CreateDebate


Debate Info

11
13
yes no
Debate Score:24
Arguments:18
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (6)
 
 no (7)

Debate Creator

AndyisHitler(8) pic



Are most soldiers evil cunts or poor saps who don't know any better?

You have to be either really stupid or really evil to risk life and limb for the sake of western imperialism.

yes

Side Score: 11
VS.

no

Side Score: 13
2 points

Well its both isnt it? you got a mix of people who are true believers that what theyre doing is righteous, you have some who are just psychotic and want their own personal adrenaline rush. You have some who realize what theyre doing is wrong and have a moral crisis. and you have others who grow numb to it or even enjoy it.

You have people who do it just for the free college or career training. The young and poor have alot to gain from it potentially

Side: yes
1 point

A soldier has to lack intelligence to want to fight and kill people he personally has no grudge against because a rich man told him to. He then has to be convinced that he is doing it for "muh freedoms" even though the typical theatre of war in some middle eastern desert was never a threat to "muh freedoms". His only role is to follow orders which was also the defence at Nuremberg. Soldiers in all wars are known to commit gross atrocities on civilians and it is naive to think our soldiers are not like that because we are the "good guys".

Therefore in summary, a soldier is at the very least stupid and is supported by people of similar intelligence who support an us vs them world view (even though "us vs them" changes constantly). I believe many soldiers are sadistic too but thats just anecdotal. To say that soldiers are "societies finest" is a joke.

Side: yes
Nomoturtle(716) Disputed
1 point

On the grand scale of things your disdain for soldiers seems unfounded. Would you rather everyone in your country let the Nazis have their lebensraum? We're fortunate to have come this far, even if those that died getting us all here are turning in their graves.

Why do you think the military exists in the first place? It's as though you're completely unaware of the reality of nations on our planet. I suppose you think they're just around for the powerful to stay in power? Yes, the military can be manipulated to the desires of those controlling it. That does not void the purpose of the military, or the ambitions and values of those within it.

Had soldiers not died defending values your situation today could be vastly different. Germans losing WW1 meant their people - regular civilians that had little to do with the war - suffering forced poverty to the point of starvation. In the past conquered civilisations were killed and enslaved in massive numbers. Was the American revolution and the following civil war not also fought by soldiers simply chasing ideals? It is thanks to them that they no longer have slaves. The argument for becoming a soldier even can be as simple as not wanting your family to be on the wrong side of a boot.

Not all soldiers commit atrocities. Some do. I can only imagine why tbh. Maybe they're high on a power trip, egged on, lonely, dehumanising the victims, vengeful at the loss of their friends, or just lose sanity. Your 'no good men' reasoning applies to non-soldiers too, there are circumstances beyond verbal comprehension that can ellicit these behaviours in the best of us. Heck, for the soldiers that come back with PTSD, the cause is often them learning what they and others were capable of.

Us vs them? The 'us' is always the same, that's the point. The military isn't chasing the obviously variant 'them', but defending the 'us', typically those close to them.

Side: no
JamesDD(232) Disputed
2 points

On the grand scale of things your disdain for soldiers seems unfounded.

Unfounded? Lol. Soldiers are people employed by the state to go and kill other people the state orders them to. I'd say that makes disdain for them pretty damned far from "unfounded". They don't ask questions. They don't apply reason. They kill on order.

Why do you think the military exists in the first place?

Because greedy bastards have always wanted other people's shit. That's why.

It's as though you're completely unaware of the reality of nations on our planet.

And you are basing that on the fact he doesn't approve of state-sponsored murder? Nice.

I suppose you think they're just around for the powerful to stay in power?

Well the military didn't invade Iraq because I asked them to. Nor did they invade it because any of my neighbours asked them to. As far as I can remember the only people who have ever asked the military to go to war are the powerful. Are you saying that's a big fat coincidence?

Had soldiers not died defending values

Shut the hell up. That is a stereotypical appeal to emotion and one of the predominant reasons why you're an idiot. Soldiers are not paid to defend values. They are paid to fight whoever the state orders them to fight. You are living in a fantasy universe son.

Side: yes
LeeroyJenkin(5) Disputed
1 point

Whether or not the army has had its uses (even a broken clock is right twice a day) is irrelevant to the topic which concerns the individual soldiers morality.

The military exists in the first place for many reasons. On a deeper level I believe it exists as an external symbol of mans fear of his own death. We hate the thought of simply dying and long to be known for something courageous that will live on forever. So the military exists in order to give leaders a shot at immortality, and the soldier joins partly from the misguided notion of wanting to appear brave. From this base, we can see the military also exists as a way to both gain and preserve power and to show dominance over others.

Whether "some" soldiers have good motives does not detract from my belief that "most" soldiers are evil cunts or poor stupid saps. After all, even Nazis loved their pets. It is interesting that you have to go back to the world wars to find an even remotely justifiable war. It is as if you acknowledge the unnecessary horror of all the wars since.

"Us" is not always the same. At the moment "us" seems to incorporate Saudi Arabia and "them" seems focused around Iran. Trump is itching to get troops to support one of the worst human rights abusers in the world. The military are already on their way like the good little ignorant sheep dogs that they are.

Side: yes
2 points

Most soldiers are our brothers, friends, neighbors, sisters, aunts, uncles ….. etc.! Maybe YOURS are "evil cunts" or "poor saps that don't know any better", but MINE aren't! I don't even KNOW a lot of "those kinds of people". A FEW maybe, here on CD, like ….. well, you know, gun totin' outlaws and Indians, Hitler lovers, One OF me and all FOR me types!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Poor saps and evil cunts ;-) !

