The topic for this debate is "The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

"semperfortis" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"chissler" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

I welcome one and all for reading this debate and I also thank my opponent and those behind the scenes who are lending their time to allow this to take place.

---

---

"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

This is what we're here to discuss over the next few days.

There are several ways to approach this topic and I believe my approach of openness and honesty to the subject will prove to be superior. Allow me to break down this subject for us to illustrate where I believe the emphasis should lie.

"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country."

This is a general statement being made. We're not talking about the beaches or Normandy or the troops on the front-line in Afghanistan after 9/11. We're talking any soldier, any death, at any point in history. We're saying that a soldier who gave their life for their country is the greatest honor a man can achieve. The greatest!

I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.

As much time as I spend showing our readers that there are far greater honors in our lifetime than to die for your country, I will also address just that.. the death of our soldiers on the battlefield. This is a mindset that the system attempts to instill in their soldiers. That in death that you are achieving a status that nobody can match or take away. Convincing young men and women of this would make it a bit easier to put a gun in their hand, ship them across the world, point them in the right direction and tell them to kill! You would think more elected officials who are sending these men and women off to war would be enlisting their own children to go. So that their own children could have the ability to attain this level of honor. But they don't because they know that the greatest honor they can achieve is going to be in some form of live and not death.

Considering this is the greatest honor, surely there would never be the need for a draft and force citizens to enlist against their will.

I will expand on this more in future posts, but to put it simply.. the greatest honor a man can achieve in life is likely surrounded by life and love. Not death. And what my opponent supports is that in death we are achieving the greatest. Not in life, not in love... but in death. I disagree.

---

---

1. Since WWI, in an estimation, how many American soldiers have been killed in friendly fire?
2. If the greatest honor is to die for your country, is it safe to say the troops returning home to their mothers and fathers have achieved less honor in their fight?
3. Let's assume for a second I am a member of the FDNY on September 12th, 2001. Please explain to me how my efforts yesterday pulling men, women and children from the burning buildings is less honorable than a soldier who died in Iraq or Vietnam.

---

---

None of us can really say what is the greatest. My opponent states that he can and he is telling us what that is. I'm not. I'm simply saying that there are many feats in life that are equally as honorable as a man or woman dying for their country. And if there are equals to this, than a man dying for their country is not the greatest honor a man can achieve.

Thank you.

I will need my extension

Should have my post up tonight however.

"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

Semper’s Reply #3

Rebuttal:

This is what I was saying in my last post, not what was quoted out of context.

I quoted you directly

You really need to stand by what you say or perhaps be more clear.

So when I bring up the Nazi soldiers that fought for Germany in World War II, suddenly we're not speaking in absolutes anymore.

If you check closely, the Topic is..

"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

Not… ALL Soldiers that die for their country do so honorably.

Your attempt to confuse the issue is showing a weakness my friend.

It also does NOT state ALL Soldiers..

In fact.. It does not say SOLDIER at all..

Socratic Question #1

“In your opinion can a Police Officer die for his country?”

Sacrifice and honor are not synonymous.

Of course not, but they are amalgamated in the verbiage we are using up to this point. One can have or perform one without the other, but there is no denying that under the circumstances I have previously outlined, to give great sacrifice is to achieve great honor. The greatest of course is to die in service to one’s country.

I can sacrifice my job to care for my children. That alone is not honorable. It is what I do with my free time for my children that is honorable. My opponent continues to try to blur the lines on these concepts

It is you who is now exposed for “blurring the lines” to use your verbiage. For when you sacrificed your job for your children, you achieved honor. Not when you took them to the park for Frisbee practice.

Sacrifice is much more socially acceptable when we sugar coat it with a lining of honor.

At what point have we devolved as a species so much that sacrifice need be “Sugar Coated”?!!!!??? Where has our values gone when sacrifice is just not enough? Sacrifice is what we who serve do, it is all we have. We have given up the pursuit of money, success and time with our loved ones in order to continue to serve. Ridiculous…

Socratic Question #2

“In the context you have outlined above, at what time is personal sacrifice NOT socially acceptable?”

1. Each and every day. I haven't given the utmost in death, I've given the utmost if I gave it 100% each and every day.

That is simply not true and an answer I would expect from someone that has never needed to give their all. There is only one measure to account for “giving all you have” and that measure is death.

If you live through it, you will/should always wonder if you could have given more.

