The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mickeyrocks
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

The french are cowards

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 5 votes the winner is...
Mickeyrocks
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,482 times Debate No: 7416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (5)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

before i start of this debate , I would liek to point out i mean no offence to any french man , living or dead that has fought in any wars , not saying you are not brave , but i am saying the general attidude of the french is to jump on the winning bandwagon , or only look out for themselves .

Over the peroid of history the french have proved to be exciptionaly bad fighters , with bad leaders and tatics and politics. They have proved to be very annoying when things dont fall there way , by going on strike , closing the channel tunnel , attmepting to bring europe to a hault. They have had this attidude , ever since the public deicded to chop there leaders head off .

The french have abondoned or lost most wars the have particapted in. The best example of course is ww1 and ww2 . During the war 1.4 million French fighters dead, of 8.4 million peroid of ww1 they had very bad tatics and attituides this resulted in heavy losses. After noticing how heavy the losses were the french decided to " sit out " if you will and leave most of the war to the americans , british and russians.

However the best example i can think of is WW2 , the french laid their arms down to the germans and there so called defence of france lasted 3 days , I find that shocking , as batles are fought for weeks often , but a whole country the size of france was occupied in 3 days ! the only reaosn it took 3 days not less was because it probably took the germans 3 days to walk through france. the Maginot line , thew so called greatest defence system in modern history at the time , was either a poor system , or poorly manned . Now the germans pushed through that almost laughing probably worried waiting for a real defence to come along and relived when they found otu that was it. The French are cowards , the americans strongly belive this , the british do , hell almost all countrys do. You want to know what happended , when france became occupied by germany ? The french loved it. They wanted control of europe and wanted to be allies with germany . However the only rthing that annoyed them was that germany were in command . But they would not mind as they probably had ideas to go along with it and seize control after germany won the war. Its despicable i think , that the french who claim they were on the allies side , jump bandwagons and refuse to put up a real fight , when the germans come knocking . They are allt alk and greatly overexaggerated. The french resistance , sure the people in it were brave , but there was only a small amount , and there bravery and what they done was ggreatly overexaggerated in most cases.

You know my grandad who was scottish like myself once said to me when i was a kid and he was still alive , " you know something , I had to hold back serious temptatious , from shooting a frenchmen on several occasions , whenever they got shoot at the ducked down to the ground retreated and told us to do our part by taking over , I hated them more than anything in the world , they called us cowards and all sorts , the english treated us better , and son ... the english are w**nkers !
Mickeyrocks

Con

Framework:

1) No timeline on the resolution, so we'll take the view holistically.
2) "Coward" is not a synonym for "incompetent", "dumb" or "frail". The ability to act is not what defines a coward, it is how they act. This will be brought up later.
3) "The French" doesn't mean "The French Government"; if it meant that, it would say "France", rather it means the french people on the whole. This will also be brought up later.

==Pro Contentions==
(he doesn't outline any real points, it's more just an incoherent mass, but I'll group the arguments and refute accordingly. I'm also going to correct his grammar because Mozilla Firefox is giving me annoying red lines.)

Pro C1: "The french people demonstrate cowardice in civil life."
- He cites the following examples: "[The French] have proved to be very annoying when things don't fall their way: by going on strike, closing the channel tunnel and attempting to bring Europe to a halt."

What I don't see here is how this fits the definition of a coward. If a coward is one who REFUSES to act in the face of opposition, and the french frequently act against their oppressors then my opponent seems to be advocating a negative point here; he outlines that through France's strong social policies, labor unions and political activism they demonstrate supreme courage despite actions that could cripple their strength and perhaps threaten their very existence. At this point, it makes more sense that the french citizens do not demonstrate close to cowardice in their civil life, and rather are courageous in action.

Pro C2: "The French demonstrate cowardice in military action."

He gives two examples, WWI and WW2. I'll address them separately.

