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

modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,032 times Debate No: 18918
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




I am here to state that modern political leaders and civilians have no place protesting war for the simple reason they have not been their or experienced it this is not the days where leaders lead their troops into battle anymore instead they sit behind a desk and talk about it and make things worse. I wish a good debate to my opponent.


Because of modern television, reporting, and many technologies that provide millions of people insight into what happens during a war, everyone has the right to form their own opinion regarding that particular war. Ever since photography became widespread in newspapers during the American Civil War people have been able to see what goes on in the front lines of a war.

People may protest a war based on if they believe that the reason we went to war in the first place was not justified. The ongoing war in Iraq had received much criticism because we invaded believing that Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction, but now through technology people have learned that there were no such weapons and that the reports were lies.

you stereotype politicians and people as people who sit behind desks, talk about it, and make things worse. How biased is your view of politicians? anyone who has ever got on a computer or turned on a tv or even talked with a friend on the phone has some insight into what goes on in the distant battlefields.

Are people not entitled to their own opinions either? There is nothing wrong with people who believe that wars should never be fought under any circumstances, they have their own views and ideologies and they are entitled to their own opinions.

Also how do such opinions "make things worse" as you said? How have people who are against war made things worse? and if they have made something worse then what is it exactly that they made worse?
Debate Round No. 1


I will agree every person has a right to their opinion that dose not mean they should speak it and pictures speak 1000 words but they still cant show the true situation or the way things are going in the whole war a picture shows a soldier dieing in a ambush and everyone thinks the war is going bad when really that could have been the only casualty of the attack for our side and the enemy could have been in a blood bath.

Even if the civilians have insight that isn't the whole thing that is happening back to my first example.

as far as making things worse look at Vietnam that was a winnable war we had them out gunned out positioned out numbered out matched but because of hippie demonstrations and politics the war turned to a blood bath. I don't know about you but I think that's worse.


We agree everyone has an opinion but does everyone not have the right to speak it? I believe that those who do have an opinion should speak because 3 things could happen. 1) They dont know what they are talking about, their point of view is easily dismissed, no harm done. 2) They only state something we already know, it just reinforces your own opinion and the truth as well. 3) The person may something wise, insightful, or something you did not know about which may influence your own opinion. All three ways there is no harm done.

One picture doesnt tell the whole story, very true but does anyone ever see just one picture?
Television, computers, newspapers, radio, etc. These days if something happens in Iraq people can hear about it like 7 different times. I myself have 3 news apps on my iphone so if something DOES go down, I can see the conservative side of the story on fox, and the liberal side on MSNBC. With so much media out there everyone can get plenty of news regarding a war often without realizing it.

Vietnam was winnable, they were outgunned, outnumbered, out matched, but the reason we lost was because hippies turned it into a bloodbath???

This was freaking Vietnam. The war was thousands of miles away from US soil on enemy turf, and the viet kong (north Vietnamese troops) fought purely through guerrilla warfare with elaborate tunnel systems and traps that were designed to mutilate rather than kill troops. Public opinion of the war began to wane when Americans realized that the war was far from winnable.

Public support for Vietnam waned for a number of reasons. One was the discovery that the US government had authorized bombings in Cambodia and Laos without informing the public. Nixons impeachment told Americans that the government often kept secrets from the public, that fueled universal anti-government sentiment which then translated into anti-war protests. By the time the anti-war protests had come around, the war in Vietnam was already lost.

Anti-war protests did not cost us the battle, landmines, guns, rifles, booby traps, and an elaborate tunnel system did that for us. As for politicians, they did not cost us the war either, they were the ones who had the courage and balls to pull us out of the conflict before we lost more troops to the futile conflict.

Hippies and corrupt politicians did not cost us the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter, and to suggest the only reason that we did lose in Vietnam was because of hippies and politicians who saw the conflict for what it was (useless and futile) then you are very poorly mistaken....

Everyone has the right to protest any military conflict because everyone is entitled to their own opinion...... The idea that they should not because their actions directly lead to shifts in the battlefield is a fantasy......
Debate Round No. 2


One speaking an opinion is fine if you can keep it like that but people can't they have to keep proving something that has been defeated like evaluation and then when it's war things like the hippie movements happen and ruin the whole thing.

Second yes but many are bias just trying to prove their side unless you talk to someone who was their your probably getting some bias opinions.

Also yes it was miles away but their were so many hippie demonstrations and extremists stealing our supplies and on some occasions sending it to the enemy that we were being defeated if we didn't have to control our own people we could have found the tunnels and wiped out the enemy. And yes we bombed Cambodia and Laos who cares they were helping the NVA north Vietnamese army. Plus Nixon had to keep secrets or it would have just turned more Americans.

Three also I agree everyone is entitled to their opinion but they shouldn't go around trying to convince others of it when they don't know a lot about it themselves.


