The Instigator
drphallus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom.

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 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,810 times Debate No: 19175
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

drphallus

Con

My assertion against this idea is based on two main points;

The first is that respect is the result of honour; and murder cannot be by definition honourable. Soldiers are paid to murder and initiate force against others therefore should not be respected for their actions.

The second is that during the 20th century, our freedom both financially and 'freedom of action' has been reduced dramatically.
This has been acted through:
Oppressive border controls,
Crippling inflation and a fiat currency,
and financial serfdom through price fixing and the removal of the free market.
imabench

Pro

We do not respect our soldiers for allegedly "murdering" enemy gunman, we respect our soldiers because they have made the ultimate commitment to their country, a commitment that many of us would not or could not make. In the US 1% of the population is taking 100% of the bullets in overseas distant foreign conflicts, and when they return home they are returning in some cases to worse conditions then when they left. In some cases they return home to find that their spouses want a divorce, are cheating on them, want to take the kids, the bank has foreclosed on their home, the company they use to work at no longer has a job for them, etc.

Soldiers make a tremendous sacrifice for their country and often they are not adequately rewarded for their sacrifices.

"murder by definition is not honorable" - I agree that murder is not honorable, but is what soldiers do murder?
"they are paid to murder and initiate force against others" - that is a very biased perception of what they do compared to what their true actions are.

Also how much money do you think troops make? its not a very large amount its roughly $200 to $325 a month which gives them a salary of $2400 to $3900 a month. They receive government benefits to things such as medical bills, education grants, insurance, etc. so much of what they really need is paid for, but they are not living like kings.

There are rules of engagement that all soldiers must follow. Some of which include
1) Do not fire on others unless they fire on you first
2) Soldiers often protect unarmed civilians by using their own bodies as shields to protect the individuals and move them to safety.
3) Soldiers are under command to wiser superior officers who must authorize any use of lethal force.
4) Troops are deployed to areas with very specific objectives in mind, they do not merely go to an area and cause trouble if none is to be found.
5) Soldiers objectives are organized so that the protection of civilians are superior to the killing of enemy soldiers

http://www.wnd.com...

If a soldier is fired upon by an enemy gunman then the soldier, under the rules of engagement, may do what is necessary to protect civilians, themselves, or their fellow soldiers. Under such circumstances then the soldiers actions could easily classified as self defense, not cold blooded murder like you imply.

As for your second argument you argue that soldiers should not be respected because our financial freedoms and other freedoms have been abused because of border controls, inflation, and the combination of price fixing and the removal of the free market. How does ANY of those things justify why soldiers should not be given respect for serving their country? (often they serve more than once)

Soldiers deserve to be respected because of the sacrifices they make for our country and for their service they have already given to our nation.
Debate Round No. 1
drphallus

Con

The common definition of murder is "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Google search: "Define: murder"

The only vague aspect of that statement is the Unlawful part. And for the sake of the argument I'm ignoring that aspect of the definition. Law is a vast and easily manipulable factor. Who's law? Gods law? Roman Law? Common Law? Law of the jungle?

Because it can't be defined sharply I'll clarify that when I say; Murder i mean "The premeditated killing of one human being by another."

I'd like to use Richard Angelo (a convicted serial killer) as an example. He had a background of doing good things for people as a former Eagle Scout and volunteer fireman. He also had a 'out-of-control' desire to be recognized as a hero.
This; drive to be good; drove him to do some callus acts. To murder people. The premeditated killing of his victims.
Do we say; Richard Angelo... the fireman? No; we say Richard Angelo the murderer. His actions might not have been in cold blood but they certainly fit the definition.

To be a soldier; is voluntary. Even under the guise of conscription. So soldiers, (regardless of intention) deliberately travel to a location, armed in preparation for Violent acts, and will (if 'prevoked') kill another human being. The premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Remembering that these men are PAID to do it... it's their job. Further showing that it's by choice.

