The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

Voting rights ought to be reserved to veterans of the Military.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 8/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 60289
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance, and final round shall be free of any fresh arguments.

Please do not debate semantics/troll.

Please do not forfeit.


I accept. As a quick question before the debate, have you served in the military Pro?
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting. I will say, no. I have never served in any part of the military.

Pros Case

The Purpose of Voting, and the Nature of Military Service

(I) In a democracy, the purpose of the right to a vote is for the electorate to, as a group, select of course of action that the majority opinion believes will yield results that are most desirable for the group as a whole. Therefore, it would make sense that the most desirable voter will cast their vote with only the social good in mind. They would, in their thoughts, put the benefit of society before their own. This is, however, not the case in a full democracy, where all adult citizens vote. Citizens will often vote for lower taxes, fully knowing that others will suffer due to reduced public benefits, purely so that they will enjoy the benefit of saving more money. Others will vote in favor of going to an unjust war, without even a single thought for the soldiers who will serve and die in combat. In history, people have voted to suppress the rights of others (slaves/women etc.) as to justify their xenophobia/bigotry.

(II) As Plato argued, the primary flaw in a democracy is that the voters are selfish, and not properly educated. The need to disenfranchise certain people is apparent, as to weed out less effective voters. How do you, then, fairly and effectively disenfranchise voters? Require that voters serve a term in the military, before gaining their right to vote.

(III) The reason this is desirable is simple. In a nutshell, veterans are the only citizens who have proved without a doubt that they put the benefit of the people, before their own. Members of the military put their very lives on the line, in order to protect the citizens of a country, and do what must be done by force for their government.

(IV) Furthermore, only veterans of the military truly understand the nature of war, and the implications of going to war with another country. A veteran is far less likely to vote in favor of an unjust war. Also, many members of the military (especially officers) have gone through a significant amount of post-secondary education.


An electorate of veterans is far more likely to always vote in the interest of society, and far less likely to spend countless lives and dollars on unjust/impractical wars. A veteran electorate is clearly much more desirable than a general electorate.

Therefore I urge that you vote PRO!


Very well organized opening from Pro, I'm happy to see that.

I. Cross-Examination

Section (I)
Here my opponent defines a democracy. I have to agree that the initial definition of majority opinion determining desirable action is spot on, however the next line is where I feel his interpretation of democracy starts to falter.
The goal of majority rule is not to promote social good, but rather to make sure that the majority of people get what they want from their government. If social good is what the majority desires, that's what they'll get. As my opponent pointed out, social well-being is hardly the concern of most voters, but instead their own personal wants and needs. Now, there is absolutely no problem with this, as the point of democratic voting is to determine how those wants and needs spread through the society. A full democracy is solely interested in pleasing the most people. Whether it be through compromise or decision.
So, when my opponent starts to go on about how total democracy is hurting others while pleasing more, he is getting it right. However I have to disagree that this is incorrect for a few reasons, but I'll get to those momentarily. First I would like to address Pro's substitute for a total democracy. That being a selective democracy. The selection of course being those who have served in the military.
The problem with a selective democracy is that it's basis negates it being a democracy. Instead of the majority of people's voice being considered, only those willing to risk their live in an effort to harm others are given power. No disrespect to anyone who has served in the military, but you cannot deny that the reason it exists is to hurt others, whether by means of protection or offense. The issue with this being that joining the military requires a certain type of person, said person not being everybody. Otherwise everybody would join.
Now I get to my main point. That you're only drawing input from a select few individuals that have their own separate interest in mind, but now they have more power. My opponent tries to justify this by saying that veterans have a sort of selflessness to them, that they would sacrifice themselves and their interests for the sake of benefiting society. Here's some issues with this.
1. Serving in the military is not a means of self-sacrifice. Everyone has a reason for doing it, none have the intention of sacrificing for something they don't care about.
2. Why is a means of self-sacrifice a good foundation for society? If everybody is giving up their wants and desires to fulfill eachother, then why not save the hassle and let everyone fulfill their own desires by voting for what they want?
3. Simply having been in the military will not always instill this mindset. This will cause people who do not follow the self-sacrifice conventions to be allowed to vote, except now they have more power because the sample is significantly smaller.

Basically, the point is that this selfless mindset isn't reliable nor in the best interest of everyone. At least with total democracy, everyone gets a say. A chance to pursue happiness while not having to rely on a veteran to hand them that happiness. Or not hand it to them, depending on the veteran's opinion on societal needs. Which might I add is not always correct.

Section (II)

Pro's point here is hypocritical. If the basis of a good democracy is education, then why not instead require political education to vote? The military is only intended to prepare for conflict, not political understanding. So the condition for a correct democracy is unfulfilled by Pro's claim.

Section (III)

This section brings up an issue in it's last statement. I addressed everything before it.
The fact that the only people allowed to vote, are the ones who fully commit to forcefully carrying out orders of the government. Unconditionally to boot.
I fail to understand how complete obedience is the correct answer to prosperity. Our country was built on people escaping corrupt government to build a better homeland. Now then it would make little sense to say that the ones who do not engage in this rebellious attitude are solely allowed to vote. These rebels are what keep our country in check. If you have nobody questioning someone's actions, then that someone has all the more power to perform more unwanted actions.

Section (IV)

My opponent starts making a lot of assumptions in this section. For example, assuming that veterans have any less intention on voting for unjust war. Not every military officer has served in combat, even less in an actual war. Therefore their knowledge on the subject is about as good as any other regular Joe.
Pro then goes on to assume that a veteran is more likely to go and get further educated. Without and statistics or sources we cannot confirm this as true.

Now, allow me to throw this point back at Pro. Not all veterans understand the nature of society. So how can we expect someone who has spent a year or more away from it to be any more wiser on the requirements of it? Once again, the military does not school soldiers on the importance of education and economy. So a veteran would have no better knowledge of it than any other voter. So it wouldn't make sense to give them more power over any other voter.

II. Closing remarks

All of my construct points found their way into the cross, so I won't have a section dedicated to it.

Anyway, my opponent brought up some points that hinted at veterans being better equipped to sacrifice and vote for 'just' wars, however he shot himself in the foot by defining the needs of a democracy and not showing how a veteran would have those qualities in any greater measure than a civilian.
Debate Round No. 2


Harry_Gamtle forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3


Harry_Gamtle forfeited this round.


My opponent has closed his account. This debate is now void.

Debate Round No. 4


Harry_Gamtle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Next time I suggest posting your finished debates at:
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
Whoops, wrong section.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
Arguments extended.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Ah the old Starship Troopers system. It's well constructed, however FFing causes con to win.