People who try to keep proving something that is false are what everyone calls "stubborn" when either of us sees someone who is stubborn we either ignore them or we offer evidence of why they are wrong. There is a small chance they may agree with you and change their views but if a person still ignores the facts you presented then we can all agree that such a person is stubborn and should not be listened too.

They can try to prove something thats been defeated all they want, all we have to do is keep defeating them which is a pretty easy thing to do when arguing with stubborn people...

Hippie movements against the war dont actually do anything you know...... Just today I saw a group of people outside my dorm residence with signs that says "God hates f_gs" But they certainly are not having an impact on gay rights..... Hippie protests are just people who have opinions and have enough time in their day to go and make some noise about it to people like you and me. Hippie protests in no way impact the outcome of distant wars.

Your next statement suggests that anyone who hasnt actually been to war would always have a biased opinion of it...... Remember the first gulf war in the early 1990's, the one that lasted not even 4 days?? There were reporters in every other Humvee moving across the desert who showed everyone with a tv what was going on. There have been reporters in every battle scene since the Civil War who simply document what they see, maybe throw in some statistics, and just present that information to us....... People can have an unbiased opinion of the war without actually being there to see it happen in person. They can evaluate the accounts and reports of many reporters who HAVE been there though and then draw (usually unbiased) opinions of the war by themselves...

"hippies and extremists stealing our supplies and sending it to the enemy" You dont have any proof of that and I dont think that was much of an issue in Vietnam or necessarily in ANY US war....

"could have found the tunnels and wiped out the enemy" We did find the tunnels but we cant simply shove a 200 pound bomb in there and blow it to hell, these were some very elaborate tunnel systems that often could only be cleared out if we sent our own soldiers in there.

"Cambodia and Laos were helping the Vietnamese" they werent giving them tanks and planes to fight us they only occasionally allowed them into the edge of their territory. But that wasnt what angered Vietnam war era Americans it was the fact that the US was actually in 3 wars when we were lied to and told we were only in 1...... Hippie protests had nothing to do with fueling anti-war resentment at this point because the fact that the people were lied to did the job for them......

"Nixon had to keep secrets otherwise it would have turned more Americans" No duh it would have turned more Americans because it is something that shouldnt have been done in the first place. If Americans were voicing concerns about how Laos and Cambodia allegedly offered help to the Vietnamese enemy and the American people were calling for war, THEN it would have been justified.......... But people did not think that and so when they found out the government did it anyway without the public's consideration that angered a lot of Americans against the war...... Hippie demonstrations played no part in that.......

Your last opinion is that no one should voice their opinion if they arent well informed. We can all agree on that but people will always try to enforce their views but like I said before if they are stubborn morons and people KNOW they are stubborn morons than the stubborn morons wont impact anything.....

By the way how exactly do Hippie protests (allegedly) cost us wars?
Debate Round No. 3


I would first like to point out that sure saying it maybe not but when their are millions of them some stealing your weapons and giving them to the enemy and others rioting causing a need for troops at home to stop these riots causing problems.

second yes they can have unbiased opinions but normally they are and then they still don't get the full emotion plus those cameras only recorded part of the war the strategic point of view was not ever in their maybe if the politicians would back off and let the commanders do their job things would go better.

third yes the Japs did the same thing in WW2 but we went in their with flame throwers and made a mess out of their forces but with troops being pulled home to deal with the riots in Nam and the banning of the use of flamethrowers for humanity caused by politicians we lost terribly plus if we had told the people about Cambodia and Laos helping the NVA the Russians would have given the countries weapons to fight our attack that they would have known was coming by keeping it secret we saved millions of lives.


"millions of them stealing weapons and giving them to the enemy" You still haven't provided any example of this happening and I still doubt that this was a reason why we lost the war in Vietnam....

Getting an idea of the war is possible, but your point of them not getting the full emotion of the war is true. But do people need to understand the full emotion of the war to have an unbiased opinion of it? The answer is no.

"If politicians would back off and let the commanders do their job" Congressmen cant do sh#t about how things are fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. they can only express their approval or disapproval of it. Really the only people who can control what goes where are the president and his secretaries of the air force, navy, armed forces, etc. And often there are times when ALL of these people have served in the military.....

"Banning the use of flamethrowers for humanity caused by politicians"................ Um flamethrowers were never actually banned by any politician or human rights group...... In fact The US military only removed flamethrowers from their arsenals in 1978 and the Vietnam War ended in 1975...........

Flamethrowers were not banned by politicians, in fact even today there are still countries that use flamethrowers in their military's

"Russians would have given Laos and Cambodia weapons" We do not know if they would have given weapons to either of these countries because at the time they were not communist countries. As for your suggestion that this could have happened and the Russians would have seen it coming.... Laos had long had good relations with the US before the war started and even when Vietnam broke out they were still allies, so why would the Russians give weapons to a country that had long had good ties to the United States?