Side: no
1 point

Most soldiers are our brothers, friends, neighbors, sisters, aunts, uncles ….. etc.!

All the more reason why you should make them see sense. The way it works is very simple. The government sends them off to kill a bunch of foreigners, and despite what they are doing clearly being morally dubious, you are compelled to "support them" because they are members of your family. The government knows this, and knows it can send them off to kill and be killed with complete impunity, regardless of the basis (or lack of basis) for taking action. Look at Iraq and/or Afghanistan as the perfect examples. Are any of you Americans crying for the million or so killed as a result of those completely pointless and unnecessary conflicts? Nope. Even though they were 100 percent in the wrong, you still "support the troops". It's like a wet dream for capitalists.

And it's a recent thing to. It wasn't that way during Vietnam. People genuinely protested what the government was doing back then. Well, that is until Nixon ordered the national guard to open fire on them.

Side: no
1 point

Hi, Al.

Most soldiers are our brothers, friends, neighbors, sisters, aunts, uncles ….. etc.! Maybe YOURS are "evil cunts" or "poor saps that don't know any better", but MINE aren't! I don't even KNOW a lot of "those kinds of people.

Thanks for saying it.

Side: no
Chinaman(904) Clarified
1 point

Too clear this up is totin a gun some sort of violation of the law. Castle laws say that your vehicle is an extension of your home and your firearm can travel with you. If said person does not have a conceal carry permit that firearm must be concealed either in a center console , glove box or underneath the seat.

Side: yes
1 point

YO FM.

A bit of both I guess, but mostly the latter. Military propaganda targets the young and the poor, offering them a "better" way of life. It's very persuasive even here in Britain, so I'm guessing it must be at least equally so over there. The military is I suppose a great deal of things, but one of them is a brainwashing program. You are broken and then built back up again to think a certain way. This is especially true in the special forces, but it applies to the military generally. Hell, it even applies to the army cadets. I know because I used to go back when I was 12 or so. It can give you a great sense of belonging and that's something they really make sure you know about.

Side: no
1 point

You could call it the latter, but it's really patriotism isn't it? The belief that ones country is worth sacrifice. Wanting to defend traditions and ways of life against foreign influence; where in the past that meant defending your family against becoming slaves to a conqueror.

There are more sophisticated arguments to be made for 'national defense' however. Like if your country doesn't stand up for itself globally, are you confortable with leaving the spot open to exploitation by another actor? Having another country dictate what happens to yours with no say because you've no bargaining power to counter propose with.

Or what about some simple game theory? I'm all for gradual de-escalation and disarmament, but if a country has anything of value at all then war against it in order to sieze said value can be seen as an investment of sorts to foreign bodies. Serving in the military as a soldier means raising the cost of that 'investment' and dissuading invaision. Military is necessary because creation is difficult work, and stealing is easy in comparison.

Ideoligical stuff aside, it's also just a job. People need money.

Side: no
JamesDD(232) Clarified
2 points

You could call it the latter, but it's really patriotism isn't it? The belief that ones country is worth sacrifice.

I think the point is that this belief/value system isn't natural but rather indoctrinated into the individual as a means to serve the interests of power. These days Americans use the word patriotism only because it doesn't hold the same negative connotations as nationalism, but we're essentially talking about the same thing. Indoctrinating the citizenry to believe they have a moral obligation to the state. In the past this has been used to justify military drafts, wars, and all sorts of stupid behaviour.

Like if your country doesn't stand up for itself globally, are you confortable with leaving the spot open to exploitation by another actor? Having another country dictate what happens to yours with no say because you've no bargaining power to counter propose with.

That's a nice idea but history has shown us that it isn't that simple. Rather, when power is acquired by one particular country then that country (quite naturally) uses it to press further advantages for itself, usually at the expense of poorer (or less violent) nations. It never ends with simply standing up for yourself. Even worse, because of the patriotism you alluded to earlier, eventually people inevitably begin to feel they have a right to take from other countries, since the population has already been convinced of certain entitlements simply for being a citizen of that country. It worked that way in Rome, and it still works that way in the United States. Several thousand years of boom and bust empires is long enough to determine it doesn't work out in the end.

Side: yes
Nomoturtle(716) Clarified
1 point

Yes. That is probably OP's point. And my point is that their reasoning isn't necessarily indoctrinated into them. Patriotism and Nationalism isn't something unnatural. Loving ones country and wishing to preserve it is not unatural. Protecting ones family is not unatural. While they're often responsible for kicking the beehive, the state doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with it. The core values are already there, only to be exploited by an actor, not wholly implanted. People still become soldiers in peace time, devoid of state interference.

That's a nice idea but history has shown us that it isn't that simple. Rather, when power is acquired by one particular country then that country (quite naturally) uses it to press further advantages for itself, usually at the expense of poorer (or less violent) nations

That's exactly my point though. To avoid being the victim it is essential to invest in defence. Those that don't are wiped out by those that do. Regardless of what happens with said military or nationalistic ideals that you prophesize, one must first survive.

For individual nations defense is a no brainer. But even in the big picture, one ideal scenario is to have all parties be armed such that more is lost in attacking than would be possible to gain. I advocate deescalation as much as possible, but there comes a point where there would be too little resistance to a takeover, which becomes all the more likely. A military is necessary for peace. And wanting your country to survive does not necessarily lead to supremacy.

Side: yes