I was in a run at the last quarter of Boot Camp and finished 3rd. My Drill Instructor came over and asked me why I finished third. I stated “I gave it all I had” and he looked at me and said this:

“When you cross the line and fall over dead you will then know you have given all you have; you will have taken 100% of your life and used it for this one thing. Until then, everything else is less than that.”

He was a wise man.

2. There is absolutely no connection between my death and our continuation of life.

So you don’t believe that in a conflict there can be one person that makes the ultimate sacrifice and turns the tide? One man or woman that makes all the difference?

I'm also not naive enough to think that the continuation of our way of life is only found through battle and death.

And yet you are naïve enough to not know that at times it is.

We are all capable of earning the greatest honor possible and we can all have a different route in achieving this honor.

I only quoted the last sentence you wrote for brevity, but my reply is to the entire post.

Everything you wrote about is wonderful, no more than that, it is cozy and a nice read; but it in no way in Hades compares to the Marine charging the machine gun nest so that a particular hill can be taken. It is not even close to the helicopter pilot that dies in a crash attempting to evacuate wounded men.

There is a reason the Congressional Medal of Honor is ALMOST always given posthumously. And yes, to answer your next question; some men have attained the CMH and lived; but as you have so clearly stated we are not talking in absolutes so I expect you to live up to your own post.

Is this not honorable?

Yes. There is also honor in stopping your car to move a turtle out of the highway. Yet this does not compare to the Firefighter that loses his life rescuing children from a burning building, or the Police Officer that is killed while trying to apprehend the rapist, or the Ranger shot and killed while on patrol in Iraq.

Answers to Socratic Questions:

1. What line of work are you in?
2. If a soldier believes in the fight they are fighting for their country, are they men of honor?
3. If a parent jumps in front of a bullet to save the life of their child, is this less honorable than a soldier who jumps on a grenade?

1: I am a career Law Enforcement Officer.

2. That depends on the nature of the fight; some are, some are not.

There is right and wrong in this world, honor can never be wrong.

3. Yes. The parent is being heroic in the need to carry on the blood line, the Soldier is completely altruistic in love for country.

First, while I understand why, my opponent seems fixated on the military. There are many professions that men engage in that “serve their country”

Firefighters and Law Enforcement are two; in my humble opinion.

Second, it would appear my opponent equates feeding his family to dieing in combat. Ludicrous at best, at least delusional.

While my opponents question in reference to my line of work is transparent, I will expound on that somewhat.

Yes, I am a Law Enforcement Officer and a Combat Vet. I was also sadly unable to obtain that greatest of honors and die for my country. Now before any of you start thinking I’m suicidal.. All that means is I live wondering if I could have given more, maybe enough that more of my comrades could have come home. That maybe in many ways I robbed this great nation of some great people by not dieing in their stead. Perhaps a great composer or great orator.

I continue each day serving and yet find the years passing and me advancing in rank so that there is less and less chance for that honor. At this point, it appears the Lord has other plans for me. Which is alright as I was able to and continue to honor those men and women that have given the ultimate and achieved the greatest of honors. Those that have died in service to their country.

So whether I convince you or not, I have never doubted for a minute that:

"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

Thank you

Semper

Glad to see us picking up some steam. Same trend as my other posts. I'll respond to my opponent to begin and then look at recent Socratic question and answers. I'll conclude this post with a continuation of my position on how they are more ways than my opponent asserts to achieve this level of honor we're speaking to.

Away we go.

---

Before I get into the thick of it, let us begin by acknowledging the teeth my opponent showed in the last post. When in doubt, get aggressive! Very interesting.

Of course not, but they are amalgamated in the verbiage we are using up to this point. One can have or perform one without the other, but there is no denying that under the circumstances I have previously outlined, to give great sacrifice is to achieve great honor.

Only in re-reading this paragraph did I really grasp how much was fit into this short snip. A lot to address here. First, no they are not amalgamated in anything we have said so far. And yes I do agree that you can perform one without the other. And what you've stated at the end here is your opinion, not fact. I disagree wholeheartedly that to give great sacrifice is to achieve great honor. It is my opponent who has combined these two and it is I who has been keeping them separate. As I've said, and will continue to say, that people blur the lines on these two in order to justify sacrifice. I'll touch on this again later.

For when you sacrificed your job for your children, you achieved honor. Not when you took them to the park for Frisbee practice.

I am so in awe of your position on this.

Quitting your job is not honorable in this situation. If I quit my job and begin to abuse alcohol and drugs, rather than caring for my child, how is it honorable? In your example, regardless what I do with my spare time, the act was an act of honor. But that is not the case. It is most certainly what you do afterwards that is met with honor. The sacrifice was the job, the honor was the act of caring for my child. Completely separate.