WWI: "Next, the Great War. Many Americans have always mocked France, telling anyone who'll listen (and plenty who won't) that the French would have been speaking German if America hadn't joined the first world war. Let's think about this now. The war lasted four years, and France lost around 1.5 million soldiers fighting for freedom, while on the other hand, America joined for the final 6 months and lost around 130 000...Lest we forget Verdun in 1916. For nigh-on ten months the French defences held their lines. The General in charge of the fighting in Verdun, Henri-Philippe Petain, was once quoted as saying "Ils ne passeront pas!". Literally, "They shall not pass!"You will excuse me if I make the leap of calling a total of 220,000 men (which was the original number, before reserves were drafted in) holding a line against one million enemy soldiers for over nine months an act of bravery." [1]

WW2: "When it comes to the Second World War, things, one might argue, get a bit blurry. That is, if you're as short sighted as to call what France did cowardice. By 1940, Germany was moving fast across Europe, and France was the obvious target. Belgium and Holland attempted to stay neutral, but were overrun. Their failure to warn France of Germany's strike from the Ardennes caused France to improvise their defensive maneuvers, and France consequentially could do nothing to stop the onslaught of Germany's tanks. Facing pointless slaughter, the French Premier -the very same Henri-Philippe Petain who held Verdun- asked for an armistice. The war, France decided, would have to be fought from the inside. Which it was. Throughout the rest of the Second World War, the French Revolution helped greatly, infiltrating German groups, stealing important documents, and keeping detailed notes on everything happening inside the country. The French Resistance had an immeasurably great part in operation Overlord (the Normandy landings), apprehending the plans for the defensive walls to be built on the Normandy coasts before German troops even knew about them. Throughout the run up to the Normandy landings, detailed maps of the personnel, troop maneuvers, ammo stocks, morale and innumerable other facts saved thousands of lives and helped to bring the war to a faster end. The French resistance were better placed than any trained spy could have been, and more practically minded." [1]

I encourage you read [1] http://www.ubersite.com... for more information.

==CON CONTENTIONS==

the points that I craft out of rebuttal are listed above and they provide adequate incentive to vote CON. However, I provide a third and unique reason:

Con C1: We must not perpetuate the kind of reasoning the PRO advocates.

- Simply put, the mentality of the PRO by characterizing a group of people as "cowards" is blatant ignorance that reflects the years of slavery, bigotry and dehumanization that has been shoved aside in recent years. This mentality has lead to numerous inhumane actions against minorities and other oppressed groups. To vote for PRO is to OKAY this mentality, and that simply cannot be done. Regardless of any other points, one has a MORAL OBLIGATION to negate.

I reserve the right to impact this case later
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

thank you for accepting this debate ,and clearing up my poiunts as i accept the are a bit blurry.
all the best.

My opponent states that my claim that the french are ignornant and annoying by striking and trying to slow up europe if things dont go there way is irrelavant. I would like to clarify on this point . I state this because it is true. The french in general have a rather annoying attiutue towards things , there people tend to act like small children in the wake of troubles , cause a lot of noise , start a riot and think they are playing french revoultion 21st century.
But whenever a serious threat comes a long , they are quick to try agree a compromise , ww1 it is argued that they fought bravely , ok i will not dispute that to an extent. But it is there lack of spirirts and willingness to continue to fight . Once a force has occupied there country the see it as the duty of other countries , mainly britian to free there country and they feel the need to act as slaves to the people that over-run there country. May i also remind you the reason why they held up for around 9 months was because of many , number one was because if they ran away , there own country would kill them , number 2 is probably the main reason , ww1 may i remind you was fought in trenches , it was a slow and dirty war . Number 3 is that no doubt the germans were prolonging the invasion for many reasons like , preparing for a proper attack etc , or they underestimated the french defense etc or jsut because it was trench warfare and took weeks to move a mile.

WW2 however is diffrent , this is were the majority of the french acted liek cowards and infact supported the nazi's because in actul fact , the nazis never done anything much to the french people , they treated them ok in comparision to other countrys. However this is the bit that really gets me , it has been widley acknowledged that , french soilders fought agaisnt and in a lot of cases killed allie soilders by the hundreds working for the nazis. Now i don't know why the french have been forgiven for that act of cowardice , sure the was a great chance they would be killed for not fighting , but would you surrender your country to an evil enmey ? and then kill your allies ? dispiciable by my standards anyway... They didn't put up a fight , the only way you can get accross france that quickly is if they completely surrendered and didnt put up a fight , and thats what they done , they didnt bother to sacrfice the lifes of soilders , holding up the nazi's so reinforcements could arrive , or they could reorganise there army and arrange a counter attack , no instead lots of them joined the nazi's , killed allies , till the allies reached them and swapped sides.
The idea that they were taken by suprise is not true , they prepared defneces years in advance , they knew this was coming , they done nothing ...
Mickeyrocks

Con

====
PRO CONTENTIONS
====

C1: Civil "cowardice"

He writes, "I state this because it is true. The French in general have a rather annoying attitude towards things. They tend to act like small children in the wake of troubles, cause a lot of noise, start a riot and think they are playing french revolution 21st century."

