Login/Sign Up




Should world leaders have to send there chirldren to wars they start
Society

sloth
Feb 16, 2008
8 votes
7 debaters
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
yes


vancam
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
For all the pomp and patriotic rhetoric mixed in with the medias dishonourable intergration of propoganda as part of news broadcasts, this would seem like a absurb proposition that has evolved into a sane one.

I predict less wars under this law an more thoughtful deliberation between the richest 1% of the planet.

 
sloth
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
yes becaues if it is there own family they are haveing to risk over oil and land of the country they may just take a seat and go maybe we might just have peace talks

 
sloth
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

no because if there willing to put other people children at risk they should be willing to do it with there own if they beleave in it so bad and so it would deter them from starting a war the was not necessary or just rong and it would bring a more peacefull end to the worlds problems. as the saying goes the few for the many.

 
thethinker
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

I think you missed the point entirely. This law is supposed to provide deterrence for unnecessary warfare, and its purpose is not to punish the children.

 
thethinker
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

Voluntary entrance into the army does not mean that the soldiers support unjust war and want to die unnecessarily.

 
booyakasha
Feb 17, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: xanthippa Show

very well said.

 
thethinker
Feb 18, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

No. You are going down a slippery hill of causation and misinterpreting the intention.

 
thethinker
Feb 18, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

Well, just because they serving the government doesn't mean that they support the government. For example, just because I work for Enron doesn't mean that I support unethical business practices.

 
+ Add Argument

4
no


booyakasha
Feb 16, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Make sure you don't spout your own rhetoric. Something like this is plainly wrong. You don't punish children for their parents mistakes. It's idiotic. It's EXACTLY like saying we should deport the illegal immigrant parents of citizen children.

I predict less freedom for %100 of the population.

 
xanthippa
Feb 16, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course, this assumes that the 'leaders' would have children who are:

1. Capable of military service (health and AGE wise! Imagine sending JFK's kid off to war at what, 3 years of age?)

2. Willing to give up their right of self-determination when their parent becomes a 'world leader' (they already have to give up their privacy, so why not self-determination?)

3. We require that their children go to 'military schools' - so they are indeed ready for this.

We would also have to specify if ALL the kids would have to go...or if only the oldest one...or if they got to 'draw lots'...

It would also mean that we would need a:

1. military willing to take in a 'world leader's child' - a unit known for this would become a 'preferred target', putting every other soldier in it into an 'undue danger'

2. We define EXACTLY what 'world leader' means....are we talking politicians only? Just how high do we go? Or do we include thinkers whose agitation provokes armed conflict? We need some 'clarity' here...

3. We define what we mean by 'sent there'.... Are we talking 'private' in the army? Or a REMF General (that woud be the British tradition, if I'm not mistaken). Someone looking after the supply chain? A CIO for the army? Or perhaps as part of the reconstruction effort?

4. Do we send the 'daughters' if they happen to be pregnant? Or do we force them to abort so they could not use this handy 'loophole'? Or just wait till they 'drop the kid' to send them off to war?

It may sound facetious, but unless these questions are examined, debated publically and agreed upon, we can't realistically talk about implementing a law like that....

 
booyakasha
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sloth Show

OK, well that woudn't even apply in an all-volunteer army like the US.

 
thethinker
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

1. This would end up preventing just and necessary wars as well. This causes more suffering.

or

2. There are many safe posts that the leader can send their children to. Then they can start war without worrying about their children, thus taking away all deterrence.

 
xanthippa
Feb 16, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

Perhaps the purpose might not be, but the outcome could not but be...

 
booyakasha
Feb 17, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

So the ends justify the means?

 
booyakasha
Feb 17, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

Of course not. Nobody would enlist if they thought they'd actually die. Serving in the armed forces means serving the US government. It doesn't matter if the gov't is right or wrong. You're f**ked anyway.

 
mydknight
Feb 21, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
My vote goes under no, simply because the question wasn't well defined. I am coming from an American point of view where, by and large, active participation in a war is a voluntary activity. Yes, we are all affected by the war, whether we support it or not, but the choice to go and fight on the front lines IS a choice. When you sign up for the military, you are signing up to go to war, ANY war, regardless of your thoughts on it. You are signing your body over to the government to make use of for any purpose they need (within limits of course) for that time frame...you sign away your choice to participate..but you do so full knowing that is what you are doing. Given the choice involved, I do not believe it is good to force the leaders to make their children go, given the volunteer nature of it.

Now...if we were talking about a war with a draft, where people who did not sign up were forced to go, then yes, their children should be every bit as eligible, if not MORE so than standard people. They should be forced to put some blood on the line for this war that they feel so strongly about.

 
debatedevil666
Nov 17, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The parents are responsible.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

society Abortion alcohol america Animal animals army art ban BBC black Britain British Capitalism child children Chinese Communism control convinceme council Court crime criminal culture death death penalty Debate Democracy drugs Economy education England english equality ethics EU evil food Frankie Freedom Gay girls good Government Great Britain health House of Lords human illegal Internet Islam Judge Justice language Law lawyer Legal lesbian Liberty life love marijuana marriage men money morals murder music Muslim Obama opinion parenting parents peace people police politics poor Porn pregnancy prison privacy punishment race racism religion Responsibility Rich Rights School science sex slavery smoking social society Students suicide technology terrorism the UK UN United Kingdom united states USA VanCam Video Games violence war weed white women world