You said that "[my statement is a] very biased perception of what they do compared to what their true actions are"
Imagine if you will, someone committing suicide by stepping in front of a train.
The man did not take action to kill himself; it was the trains movement and the train's action that cause his death. All the man did was walked from one place to another; an act on itself is harmless.
But do we blame the train? No. We blame the man because he willfully put himself in a harmful situation.
I blame the soldier because he willfully puts himself in a situation where he will be 'forced' to kill someone. (invading a country, armed)
The mans 'True' actions were to walk onto the tracks.
The soldiers 'True' actions are travel to another country and follow orders.
Both cause death; but somehow one is honourable?

Saying that soldiers are killing in self defense is as silly as saying that if someone breaks into your home to harm your family and they kill you while you're trying to stop them... they killed you in self defense and are not guilty of murder.
See what I mean? Absurd.

You mentioned how they make a sacrifice for something. The topic of argument is that we respect them for sacrificing their lives for our freedom. I don't care much for opinion; I'm arguing the facts. And yes; it's a pretty terrible job being a soldier... but so is working in a mine; but we don't extend the same respect to miners.

A point to remember here is that over the last 100 years freedom has been taken away.

In 1912 there was no passports, no oppressive border controls, no forced licensing, no income tax, no substance controls, a fraction of the percentage of people in prison, no fiat currency, lower homicides per capita... Compared to now.

There have been at least 4 major wars during this time and over this period freedom has not been gained; or even maintained. It has declined.

During each major war; freedoms were taken away under the guise of helping the war effort. Once the war was over they weren't given back. There's a direct Causation between these soldiers actions and the removal of freedom.
If you want an example; look at the introduction of Income Tax in Australia, or the patriot act.

Did they give their lives for freedom? No. They died to enslave us.
This is a purely a causative conclusion, and I can't allow my emotional state to interfere.

I hope this clarifies my two points:

Topic: "Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom."

1: I can't respect someone who murders. Soldiers Murder. Murder is violence. There is no honour in violence... Respect is a product of honour.
I do not respect them for their actions.

2: Wars destroy freedom. I was making a point to illustrate how I measure freedom.
They did not sacrifice for our freedom.
imabench

Pro

Murder is the killing of one person by another person, it does not have to be premeditated

Richard Angelo was known for being a murderer not a fireman, just like how Lee Harvey Oswald is known for killing John Kennedy, not for being a former Marine

Soldiers are armed because they are placed in a very hostile zone by their own government. If they are provoked by an enemy soldier they are allowed to fire back in self defense. What are they supposed to do die right there just to earn your respect? They are there to keep civilians safe from extremists, gunman, terrorists, etc. They are never set there to kill those people, they are dispatched to protect others from them.

You keep claiming that soldiers choose to kill people but you completely ignored the idea that they are there for the defense of themselves, fellow soldiers, and innocent civilians.

Being a soldier does not mean death like you state in your train theory. A man committing suicide has given up on life and stepped in front of the train, but the soldier has volunteered to put his life on the line not because they have given up on life, but they are willing to help preserve the safety and rights of people he has never known or met. Your comparison of soldiers to people waiting to die is very misguided because soldiers are out there for a purpose, to protect others.

" Saying that soldiers are killing in self defense is as silly as saying that if someone breaks into your home to harm your family and they kill you while you're trying to stop them..."

Thats EXACTLY what they are trying to do but they have the bravery to do that for people who he has never even met before.

" we don't extend the same respect to miners." says you. If I met someone who worked in a coal mine their whole life Im going to respect them very much because mining has been the worlds deadliest profession. I dont know how you treat miners but I treat anyone who has a risky career that benefits others with great respect, and many others do as well.

"Did they give their lives for freedom? No. They died to enslave us."

They gave their lives for the freedoms of those peoples in distant lands who have been oppressed by terrorist and dictatoral regimes defining how they live their lives. Your idea that war costs us freedom is completely unfounded and unsupported by facts. The Patriot Act for example is a law that granted intelligence agencies powers to identify potential threats to the US and innocent peoples like us.

" Soldiers Murder. Murder is violence. There is no honour in violence"

Soldiers defend each other and civilians. Murder is violence but what soldiers do In war can be argued as self defense not murder.

