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

We should not use animals in war

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,531 times Debate No: 62879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




Animals should not be used in wars as it is not their fault that the country they live in is at war with another country, so why should they risk their lives in the war? Millions of animals are killed or injured in the line of "duty" and for no reason other than we view humans as more important than the animals and they are there for us to use in any way we choose, even if that results in their deaths and that their senses are better than ours.


My opening argument is simple. If our country is at war with another country, and we need to use these animals. We must use them. Humans and the animals I assume you refer to (dogs, horses, what not). It is a sad truth we must face. If we can send human lives off to war, we should be able to send an animal life off to fight. While the senseless death of anyone is terrible, but if an animal can help a soldier in the line of duty, and to make sure that soldier can live, then we should use animals.
Debate Round No. 1


My next argument is simplistic: Soldiers have a choice about going off to fight but the animals do not. A soldier signs up because they want to fight for their country but do you see animals being given that choice? No! We pick the animals that go off to war. If we give humans the choice whether to risk their lives for their country, why shouldn't the animals choose? Instead we pick them up and pack them off to die for us. Is this fair for them? Animal lives are just as important as human ones!


Human life is more important than animal life. We are far more intelligent, and sophisticated than the average animal. Humans contribute greatly to society, and yet, we are still conscripted during wartime. Therefore, I cannot see your point about this choice argument, seeing as many humans don't have that choice. Animals save human lives. They are clearly needed in war, so soldiers don't die as much . Animals are needed in war, the same as humans. If they don't go to war, humans die.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttals: Humans are animals too so their lives are just as valuable as ours. As for the intelligence comment, animals can use tools and problem solve so they are clever too. Conscription is not common in many countries anymore, so the conscription part of your argument is not applicable. Animals may save human lives, but they are sentient beings and should be treated as such. They would be very frightened in war due to their heightened senses as everything would be louder to them, it is unfair!


My conscription argument is valid, as many countries still use it [1], and in times of war, many sovereign states are able to call upon conscription. Not only this, but to your "frightened" argument. A lot of humans become frightened during war.While we may be animals, we have shown to be far more organized than our furry friends. Finally, if animals didn't want to fight, they could flee easily.

Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spartan9876 2 years ago
@holybejebus No, that is still incorrect. Nukes and chemical weapons render an area unusable (especially the latter). If you want to control an area for its geopolitical significance, you do not render it unusable, that would be counter-productive.
An example would be the U.S invading Iraq in 2003 because of Iraq's global positioning. If the U.S were to nuke Iraq, the U.S can no longer use it as a strategic base of operations. Chemical weapons int his case would be more effective, however, as the world progressively becomes more concerned with human rights, they would be denounced in the international community far more than what they experienced in 2003.

Drones are good for surveillance and pin-point destroying targets. However, in a real fight against a world-power, they are relatively easy to shoot down. If you have a powerful laser, you could easily fry its image sensing board, rendering it blind. Nothing can beat the actual soldier.

Now, there is one thing that may supersede the soldier, it will not be airplanes, or nukes, or chemical weapons. It will be robots. They might** become our new soldiers.

The point I am trying to make here, is every weapon has a purpose. A nuke has a purpose, a bomb has a purpose, a drone has a purpose, and a soldier has its purpose. You can not effectively use them interchangeably.
Posted by Wrappers 2 years ago
You do realize that animals that were not humans/apes were here before humans, and so therefore could not have been evolved to just help humans, right? And humans are also classified in the animal kingdom.
Posted by holybejebus 2 years ago

Well, we have nukes, chemical weapons, etc. Only a matter of time before the boots are no longer needed in war. I understand your point. We do need to occupy territories, but it would just be easier to destroy an area.

Though, I think that time will come in the future in which using an actual human to a soldier, when you could just use drones, chemical weapons, etc. Though, soldiers will always be used. (Even if they really shouldn't).

Perhaps in the future, it will just come down to population control.
Posted by Spartan9876 2 years ago
"Now, we can also say that in "modern warfare", human soldiers are no longer needed, since we can just bomb everything. Therefore, if animals don't fight in war, then we shouldn't either." That is not how modern warfare works. If you need to occupy and area, or control the area, you need boots on the ground. No matter how many missiles and bombs you have, you need to have the boots. You could bomb and area all you like, but the people living there will adapt. An example is in Vietnam, the Ho Chi Ming trail. The United States bombed it every single day, yet by the morning, the locals fixed all vital components that were bombed.
Bombing it only good for destroying infrastructure which is good when used in accordance with a land based army. However bombing alone does not complete objectives which require control over the land. In order to control that piece of soil, you need boots.
Posted by leoghakj 2 years ago
Well.. personally, humans are more superior than animals, no offence animal-lovers. Key question: WHY WERE ANIMALS MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Some might argue for companionship. Some might argue for learning how to care. And some might argue they were to aid humans. That's a great debate.
Posted by holybejebus 2 years ago

If I had more characters to explain my points, I could explain this in more detail.

Animals have won medals in the past for their bravery in war, in both saving human lives (Dogs were used in WW1 to save soldiers from trenches).

As to your second point about "tanks" in modern day usage, animals provide morale and comfort to soldiers. And, as many of us know, keeping a healthy attitude in terrible conditions is pretty important. And even still, dogs can be used to sniff mines, find bombs, etc. So, they are not a hindrance, but actually still beneficial in modern day society, and warfare.

Now, we can also say that in "modern warfare", human soldiers are no longer needed, since we can just bomb everything. Therefore, if animals don't fight in war, then we shouldn't either.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
By not proposing exactly how animals should be used in war, or how an animal can somehow have the capability to ensure "that a solider can live", Con has failed to define their argument.

With all the tanks and weaponry involved in modern warfare, the benefits of animal inclusion would be limited. In fact in some cases they would be more of a hindrance; as unlike soldiers, they can't "fight".
Posted by hatshepsut 2 years ago
The pro side, wanting to ban animals from the laws and usages of war, has a harder argument to ply. After all, why not simply ban war as the con suggests via giving the contrapositive of this assertion? Good luck.
Posted by Spartan9876 2 years ago
No we should not use animals in war because it is not their war to fight.
Our country/society is made up of many people, these people's ancestors consented to make this society. They agreed on a social contract that shall be the law. Now for us, obviously we did not create this social contract, but we consent to it. We go to School, we pay our taxes, etc. We do this so that we may live in a state of security.

Animals on the other hand did not consent, did not help make this society, thus they have no privity to our societal contract we created in the beginning. When we get into a conflict with another society, the only people who would be required to fight are those who are a member of that society. Animals are not members to our society, thus they are not required to join in our wars. The only just way they can, is if they consent to it.

The only problem with this is animals do not have the intellectual capacity to understand what they are consenting to, thus for their good can you make a decision for them? Just as a parent would make a decision for their children?

That is tricky, because if we agree with that then there is a hierarchy of being which I shall borrow from Nozick.
Let us make it as:
1) These beings cannot be used or killed of any other organisms sake.
2) The being may be harmed for the sake of any being above its category
3) This being may be harmed for the sake of any being above it
If we were to accept this elitist view, where are we? Most would say 1) and animals are number 3. Then who is number 2? What if we are number 2 and some being (let us call then Aliens) are number one. How would you feel if Aliens forced you to fight in their wars?
Posted by markdusko 2 years ago
I agree
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Both Pro and Con presented sophisticated, insightful and intelligent (albeit very short and undeveloped) arguments. It seems as though there were too few characters to go in depth. I have to leave this one a tie but its because I thought it was well argued on both sides. Both sides could have used a little elaboration, and I would have liked to see the same debaters debate this with a larger character limit.