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.
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.
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 , 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.
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.