CreateDebate


Debate Info

21
12
I agree. I disagree.
Debate Score:33
Arguments:19
Total Votes:44
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I agree. (10)
 
 I disagree. (7)

Debate Creator

Sitara(11100) pic



Obama says that soldiers have to be fired upon to receive combat pay. Do you agree?

Please look at my first comment to find a link to the article, then select the answer that reperesents you.

I agree.

Side Score: 21
VS.

I disagree.

Side Score: 12
4 points

This is a fallacious title. The new rule says that only those in areas of danger will revive Imminent Danger Pay ("combat pay").

Supporting Evidence: The Facts (www.snopes.com)
Side: I agree.
Sitara(11100) Disputed
1 point

You are wrong. I tell the truth. You must be Obama supporter. Yuck.

Side: I disagree.
Apollo(1607) Disputed
4 points

Look at the link. I clearly shows the fact. You chose to ignore them and soaked up the right-wing bullshit lies and propaganda. They can't challenge Obama's record, so they make up lies. And people like you believe it. Very typical of the entire party.

And yes, I do support Obama. "Yuck?!" What kind of an immature response is that?

Side: I agree.
Bohemian(3867) Disputed
2 points

Firstly, I want to start off by saying that I am an Army National Guard Soldier, I've been deployed once to Southern Afghanistan in 2009 and I am being mobilized again, I will be in southern Afghanistan again for 2012.

I want to clear up some confusion. The only real change has been to how pay is calculated, and not as is suggested by the conditions under which it is allotted. Imminent Danger Pay used to be given in a single amount after reaching a specific number of days in pre-set locations considered "imminent Danger zones". I actually have the regs for this on a CD sitting on my coffee table right now. They changed it so that the Imminent Danger Pay is calculated relative to the number of days that was spent in that Imminent Danger zone, as opposed to being just one flat rate every month or so. The conditions for receiving this pay are the same as they've always been, it's just calculated differently. Don't let politics construe this into something it's not.

Conditions are here:

http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/special-pay/hostile-fire-and-imminent-danger-pay.html

Side: I agree.
1 point

And red is blue, pigs fly, and I have a pet unicorn..................................................................

Side: I agree.

It's combat pay. You don't get paid for combat if you haven't experienced combat. I think the context of the words would make this answer obvious.

Side: I agree.
2 points

OMG, I can't even believe he would consider doing this. First of all, I never served in the military, but I have the deepest respect for those who have and are serving us today. Why? Because the only reason the United States has the ability to even think we are the best country on earth (not say we are, but believing we have a chance to rank ourselves amongst the best) is because of what every single individual in our armed services has done for our country! If someone is working in the US or a friendly country and in no imminent danger, then I don't think they should receive combat pay. On the other hand, if you are being shipped off into an area that is a war zone, has insurgent, has people who want to kill you, mame you and torture you, then I think you deserve combat pay. I hate to think what would happen if Obama gets reelected for a second term!

Side: I disagree.
Conro(767) Clarified
3 points

Check out Apollo's link. It very clearly states that the soldiers who are put in danger will be given combat pay. Don't trust everything Ismaila posts to be 100% true; it seems she is prone to exaggeration.

Side: I agree.
2 points

I know, right? I do not want Obama elected for a second term.

Side: I disagree.
Bohemian(3867) Clarified
1 point

I put this on the other side, but it's worth repeating:

I want to clear up some confusion. The only real change has been to how pay is calculated, and not as is suggested by the conditions under which it is allotted. Imminent Danger Pay used to be given in a single amount after reaching a specific number of days in pre-set locations considered "imminent Danger zones". I actually have the regs for this on a CD sitting on my coffee table right now. They changed it so that the Imminent Danger Pay is calculated relative to the number of days that was spent in that Imminent Danger zone, as opposed to being just one flat rate every month or so. The conditions for receiving this pay are the same as they've always been, it's just calculated differently. Don't let politics construe this into something it's not.

The conditions are here:

http://www.military.com/benefits/content/military-pay/special-pay/hostile-fire-and-imminent-danger-pay.html

Side: I agree.
2 points

That is in fact not what Obama has said.

And if it was true: no I would not agree. Being in a danger zone should ( and does ) constitute for hazard pay.

Side: I disagree.
1 point

http://bigpeace.com/jbernard/2012/02/11/ obama-soldiers-in-afghanistan-must-be-fired-upon-to-receive-combat-pay/ I disagree. This is a great disrespect to our troops. They give their all to this country, so the government owes them in return.

Side: I disagree.
-2 points
garry77777(1797) Disputed
1 point

"People risking their lives (police and military), their, sanity and their body parts to protect the masses should be paid more then they are not less. "

The military aren't risking their lives to protect the safety of the average american, they are fighting illegal wars and committing acts of terrorism overseas in order to secure the interest's of a tiny elite minority.

Side: I agree.