"By keeping it secret we saved millions of lives" Had the public found out sooner than we could have saved our own soldiers's lives and perhaps 90% of the civilians who died as a result of US bombings in both Cambodia AND Laos.....

You still havent explained how hippie protests OR politicians can directly impact the results of war.....
Debate Round No. 4


No people don't need it to have unbiased opinions but if a soldier sees a Taliban units execute a children and the news wont show the gruesome scene then he goes home and here's people saying that we should leave the Taliban alone and let them do whatever but he can't say what he saw unless he wants to be slapped with treason don't you think that would hurt that soldier.

second It was politicians who said no more flamethrowers a weapon that could have won us the war it was politicians who said let you be fired at before you shoot because of the want for a lack of collateral damage also yes but their was a decline in their use because of politicians and civilians saying burning down a village was inhuman.

Third they would give them weapons because we are going in their to attack them the Russians want Americans killed so they give Laos weapons to defend themselves from the Americans and more Americans would die it don't madder how friendly you two were before when the bombs start falling you need to shoot back.

Fourth collateral damage will happen they gave their lives unknowingly for their country and for the greater good more people would have been lost if we told about it those civilians would have been taking captive and probably executed we made sure they didn't suffer.

Fifth their are 9 major things that can win a war one of which is moral when your country hates you for protecting them when you see your best friends get killed to come home and be spat on then see people protesting the funerals its just a bit of a moral crusher.


if A Soldier sees something as gruesome as that (which im sure they have) they are allowed to tel their story, the government cannot accuse someone of treason for talking about what they saw....

We are not trying to get out of Afghanistan because we want to leave the Taliban alone... We want to get out of there because our economy has gone to hell, the war is costing us more money, resources, men, and time then we ever could have first thought. A new government has been installed who is ready to handle the situation, and the Taliban's leaders have been killed twice! (we got Osama's replacement a few weeks ago)

Flamethrowers were never banned from Vietnam, for frick's sake we put flamethrowers on BOATS because we could! Also yes flamethrowers were indeed inhumane weapons...... The ranting about waiting until you are fired at first is called the rules of engagement, and that was a policy created, installed, and enforced by the US military, not by politicians...

Nobody knew we were attacking Laos or Cambodia, the day the public found ou was the day the whole world found out about it..........

"it don't madder how friendly you two were before when the bombs start falling you need to shoot back."

What the hell are you even talking about here? Laos and the US were on friendly grounds, that is why the Russians would not have started giving Laos weapons, because they were a US ally. The US then came in and started conducting bombings along the border still without the public, or anyone else (including the russians) knowing about it. The Russians could never have given weapons to Laos in anticipation of the US attacks......

The collateral damage I am referring to is the killing of civilians in Laos who had nothing to do with the Vietnam war, not the US Pilots.....

"if we told about it those civilians would have been taking captive and probably executed we made sure they didn't suffer."

So blowing them to hell with bombs in a conflict they werent involved in was justified because if the public had known about our bombing of Laos then civilians would have been taken captive by an imaginary force and killed, so it was humane that we blew them to hell in the first place??????????????

As for your last argument, you fail to list the 9 major things that win wars so how can anyone reading this know what they are? "Your country hates you for protecting them" We didnt hate the soldiers we hated the guys who forced people to become soldiers then sent them across the Pacific to fight in that hell-hole called Vietnam....... People did not blame soldiers unless they were the soldiers killing the college students who were peacefully protesting the war......

"When you see your best friends get killed to come home and be spat on then see people protesting the funerals its just a bit of a moral crusher." That would be crushing (probably more than just "a bit") but they were protesting our involvement in the war, not the soldiers themselves......

The Pro is terribly misunderstood in how war works, why people protested the war, why the US then lost in Vietnam, and why hippie protests and politicians do not impact war.

The Pro has expressed a biased and deep hatred for politicians, people who protested Vietnam, the Russians, the Chinese, and the innocent civilians in Laos

Pro has failed to explain how hippie demonstrations allegedly cost us the war, how politicians allegedly ruined a winnable war, and how both these parties allegedly stole supplies and weapons from the US and then gave it to our enemies

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by seraine 6 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro only said that since they haven't been in the battlefield, they can't know what it's like. We can still protest because we believe we have no place there or that it's causing economic damage or that we are needlessly leading soldiers to die.
Vote Placed by darris321 6 years ago
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: Con had excellent responses.
Vote Placed by wiploc 6 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 Checkmark-1 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: Con made some good points. Pro never did. It's a shame that Con never asked Pro whether modern political leaders and civilians have a place supporting war, but Con's arguments were still superior.