My opponent's latter section of his post also leaves me in awe. My opponent and I are good friends. We chat frequently off the boards and in all honesty, I'd consider him a friend. He has disclosed some personal information to me in our chats and I know some places he's been and some things he is done. My opponent is absolutely worthy of the greatest honor that a man can achieve in this lifetime. Why? Because he's the epitome of what I've described up until this point. The guy who busts his ass each and every day to service what he believes in. Whether it is his country, his family or a group of anonymous people on a message board somewhere on the internet. He gives his all to the services he believes in. Honorable. And what's more is that in all of his accomplishments, he wishes he could do more. This is the honor that I've spoken to. I'd gladly bestow the same honor to my opponent as I would to Oskar Schindler. Without blinking an eye.

Why?

Because we're discussing two men who knew what they believed in. We're discussing two men who knew what they needed to do and they did it. They knew it was right, they knew it was necessary and they did it to the best of their ability. We could not ask for more. Not the marine, not the cop, not the moderator.. but the man.

This is what I've attempted to illustrate throughout this debate. Each and every one of us are capable and each of us can travel the route in front of us to achieve this honor. In my opinion, from what I know of my opponent, he has. (Even if he doesn't, I bet his wife would!)

This man doesn't need to take a bullet or jump on a grenade to attain this honor we speak of. He's already there based on his actions each and every day.

---

---

Socratic Questions.

“In your opinion can a Police Officer die for his country?”

1. Police officers serve communities, towns, cities, etc. Not countries. So no, I don't believe a police officer dies for their country.

“In the context you have outlined above, at what time is personal sacrifice NOT socially acceptable?”

2. It's not that sacrifice is socially unacceptable. It's that people are easier accepting of sacrifice when we sugar it up with the ideology of honor. I believe them to be separate.

---

I'm now going to respond to the answers my opponent provided to my recent Socratic questions.

I asked the following.

If a parent jumps in front of a bullet to save the life of their child, is this less honorable than a soldier who jumps on a grenade?

Yes. The parent is being heroic in the need to carry on the blood line, the Soldier is completely altruistic in love for country.

I just can not accept this answer and I also have a tough time believing you actually believe what you've said. You reserved the term altruistic for the soldier and not the parent? Honestly, I'm just in awe of your position on this.

---

---

Positions have been clearly established and we have each clearly put our foot down where we stand on certain examples of sacrifice and honor. In the opinion of my opponent, there is a singular level of honor that is reserved for a specific population of citizens and it can only be achieved through death in defense of your country. A very specific and restricted route to honor. In my opinion, everyone is capable of achieving this honor and their route to it is determined by their own choices in life. Whether it is being a good parent, a good citizen or just a good person, we all have different approaches in how we can be honorable. But not only honorable, we are all capable of attaining the greatest level of honor achievable.

“When you cross the line and fall over dead you will then know you have given all you have; you will have taken 100% of your life and used it for this one thing. Until then, everything else is less than that.”

There is a difference in taking things literally and then words that are used to motivate us. Clearly the quotation above was nothing more than a motivational technique to have soldiers push themselves. Something like this should not be taken literally.

---

---

Socratic Questions to my opponent.

1. In battle or as a police officer, have you ever saved a life?
2. Do you contribute time &/or money to charity?
3. Are you thankful that you returned home safely able to live and share a life with those that you love?

---

"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

Semper’s Closing:

I must have read my opponent’s post ten times and I still have no real idea how to respond. I have considered him a close friend for a long time now, but had no idea he felt as he does about me.

I am humbled.

I also hate to lose, so I will continue.

But first let me say this:

Chissler, thank you for being my friend.

Rebuttal:

Police officers serve communities, towns, cities, etc. Not countries. So no, I don't believe a police officer dies for their country.

Is not the very core of a country the communities, towns and cities? As a country is made up of the people within, how does the location they live in differentiate them from the country as a whole?

I am sorry but I just can’t fathom the difference..

You reserved the term altruistic for the soldier and not the parent? Honestly, I'm just in awe of your position on this.

As you know, I am also a parent and yes, I do feel this way. I guess it is a combination of my experience as a parent and soldier and police officer.

As I have stated several times throughout this debate, there are several different kinds of honor and several different levels, but the greatest is of course reserved for the greatest of sacrifices.

