The Instigator
anika.a
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

granting high ranking military officers the right to veto government decisions regarding secutiry

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 4 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 615 times Debate No: 59114
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

anika.a

Pro

During times of emergency and unrest( the paradigm of this debate), it would be a rather lengthy and tedious process to consider the opinion of ministers, or those concerned with the task of getting themselves involved in arriving at such decisions, by which time, the ship of salvation or sliver chance of victory may have sailed. therefore it should be upto the high ranking military officers to make on the spot decisions about how to act,dispatch or retreat when faced with enemy threats.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I accept this debate. Please begin.
Debate Round No. 1
anika.a

Pro

anika.a forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I'll extend the opportunity to let my opponent begin as both Pro & Instigator.
Debate Round No. 2
anika.a

Pro

anika.a forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I extend the opportunity, once more, to my opponent. If my opponent forfeits again in the next round, I will begin my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
anika.a

Pro

anika.a forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

Yeah, was gonna start in this round - but I want to hit the hay for the night and only have 10 hours left before the round ends. Not gonna forfeit. Let's see if she posts for at-least one round.
Debate Round No. 4
anika.a

Pro

anika.a forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited this entire debate.

The only round in which any attempt at making an argument was made would be Round 1, so that is the round I will respond to.

This is where I would break down my opponents arguments and provide rebuttals, but after reading it carefully - there is nothing to rebut. Everything aside from the last sentence is unintelligible. In which government are ministers the highest ranking officials? Are we discussing this debate in the context of solely that government, if such a government even exists?

My opponent, as Pro, failed to present any logical case to affirm the position, and therefore fails to uphold the burden placed on the affirmative stance.

This goes especially for the last sentence in which my opponent states that it should be up to the high ranking military officers to make on the spot decisions. First off, my opponent failed to present a reasonable scenario in which the military leaders would be the only one's left to make the decisions - especially in America where there is a chain of command [1] for such events. According to my opponent - it wouldn't even necessarily be in the event of death which is the case for America's system but rather just whenever their is emergency and unrest. This is absurd because it totally forfeits the power of the commander-in-chief, who himself is the highest ranking military officer, so this entire point falls on itself.

[1] http://www.jber.af.mil...
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
this a noob, blade, this a noob
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
anika.aBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
anika.aBlade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
anika.aBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 2 years ago
Atheist-Independent
anika.aBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting topic, unfortunately Pro forfeited the debate.