whether you agree with policy or not, by abandoning honor and taking up the banner of dishonor, you have put yourself in the camp of some very bad folks, and you cannot help but be thought a coward and a deserter.

I hope you will reconsider.
Posted by rshortman 9 years ago
rshortman
So you're telling all of us that you achieved an act of bravery comparable to Rosa Park's refusal to move from her seat?

laughable. You fool no one. Refusing to serve your country after you've already agreed by contract to do so is not only cowardly, it is down-right criminal. I must emphasize that you are no hero.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
The military should punish those who refuse to fulfill their contract. Life in the military is rough, and I think most (if not all) soldiers get angry enough at times that they would quit if it were an option. I don't think the military could function if people just quit when they felt like it.

The military shouldn't be in Iraq. I consider my refusal to deploy to Iraq as an act of civil disobedience. If Rosa Parks had said, "OK, I'll move," I don't know how long it would have been until America was desegregated.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Wow. I can't believe I've missed out on this discussion.

Let me clarify something: when I joined the Army in August 2005, I expected to be deployed and I did not oppose the war in Iraq. Only after spending months in Iraq did I come to the realization that the war was about oil and lining the pockets of defense contractors and their associates. I realized how absurd the notion that I was there to bring democracy to Iraq was (just look at what Turkey is getting away with in "sovereign" Iraq).

It angers me that my noble brothers-and-sisters-in-arms are sacrificing, not for America, but for people who view them as steps on the escalator of power.

I am prepared to accept a dishonorable discharge if ordered to return to Iraq. An dishonorable discharge would make it very difficult for me to get a job, possible ruining my life. Perhaps you are right, kels. A better man than myself might just stop "reaping the benefits" and immediately go AWOL. In any case, I am prepared to defend the US against real threats.

Bright, you are so wrong about this liberal feeling powerless. I am doing something by making people aware of my viewpoint. Dissenting viewpoints are part of what make this country great. I know change is possible. I know what Gandhi, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King did. I believe in the power of freedom of expression and civil disobedience. I believe in the principles stated in the declaration of independence and in the preface of the constitution.

A major problem America is that most political expression is restricted by a corporate media that censors real criticism of itself or of its masters. People with real dissenting viewpoints will never host the CBS evening news or World News Tonight. Politicians are thus beholden to the media elites. I love this site for exposing people to beliefs that are taboo for textbooks and news headlines.
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
Have a good trip, nice talking to you =)
Posted by Bright 9 years ago
Bright
No one of any intelligence would form an army where dissention was an option. No one can say how many or which ones would dissent if the option was open. It's not even a matter of how many would dissent, it's a matter of not creating a avenue for dissention. I do not need to cite a source for this, it falls under common sense.

You keep asking me to answer your hypothetical, but a narrower answer would require the psycic ability of knowing who and how many would discent. This is not within my ability.

I appreciate your persistance, but I can no longer participate in this discussion...I'm getting ready for a long trip and need to prepare.

Enjoy
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
You only have to look at our lowering of taxes and at the number of legislators who have kids in the military to come to the conclusion that the burden of war in this country is not being felt equally by all.

I never said soldier's didn't know the rules so thats irrelevant. My argument is that morally, not contractually, a piece of paper does not negate ones duty to do what is right and to uphold the constitution of the united states which is the oath of every service member.

Again Bright, you are not answering the hypothetical, you are just restating your argument.

"that does not allow effective command or effecive force."
"it's just the way things work"

All you are saying is "Because i said so".
Do you think the soldiers would not go? Do you think the war effort would just stop?

Answer this hypothetical>>>"Say a country was in a war almost everyone supported. Now lets assume this country drafted citizen after citizen to fill the ranks needed to fight the war. Now if someone had moral disagreements against the war let's assume they could publicly claim that they were against the war and get out of serving directly in the conflict. What would happen?"<<<<

"It would not be effective" is NOT an answer to the question "what would happen?" An answer would be more like this, "The majority of those drafted would fight and cowards and deserters would stay home."

I would like to now concentrate on your statement "Dissention is not an option in any effective military,". I think you would agree with me in saying that a few people dissenting does not make a large military ineffective. So in a large military it seems that only a large amount of dissent would cause a problem especially if that military was fairly compulsory. To me it seems that there are only two situations where there would be large dissent, an unjust war, or a large population of cowards. Don't you agree with this? What other situations would there be large amounts of dissent?
Posted by Bright 9 years ago
Bright
I that were the case ("This is especially true when a country sends the more "expendable" to die for everyone else"), then you might have a point. But since it is not the case in todays US military, then you have no case whatsoevr. Today's military is populated by all kinds of people. Those without options and those who are among our brightest, those from poverty and those from wealth. It's an excellent cross section of America.

And again, every single one of them knows the rules going in. They will be provided with benefits, and exchange, they will belong to the US gov. for 4 years. They will fight in what ever war and capacity the governemnt tells them to. Period. That is a solid contract...and MOST feel a fair contract.

Dissention is not an option in any effective military. You keep speaking of the individuals right to fight where he chooses...that does not allow effective command or effecive force. You cannot argue this in any reasonable fashion, it's just the way things work...it's like arguing agianst teh law of gravity. If we want to remain an effective force in the world, we cannot operate a military on individuals deciding whether or not they desire to fight in a particular conflict.

And again, the individual rarely has all the information to even make such a decision if it were available to make. The commander in chief is the only one with the entire picture. Your moral judgment call will be based on information that is inadequate, or even erronious. It just does not work that way
Posted by Lithobolos 9 years ago
Lithobolos
I am listening Bright and I apologize if i don't understand you argument completely but it seems that your say

Choosing not to fight in specific hypothetical >leads to> ______blank_____ >leads to> inability to field affective military.

My argument. Just war+brave soldiers= no dissent and effective military.

I do understand your argument about a military unit being a team. But I think the fact that in the military, everyone should be able to do the job of the person right above them in the chain of command so there will not be chaos when someone in this "organism" is sick or gets killed in action. Also, considering the fact that today people are being cross leveled from their normal unit and being sucked into another unit to effectively fill gaps before they deploy also negates your argument (Note in theory no one will be able to "object" after they have been ordered to deploy, just at the beginning of a conflict).

"if you want to join, you give up certain rights as an individual for the benefit of the whole"

In a larger context this is my definition of a citizen. Citizenship to me includes more duties then privileges, one of those duties is fighting in one's countries wars. But in this country our military is something only a few people do often because they can't afford university or they have no other great career options. This means that the powerful in country and the rest of the citizens don't equally share the burden of war(esp when you cut taxes during a war).

Fighting wars is one of the most important aspect of a country's survival. But so is the individual citizen's and citizen soldier's right to dissent. This is especially true when a country sends the more "expendable" to die for everyone else. Those few being sent should at least have a say at the very start of a conflict if it is against their morality and against the interests of the country.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
BrightLithobolosTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
BrightLithobolosTied
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 avahlicious 9 years ago
avahlicious
BrightLithobolosTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Battlecry 9 years ago
Battlecry
BrightLithobolosTied
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 rojogato19 9 years ago
rojogato19
BrightLithobolosTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
BrightLithobolosTied
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 lunarskye 9 years ago
lunarskye
BrightLithobolosTied
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 mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
BrightLithobolosTied
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 brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
BrightLithobolosTied
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 rshortman 9 years ago
rshortman
BrightLithobolosTied
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:30