I agree. It is true, which is why I argue that their motions against oppression and towards equality demonstrate immense courage, the opposite of cowardice. If the French were NOT to start a riot and instead accepted their perceived injustice, then they would be demonstrating the ULTIMATE cowardice; so the impacts coming from my opponents first contention are purely CON. He outlines that the French do not accept defeat in social situations, thus they demonstrate courage.

C2: Military Prowess.

The brunt of the debate is done here, and his argument is laced with fallacies, assertions and just plain untrue statements. I'll go through them.

"In ww1 it is argued that they fought bravely. Okay, I will not dispute that to an extent"

Thanks for agreeing.

"May i also remind you the reason why they held up for around 9 months was because of many reasons , number one was because if they ran away , there own country would kill them , number 2 is probably the main reason , ww1 may i remind you was fought in trenches , it was a slow and dirty war . Number 3 is that no doubt the germans were prolonging the invasion for many reasons like , preparing for a proper attack etc , or they underestimated the french defense etc or jsut because it was trench warfare and took weeks to move a mile."

R1: haha, no.
R2: That doesn't mean they couldn't have left... trenches prevent lots of troop mobilization into enemy lines, not back towards base camp; if it was impossible to retreat then reinforcements would've been impossible, but obviously that's not case. Moving in controlled territory is easy, retreat would've been easy - but they didn't retreat, did they?
R3: The Germans weren't prolonging the invasion, they had up to 5x as many soldiers (as I point out in my speech) as the french and still held their lines.

As for WWII... what?

"french soilders fought agaisnt and in a lot of cases killed allie soilders by the hundreds working for the nazis."

They killed allied soldiers working for the nazis? The french BECAME Nazis and then killed allied soldiers? Make some sense, please.

He ignores the fact that Operation Overlord (the Normandy Invasions, think D-Day) which was the MOST IMPORTANT strategic Operation IN THE ENTIRE WAR could not have been completed without the French recon and revolutionaries within the nation.

"The idea that they were taken by surprise is not true , they prepared defences years in advance , they knew this was coming , they did nothing ..."

Wrong. As I outline in the previous round, they knew an assault by Hitler was coming but they didn't know it would be through the Ardennes. As a result, they weren't prepared on that front (read: their defense was ELSEWHERE) so the assault easily cut through their lines. They realized it would be futile to engage in a full military operation at that point, and instead fought the war from the inside. These are courageous acts by their very nature.

====
CON CONTENTIONS
====

K, so he ignores my Moral Obligation point, and I'll outline this further:

C1: By labeling a group my opponent offers the kind of reasoning characteristic of supremacist societies.

His logic is flawed, and it is inherently bigoted and can be classified with the logic that justified racism, the Holocaust, slavery, and numerous other accounts of egregious violations of human rights. We now live in a technological society that embraces human rights and individual spirit, to classify a specific group of people outside of their one shared characteristic (The French can be classified as The French) is to engage in prejudice in the extreme, especially when one is using a characteristic such as where you were fortunate / unfortunate enough to be born. He doesn't even use a relevant characteristic to group and classify these people. To affirm the resolution is to perpetuate this kind of reasoning.

C2: IMPACT OF DEHUMANIZATION: To perpetuate this kind of reasoning is to continue to justify mass atrocities.

David Berube elaborates, "The dehumanization of humanity's destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the cuckoo's next of society, lies a dehumanized image of man."

Disregarding everything else, you still have a moral obligation to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

You are conductiing yourself in a stupid manner , insulting me and calling me biggoted and rascit are you ? I will keep my cool , i have learned that if i respond in kind to any of your low blow insults , I am jsut as bad as you are and that would be unprofessional right ? I meanw ho would call soembody a rascit bigioted idiot in a non-heated debate. I wonder.

Any back to my oppents responsose , may i remind you , at no point have i said ALL FRENCH are cowards , I am sorry for not makign the statment above " the french are cowards " then explaining the statement , saying that i cause no offence , and yes of course there are brave frenchmen , I am sayying that a fair amoutn fo tehm and their goverment are cowards.

