Debate Info

Yes No
Debate Score:23
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes (6)
 No (11)

Debate Creator

TheThinker(1697) pic

Should Army Men and Women Have Families?

This may be offensive to those who have somebody in war. If you can't handle my opinion, then don't comment on this debate.

I understand that somebody has to do the job. And i respect those who fight because i get to do the thing i love. They are brave and courageous.

However, i think it is selfish of them to go to war when they have a family or about to have a child. Some parts of me think there should be a law of Army men and women to not start a family or have a family other than their original family. Why? Because they leave the women and their children behind in stress and distraught.

I do think it is not selfish of them to fight in a war. Because they are fighting for the people they love. I understand that perspective. However, in another perspective it is selfish. Especially for the child. And for the mother or the spouse who has to do the hard house cleaning work.

This is my opinion. I think it is fact. And don't get me wrong, some parts of me thinks that creating this law is outrageous and ignorant. Everybody deserves a family. And besides, a family is worth to fight for. But i don't think they "should" start a family.




Side Score: 7


Side Score: 16

Yes, they should have families, it is much easy just not to go to war with every country.

Side: yes

If they want I think every one should be able to have families!

Side: yes
1 point

Everyone should have a family. People to care about and who will care for you. People to go home to after the war. Otherwise you have no one, and even if you have friends, you will be quite lonely. Family is an important part of life.

Side: yes
Niko(127) Disputed
1 point

Just to clear this up before I dispute, I am not against men and women in the Army having families. It's their decision over whether or not they do. Freedom of choice.

In all honesty, not everybody should have a family. Yes, they are beneficial, but in all honesty, not everyone should because it'll eventually cause overpopulation, unless most families only have one child.

Side: No

I understand your arguement and agree with it. Tho, having a family doesn't mean overpopulation. If this was the case, the child would be adopted instead of produced. :)

Side: No
1 point

Such a law has serious flaws to it.

To begin with, consider a scenario where an 18 year old boy has a child since he was 16. Unplanned, unexpected, a mistake if you will. The 16 year old boy decides to keep the child, and attempts to do his best. Now let's say a war were to break out. At age 18, this boy, now a man, decides he wants to fight for his country. If we have a country where this is sort of the status quo (Consider the current levels of teen pregnancy) less people will be eligible to join the military. Further, even in peace times, the amount of people protecting the country from potential threats would also be dwindled down. The law wouldn't be able to truly cover these possibilities because they are common place and purely accidental.

Further, the law would have to state which kind of family a soldier could not have, for is not your parents part of your family? I'd be willing to bet that, statistically (And no I don't have any to back me up on this, so I admit the possibility I'm wrong) that most of the current individuals fighting in our armed forces are individuals who, if not for the military, would still be living with their parents for one reason or another. I'm currently 21 and am in this scenario. Because i have siblings and a mother, should this not bar me from military service? If all we can get in our military is those who have no relatives, or only distant ones, then our military would be run thin and almost meaningless.

On a moral level, I don't see a moral quarrel with the act in and of itself. The immoral thing to do would be to purposely have a family in order to cause them suffering by going to war and never being with them. Note the word purposely.

Side: yes

They have the right to. Simple.

Side: yes
1 point

aaaaaaah come to think of it i never actually thought about this before 0.0 hmmm i think tht maybe if they put a law tht army men and women should be people who are single is kinda btr, i mean some women dont have a brave heart and could have a heart attack if something happens to their loved ones at war. same goes for the women in war too...allot of people have a weak heart and i think tht maybe its better if the ones sent to fight dont have a pregnant wife or young children...i guess...

Side: No
1 point

i was downvoted bcz.......? i had an opinion abt this topic or bcz.......? XD perhaps i said something tht was i dnt think i did 0.o

Side: No

I just want to let you know that I the author didn't downvote you.

Side: No
3 points

hehe i would never think tht, even for a bit. cz if u, the author downvoted me (which u ddnt) , u would have stated the reason...and the one who did downvote left no print ;P

Side: No
1 point

They should not have a damm family because they will be worrying about there mom dad etc... and then when they get hurt of even death they leave baq a son and daugther just because of the dammmmmmmmmm armyyy

Side: No