CreateDebate


Debate Info

24
23
Hell yeah No, I need some on my side
Debate Score:47
Arguments:25
Total Votes:56
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Hell yeah (12)
 
 No, I need some on my side (13)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(37455) pic



Should all military personnel become Oath Keepers

Hell yeah

Side Score: 24
VS.

No, I need some on my side

Side Score: 23

In the past, dictators have used the military for their own personal gain and purposes. The military should specifically spell out what constitutes a lawful order and what does not in order to keep the government in check.

Side: Hell yeah

It makes sense, you know, to keep things constitutional, but the site looks a little bit extremist. Like, people who are obsessed with the Constitution and dress up as Revolutionary War reenacters and have fake battles. Y'know?

Side: Hell yeah

But it has to look extremist, otherwise how else would you let the government know that you mean business ;)

Side: Hell yeah
MisterGuy(1) Disputed
2 points

"The military should specifically spell out what constitutes a lawful order and what does not in order to keep the government in check."

That's already been done in many military manuals. "Illegal" orders should not be followed at all. All soldiers should know that by now.

Side: No

I come from a military family. I have inside knowledge of what our troops are saying. Do you?

Side: Hell yeah
1 point

I myself think that people in the military honoring the oath they took might be our only hope at this point. I find it strange that this debate has received so little attention, so I evened out the score by up voting arguments on the side I agree with, and making this post to finally even the debate score.

Is there anyone left on this site who finds the oath keeper's stance objectionable?

Side: Hell yeah

Only the liberals are left. Oh crap...., the score is now no longer even ;)

Side: Hell yeah
3 points

This is terrifying. This is really, truly terrifying. The idea of having an army that will not obey orders is far more unsettling to me than the idea of an army under the control of a tyrant. Undisciplined troops can do far more damage than those tightly controlled, even by someone with terrible intent.

Then, most of these apply exclusively to American citizens, which is really unfair, and reeks to me of dangerous nationalism (in the words of my AP World teacher, patriotism on crack). They're all for protecting the rights of Americans, and only Americans. when it comes down to it most war crimes are not upon the subjects of the fighters, but the citizens of their opponents. There are notable exceptions, yes- but it's not our rights we need to worry about.

"We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union."

Well DAMN. Let's just bring back the Confederacy. Black, Asian, Hispanic? Rights REVOKED. Female? REVOKED. Poor? REVOKED.

Then again, those militias will save us! Oh, shit! Just kidding, they'll actually just kill people without due process and install their own military government, However, they have the RIGHT to do so.

This is such bull. Good intentions, but BULL.

Side: No, I need some on my side

The federal government has too much power. There needs to be checks and balances.

Side: Hell yeah
3 points

This is true, but that's what the media is for! Also, peaceful protest, etc. I could understand needing an oath like this in a country where the government was more shady, but even then, the threat of an unruly, armed mob is more than the threat of a disciplined army ordered to do questionable things.

Side: No, I need some on my side
MisterGuy(1) Disputed
2 points

...which are provided for in the U.S. Constitution, period.

Side: No
3 points

The army definatly has to have discipline. That is what the army stands for. You must have orders and people in charge to have a successful army

Side: No, I need some on my side