These people have no moral obligation to vote for anybody , so dont even bother trying that rubbish , claming you are morally right.

I say that the french worked for the nazi's and killed allies , you "corrected me " by saying the joined the nazis ... oh terribly sorry you have difficulty working out that those two words are similar , and the majority of people will understand this ....

Now i say that , if the frenchmen retreated they would of been shoot , you responded with ... hahaha no ... nice answer ... so i will respond in kind , hahaa of course they would have , unless a general ordered the retreat , if frenchmen abonded there lines they would have been shoot ....

Now you say that in response to me saying that the french strike at everything this proves they are not cowards . Oh please , they know if they sit down and act up , nothing will happen to them , what do you think its brave and almost hero like to go on strike untill the rest of europe play ball ? pffttt. War veterans msut be turning in there grave if thats todays modern bravery,

Now please everybody , I urge you not to vote for him , as he basically is jsut saying , VOTE FOR ME YOU HAVE TO , he is also insulted me , and has failed to read the paragraph at the start . Im sorry if i cant make it anymore clear or easy for you to produce an argument , rather than play the rascit biggoted card ...
Mickeyrocks

Con

====
PRO SUMMARY
====

"You are conductiing yourself in a stupid manner , insulting me and calling me biggoted and rascit are you ? I will keep my cool ,"

REBUTTAL:
I said the mentality you operate under is akin to the mentality that fueled the holocaust, slavery, Japanese Internment, Indian Genocide and other egregious rights violations. Yes, labeling a single group as a specific thing is bigoted and ignorant. This isn't a "low blow" when it's the truth.

"Any back to my oppents responsose , may i remind you , at no point have i said ALL FRENCH are cowards"

REBUTTAL:
Unless the majority are cowards then you would automatically negate. For example, if "His apples are red" is the statement you're trying to prove, but 9/10 times apples are NOT red then you wouldn't agree with the statement. So you're saying MOST of the French are cowards.

"These people have no moral obligation to vote for anybody , so dont even bother trying that rubbish , claming you are morally right."

REBUTTAL:
Good block. This is a random assertion, don't accept it as an attack; extend across the moral obligation to negate point. Perpetuating this kind of mentality, which he never argues is indeed not backwards reasoning that justifies atrocities, leads to disastrous consequences and regardless of any impacts in the round (even if the Con is winning) you would still automatically negate because the Con is advocating against genocide and by affirming you support mentalities that support genocide. Do the right thing. ;)

"I say that the french worked for the nazi's and killed allies , you "corrected me " by saying the joined the nazis ... oh terribly sorry you have difficulty working out that those two words are similar , and the majority of people will understand this ...."

REBUTTAL:
I asked you to clarify. You did not. This point can be dropped.

"Now i say that , if the frenchmen retreated they would of been shoot , you responded with ... hahaha no ... nice answer ... so i will respond in kind , hahaa of course they would have , unless a general ordered the retreat , if frenchmen abonded there lines they would have been shoot ...."

REBUTTAL:
Deserters aren't shot. This is just plain wrong.

"Now you say that in response to me saying that the french strike at everything this proves they are not cowards . Oh please , they know if they sit down and act up , nothing will happen to them , what do you think its brave and almost hero like to go on strike untill the rest of europe play ball ? pffttt. War veterans msut be turning in there grave if thats todays modern bravery,"

REBUTTAL:
... this is a rant. There is no coherence here to this argument. He just says, "no it's not brave." it's another assertion. I can't stress how much you need to vote not off of what claims we make but also how we warrant those claims. If I get up here and say, "every french action ever constitutes true courage" you DO NOT VOTE ON THAT, because I don't tell you WHY. Both of us have EQUAL BURDEN to give you a WHY and he does not do this. He asserts things without any real evidence. So you can carry through the rioting point.

The only thing i can glean from this unintelligible rant is that he thinks the only way to be brave is through war. ("War veterans...") at that point I guess he's saying we have to look to the WWI / WWII point. Both of which he drops in his final speech, so you can carry my rebuttals through. At that point it makes much more sense to vote CON in this debate.

====
VOTERS
====

(1) The first reason to vote Con is the civil courage point. He never refutes this, just randomly asserts things with no real impact on the debate. He says, "sitting down and ACTING UP" ... those are mutually exclusive terms. But, because he's not contradicted himself previously, we'll just assume he's following the previous thread of "logic" where he says that rioting and organizing unions is cowardly. I present clear logic as to why standing up for what you believe is right, for equality under the law etc is courageous and he never refutes this.