During the last four major wars freedom has certainly not declined.
We are free from Hitlers Nazi Regime
We are Free from Japanese aggression in the Pacific
We are free from Saddam trying to control all the oil in the Middle East
We are free from Al Qaeda launching more terrorist attacks against us from Afghanistan

"There is no honor in violence", so I assume that peacefulness is the opposite of violence. Then I take it you dont respect any of these people

1) Firemen, chopping down doors with an axe certainly isnt peaceful, so they could be violent
2) Policemen, arresting drug dealers who are resisting arrest is certainly violent
3) Construction workers, holding a jackhammer to concrete isnt peaceful, it is rather violent
4) Athletes, Tackling people is violent, boxing is very violent, collisions during Hockey games are also violent
5) Doctors, Giving shots to people who are in the middle of a seizure isnt peaceful or pleasant, it is very violent

Ill end on this. What soldiers do in war is not murder. They volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend citizens of the US or citizens of a faraway nation from evil forces and evil people. They volunteer their lives and their lifestyles to go help other people taste freedom. The government then gives them supplies and weapons they would use to defend themselves, their fellow soldiers, the citizens of the conflicted region, and humanity in general from gunman and terrorists whose goal in life is to drag all of us to death in the hopes that they in the end will be rewarded with 72 virgins. Soldiers are there for defense and to fire upon those who challenge them by firing on them first.
Debate Round No. 2
drphallus

Con

You keep drifting off the topic, and as a result confusing the argument. Please; stay on topic.

"Veterans should be respected because they gave their life for our freedom."
Or to rephrase: Soldiers, who during a war died (gave their life) so we can be free.

You state that "Murder is the killing of one person by another person, it does not have to be premeditated"
This is Incorrect.

Most of the world's legal systems distinguish between cold-blooded killings, crimes of passion, and accidental (but still unlawful) deaths. In America, 'murder' applies to carefully pre-planned deaths, such as a mafia hit.
'Voluntary manslaughter', on the other hand, is what's committed when, for example, a husband catches his wife in bed with another man and snaps.
Last; 'involuntary manslaughter', covers situations in which the death is neither pre-planned nor intentional.

"What are they supposed to do die right there just to earn your respect?"
No; they shouldn't be over there in the first place. They weren't 'placed' in the hostile environment; they chose to follow the order to be there. They knew what they were getting into. Just like the miner example, they took the job and find themselves down a hole by choice.

My assertion that War costs us freedom is very much supported by facts; If you do even a little research you'll find them. I can't illustrate all of my examples because it's a very broad subject.

For example; from the Wiki page on passports:
" In the later part of the nineteenth century and up to World War I, passports were not required, on the whole, for travel within Europe, and crossing a border was straightforward. Consequently, comparatively few people had passports. The Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire maintained passport requirements for international travel, in addition to an internal passport system to control travel within their borders.

During World War I, European governments introduced border passport requirements for security reasons (to keep out spies) and to control the emigration of citizens with useful skills, retaining potential manpower. These controls remained in place after the war, and became standard procedure, though not without controversy."

Passports are a direct control on people by the state. A removal of freedom. That was justified by war, but remained after the war.

The absence of violence is the opposite of violence. Violence takes many forms; not just a physical act.
And the examples you offered as 'Violent acts' by firemen etc; is a Straw Man and I'm ignoring it.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. Yet; you blame the Muslim states?
It's like handing someone a gun; and beating them until they shoot you. THEN punishing them for shooting you.

My train example had nothing to do with suicide. It's trying to illustrate that you need to find the real cause of an action to discover the truth.
The train may cause the death; but it's not at fault. The man who stepped in front of it is.

There are a great number of lies; believed by a lot of people in this world.
We may be free of; Hitler, Japanese Aggression, Saddam, etc. But we are not free from the thing that created it. All four of these examples are the result of the initiation of force by the British empire.

