The Instigator
randomcow909
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Tophatdoc
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

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 1 vote the winner is...
Tophatdoc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2013 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 42412
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

randomcow909

Pro

should war crimes even be a thing since after all it is war. one example would be the man sentenced to life in prison for shooting a captured member of the Taliban in the head. when for a fact if they did that to one of our men they would suffer no consequences as they hold to no laws or regulations so what i am rely trying to convey is if one side of a war doesn't hold to any rules or morals should the other side still have to
Tophatdoc

Con

I would like to thank the Pro side for hosting this debate. I actually strongly agree with pro but I will be accepting the position of Con. I feel that Pro's argument is too weak to make the claim he has proposed. As Con I will be arguing that war crimes should exist and be enforced by the law.

First let us define what a war crime is.
War crime-"an act committed during a war that violates international law usually because it is cruel, unfair, etc."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

"one example would be the man sentenced to life in prison for shooting a captured member of the Taliban in the head. when for a fact if they did that to one of our men they would suffer no consequences as they hold to no laws or regulations"
My opponent asserts that the we should not follow the "rules of war" because the Taliban doesn't. This is the "Two Wrongs Make a Right" fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org...

To compare the US and Taliban is not adequate. We cannot compare to entities that play different roles entirely. I would say the United States is an actual state that follows the rule of law. The Taliban are an armed political movement in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. War crimes apply to states, not individuals or organizations. The Taliban are an organization.

War crimes relates to how a war is fought. In particular, war crimes were made into being to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians and cruel punishment to the opposing side in a war. Innocent civilians should not have to pay with their lives for their leaders' incompetence. Why should one pay for something that was not asked for? Innocent people pay with their lives and livelihood in wars.
Debate Round No. 1
randomcow909

Pro

for my first point i do compleatly agree with you in the point that my argument was week and most of it didn't make sense it was 1:00 am i think when i wrote it up and was mainly just pissed off about what i had heard on the news. also the statement two wrongs make a right makes sense as it just makes things worse for both sides but if someone were to approach you and punch you in the jaw would you just stand there and do nothing or would you punch them right back and make it equal. this is just my opinion you might just stand there and take it as yes it would make things better for one of you but why would you want to make things better for your enemy. this entire paragraph might just be be cos i base stuff on revenge if some one does something to me i want to make it equal like one time in year 5 a kid scared my face when he used to bully me 3 years later in 8 i saw him on the field and he started on me so i knocked the %$"&% outa him and scared his face in the same place as he scared mine thus making things equal

but in my deference i wasn't saying that two wrongs make a right i was saying that if we cant do that to them why should they be aloud to do that to us.

my second statement is that you said it your self war crimes are to stop opposing sides being cruel of unfair there the word's i have been looking for cruel and unfair is being aloud to do what ever you want in a war unfair YES and why should we be at the disadvantage to them.

in your defense though i compleay agree that innocent civilians should not have to pay with there lives ore any thing alse for that matter but since when do terrorists care about the civilians so why should we have to pay with our lives when we cant take theirs. and what if the people are not civilians what if they are oposition the people trying to kill us why should we show mercy to them why cant we strap them to a char and kick the "%$&* outa them till they tell us what we want to here. when they can do that to us. in my oppinion if you have the power to do something and not have any reprocutions from it do it its only your gain

and again this was written at about one in the morning and sorry about me being quite nasty and brutal about what i have typed up but it just really peves me off when i hear about stuff like this oh and the spellings yea im not to good with them
=)
Tophatdoc

Con

" also the statement two wrongs make a right makes sense as it just makes things worse for both sides but if someone were to approach you and punch you in the jaw would you just stand there and do nothing or would you punch them right back and make it equal"

Just because we do it or are capable of doing it does not make it right. As I said this is a fallacy.

"this is just my opinion you might just stand there and take it as yes it would make things better for one of you but why would you want to make things better for your enemy."

A physical altercation and a war are incomparable. There are more than two people fighting in a war. Innocents are involved and harmed.Infrastructure is dismantled. Leadership is in disarray. None of these thing happen in an altercation.

"but in my deference i wasn't saying that two wrongs make a right i was saying that if we cant do that to them why should they be aloud to do that to us."

Who said their allowed to do it to us? When these opposing forces attack, do they ask the United States for permission to fight? They are doing as they wish. They have not been "allowed" to do any thing.

"but since when do terrorists care about the civilians so why should we have to pay with our lives when we cant take theirs"

In wars, the United States does take the opposing forces' lives. A war is inherently violent so we are intentionally are attempting to end their lives. Just because there are war crimes does not mean we can not kill in a war. As I said terrorists are not a state or a formal organization. There is a reason why the Americans are still fighting in Afghanistan. That is because they don't know who to negotiate with in the Taliban. It is not an elected body or a formal body that has a leader(1). Versus if the United States lost, the opposing forces could negotiate with our elected officials.
(1)No Easy Task: Fighting in Afghanistan-Bernd Horn

" but since when do terrorists care about the civilians so why should we have to pay with our lives when we cant take theirs. and what if the people are not civilians what if they are oposition the people trying to kill us"

To kill civilians while fighting terrorists or insurgents, only brings us deeper into the conflict for the worse. Insurgency and terrorist conflicts don't take place in "battlefields" usually. The fighting takes place where civilians live. The United States should of learned from Vietnam where Vietnamese civilians who had relatives killed aided the Viet Cong to get back at the Americans. Currently, the United States is relearning what happens when you kill civilians in southern Afghanistan(2). Many of these civilians are aiding or joining the Taliban. As General McChrystal said "Because of civilian casualties, I think we have just about eroded our credibility here." Fighting an insurgency is different from fighting a conventional war where the war formally ends.

(2)http://www.thenation.com...#

"why should we show mercy to them why cant we strap them to a char and kick the "%$&* outa them till they tell us what we want to here"
The United States is a professional army that is disciplined not a band of brigands roaming the countryside. The US wouldn't do this even if there weren't any war crimes. The Army Field Manual states that prisoners treated humanely will more likely give valid information over prisoners who are physically tortured(3). Physical torture produces unreliable information from the person being interrogated. Essentially, they would make up information to stop being tortured(4). Inadequate intelligence leads to wasted time and effort, and worse the possibility that lives will be lost in a misadventure.
(3)http://www.fas.org...
(4)http://www.cgu.edu...

"in my oppinion if you have the power to do something and not have any reprocutions from it do it its only your gain"

Wars are fought based on thought out opinions. Your encouraging recklessness would cause more Americans to die. The civilian population would turn on us and then we would lose if we did what your recommending. Insurgencies can't be won once the civilian population turns against you.
Debate Round No. 2
randomcow909

Pro

randomcow909 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
randomcow909

Pro

randomcow909 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments. It appears my opponent has forfeited the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
randomcow909

Pro

randomcow909 forfeited this round.
Tophatdoc

Con

Extend all arguments.

I would like to thank Pro for starting this debate. If you believe that I have presented a strong argument for the existence of war crimes; Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
don't=do
Posted by theta_pinch 2 years ago
theta_pinch
technically two wrongs don't make a right since you could say two wrongs makes a double negative.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Just for clarification, random cow is for the existence of war crimes?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
randomcow909TophatdocTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full points go to Con for coherent arguments. Pro forfeited and had shocking grammar to boot, as such points to Con. The debate was interesting until the forfeit, although I must say I hardly understood Pros points at times. Con gets source points for providing sources.