(2) The war point. He never refutes the real argument, just makes weak attempts to extend across his unwarranted assertions. You can carry across the 9month battle at Verdun, where 1/5 of the German soldiers held the line for 9 months, and the importance of the french in the most important strategic offensive in the entire war. These points go unaddressed, so this is clear CON territory.

(3) Moral Obligation. Again, perpetuating the kind of reasoning the PRO falls under is to perpetuate the ignorant fallacies that create and encourage atrocities. Read his speech, where is there a single logical conclusion? I'm debating him and I can't even find one. Do not support this kind of reasoning, do not justify holocausts.

Even if you don't buy the moral point, the CON still gives you two clear reasons to vote against the PRO. The decision is clear.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 5 years ago
rangersfootballclub
i just got sort of vote bombed i think ...
Posted by wpfairbanks 5 years ago
wpfairbanks
J'aime le french!!
Posted by rangersfootballclub 5 years ago
rangersfootballclub
there is no ignornace examplified by me , I point out what the french have done in historyand there general attituides , this vote shall be vote bombed jsut because i have deicded to speak rather harshly about a group of people , so yes everybody im a big bad rascit because I called a large amount of frenchmen cowards and shelfish , even though at no point did i say every french man

and draxxt dont call people retarded jus because they have a diffrent opion from your own , thank you.
Posted by draxxt 5 years ago
draxxt
the Pro has nothing more than an incoherent rant. Brian, you are either functionally retarded or you know "rangersfootballclub" personally and thus are trying to justify this unintelligible mass the PRO offers as "reasoning". The Con's point about moral obligation, while somewhat abusive, does reveal the ignorance exemplified by the Pro.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 5 years ago
rangersfootballclub
lol thank you brian it is a rather funny quote.

and mickey you obvousily do take them for idiots , the voters have no moral obligation to vote for anybody , i was not rascit , just being straight and honest.

also answer ym question , you are using this as "propaganda " if you want agaisnt me , were do i say Mass genocide is justified ???
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
Sorry, I should have used a spell-checker as well - for "deaux" read "deux".
Posted by brian_eggleston 5 years ago
brian_eggleston
I loved the quote from Pro's grandfather (and by the way, you can say "wanker" on this site, it's not a swear word in America)!

I liked Pro's style, even though the grammar and spelling could have been better and, being an unashamed Francophile, I didn't personally agree with all his points.

He had a clear point and argued it forcefully and deserves credit for that (although he will not get it from me as I can't vote).

Félicitations aux les deaux et à la bonne chance avec vos futures discussions!
Posted by Mickeyrocks 5 years ago
Mickeyrocks
I don't want to continue the debate here, but I will answer your final two questions:

(1) I generally don't think the people who like to engage in intellectual debate are idiots, if they were they wouldn't enjoy intelligent discourse.
(2) Yes... I did read the arguments, hence why I responded to them.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 5 years ago
rangersfootballclub
oh yes good debate sir .

may i adress some of your final points to the voters ?

you consistantly claim that i am promoting mass genoicide ? you consistantly say that if you vote for me its promtoing being a nazi ? i think thats an outrageous claim to make considering my realitives were killed and also fought in ww2 , please dont deliver these stupid brainwashing statments . Show me which part of my arguemnts which say " mass murder is good " .

you say that i acted like a bigoted idiot ? and have not conducted myself in a good manner ? you acted like a small child dishing out insults very cleverly disguised in words surrounding it to make me appear like an idiot , you claim i have not responded to anything you have said ...

two questions for you , do you think the voters on this site are idiots ? and also did you even read my arguments properly , or once the word coward was invovled you decided to twist and turn it and make me look bad ?
Posted by Mickeyrocks 5 years ago
Mickeyrocks
If you comment then it bumps it to the front page, so people can vote on it - I had to say something, I chose to be nice.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by wpfairbanks 5 years ago
wpfairbanks
rangersfootballclubMickeyrocksTied
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 trendem 5 years ago
trendem
rangersfootballclubMickeyrocksTied
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 draxxt 5 years ago
draxxt
rangersfootballclubMickeyrocksTied
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 philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
rangersfootballclubMickeyrocksTied
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 rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
rangersfootballclubMickeyrocksTied
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