My closing argument:
"I fail to see how any educated person can believe that it is possible to sacrifice liberty to attain greater freedom."
imabench

Pro

In your definition of murder you imply that soldiers carefully pre-plan every person and terrorist they kill yet as I have shown before, soldiers only respond with deadly force if fired upon first. That is defined by the same US laws as self defense but you conveniently left that argument out of your definitions of murder.

Your passports example of how soldiers and wars limit freedom is slightly biased, You look at it as something that is used solely to control people. Passports though are still implemented to keep people safe from outsiders during times of war and during times of peace. The terrorists of 9/11 for example had to create fake passports to gain access into the US to do harm to us, and they did just that. Passports exist to keep civilians safe and secure from possible spies or terrorists during times of war or peace, passports do not exist just so that governments can directly control people, they exist to protect us from outsiders willing to do us harm.....

" it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. Yet; you blame the Muslim states?"

Of course it didnt occur to them, they were funding anyone and everyone who wanted to fight communism how could they have had the foresight to think they were funding future enemies? Osama wasnt the only person being given weapons we were willing to give weapons to anyone who wanted to blow a Russian jet or helicopter out of the sky.

"Yet; you blame the Muslim states"

I am not blaming the Muslim states for anything. Osama Bin Laden attacked America because he hated our foreign policy of stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia during the wars against Saddam Hussein. (Saudi Arabia being Holy Land and Osama seeing soldiers as infidels violating it) So if anyone is to blame for our predicament in the Middle East it is not the fault of the Muslim states.

"It's like handing someone a gun; and beating them until they shoot you. THEN punishing them for shooting you."

You act like we intentionally abused them into fighting us but it was the exact opposite of what happened. We were protecting Muslim people from Saddam's regime and our presence upset a few future terrorists armed to their teeth in 80's era weapons and so they began to plot against us. We abused no one because we left Afganistan, we left Iraq and we left Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war and the Russian invasion of Afganistan, THEY brought us back into it and we intervened to protect the same Muslim civilians we defended before, this time it was from a new enemy.

"We may be free of; Hitler, Japanese Aggression, Saddam, etc. But we are not free from the thing that created it. All four of these examples are the result of the initiation of force by the British empire."

I fail to see the connection or any facts that support this wild theory. I also doubt that the British Empire caused the rise of Hitler and Saddam and Osama and Japan attacking Pearl Harbor....

""I fail to see how any educated person can believe that it is possible to sacrifice liberty to attain greater freedom."

We are not sacrificing the liberties of everyone though, and thats where you fail to see the truth here. We as a nation are not sacrificing our liberties, it is the soldiers who VOLUNTEER to sacrifice their OWN individual liberties for everyone else but themselves. They are volunteers for a position that is dangerous and in many cases lethal so that they can sacrifice their own safety to 1) protect anyone in immediate danger, and 2) fight the forces of evil that have violated our safety in the past and threaten do it in the future.

Soldiers deserve to be respected and honored because they sacrifice their own liberties to make sure that all of our freedoms remain unmolested by outsiders and enemies. Soldiers sacrificed their own liberties to protect our freedoms from the Nazi's, the Japanese, from numerous dictators, and from religious extremist terrorists to name a few. In many cases they made the ultimate sacrifice to protect all of our freedoms here in the US and abroad. French and Britsh citizens are free from Nazi occupation, so is much of Eastern Europe. China is free from Japanese occupation along with the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii. Much of the Middle East is free from oppressive occupation of Saddam Hussein, The former Soviet Union, and recently now from the Taliban and Al Qaeda, thanks to a select few US citizens who decided to sacrifice their own liberties to defend the liberties and freedoms of everyone else.

This is why I believe that US soldiers should be treated with respect
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
I should clarify that by saying "I agree with Pro before and after the debate" I'm not saying I agree with his arguments, only his side of the resolution.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
drphallusimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I will go for Pro!
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
drphallusimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate didn't wrap up well (no conclusion or summary in final round). Normally, Pro would lose conduct for the degree of arguing in that final round, but because Con really kept arguing until the end, Pro had to as well. Also Pro tried to pull a dictionary quote, then tweek it to meet his own ends.