There is a difference in taking things literally and then words that are used to motivate us. Clearly the quotation above was nothing more than a motivational technique to have soldiers push themselves. Something like this should not be taken literally.

Something like this should not be taken literally.

Socratic Question #1

“Why Not?”

Answers to my opponent’s Socratic Questions:

1. In battle or as a police officer, have you ever saved a life?
2. Do you contribute time &/or money to charity?
3. Are you thankful that you returned home safely able to live and share a life with those that you love?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes it is my greatest regret. I know this is not the definitive answer you were looking for, but it is honest.

Closing:

This topic was very personal to me and I have wanted to debate this issue for a long time and wanted this particular opponent to debate it with. I am very familiar with and appreciate his viewpoint often to the exclusion of even my own.

This is not going to be a typical closing as I am done attacking the topic and just want to ramble some, if I may.

I think that in many ways, I was looking for the answers my opponent has given in this debate more than I was looking to win. (Although I would love to win)

See I struggle with these issues on a continuous basis and at times it is fairly overwhelming. To illicit and obtain such a clear viewpoint as my opponent has provided us here, to me is priceless.

While I think I have more than proven my side of this debate, there is no discounting the passion and conviction my opponent clearly has shown us and for this, I again thank him. I have much to ponder now.

In the end, I still think:


"The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

Thank you

Semper

As I am in most debates that I've participated in, I am disappointed to see this one end. It's been a great experience and I enjoy the back and forth exchange that comes in our debate forum.

I'll be responding to my opponent's closing post and then wrapping up my position with a few more words of my own.

Allow me to say now, before I begin, that I thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate. I can only hope that you've enjoyed it as much as I have.

---

---

I responded in my previous reply that I do not believe that police officers die for their countries. My opponent responded with the following:

Is not the very core of a country the communities, towns and cities? As a country is made up of the people within, how does the location they live in differentiate them from the country as a whole?

I began playing hockey as a child at the age of 5. I continued playing until I was 18. I also played baseball every summer for the same years and even still play a bit of baseball to this day. I represent my community in this team as the name of our team is the name of our town. I'm not playing for my country. I see the point my opponent is attempting to make and if this is what he believes, I certainly understand it. But I personally don't connect the dots. If you represent your community, than you're not representing every community in your country. And if you're not representing every community in your country, then you're not representing your country. Thus, in my opinion, police officers do not die for their country.

---

I'm now going to look at the answers my opponent gave to my recent Socratic questions.

I asked my opponent if he has ever saved a life as a marine/police officer and if he donates time and/or money to charity. He has responded yes to both of these questions. I'm not surprised. These are all feats of honor that my opponent should carry proudly. If a soldier goes to battle and dies, his life stops there. The next week he can't go out and save the life of a comrade. He can't go home to his family and tuck his kids in at night. He can't go down to the local homeless shelter and spend some time helping those that are less fortunate. He's not able to write a cheque for a few dollars to help the local food bank give a warm meal to a single parent family over the holiday season.

The greatest honor that we've spoken of so much in this debate exists in all walks of life.

Before I move on from this section, I would just like to acknowledge my opponent's Socratic question in his closing statement. The rules do state that there are to be no Socratic questions in any closing post. With that said, I would still like to respond to it as I intended to speak to the topic.

My opponent quoted a motivational technique from a previous drill instructor of his. When I stated that this should not be taken literally, my opponent posted the following Socratic question.

“Why Not?”

The quote again:

“When you cross the line and fall over dead you will then know you have given all you have; you will have taken 100% of your life and used it for this one thing. Until then, everything else is less than that.”

Why should this post not be taken literally?

"Fall over dead!

As it has been your position through this debate that you've only achieved 100% in death. If you're still breathing, than you've not reached 100%. And I believe the above quote has truly influenced you well beyond the training of your younger days. In life, you can give it your all, you can give it 100% without having to actually die. I don't see this as any well kept secret either.

So the above quote should not be taken literally and it should be taken as it was likely intended to serve, a general statement intended to motivate.

---

---

As a reader of this debate, I think you have to ask yourself the following question.

What do you believe?

Do you believe that the highest honor one can achieve is restricted for the very few who have an opportunity in life to say they've represented their country? And of those that were able to represent their country, it is only bestowed upon those that die. And, as my opponent agrees, even those that die are not worthy of it.

This is a pretty select group that we're dealing with, as presented by my opponent.

OR

Do you believe as I've stated? And that is that everyone is capable!

As a reader of this debate, think of a role that you fulfill each day. Is it something to do with family? Is it something to do with your job? Maybe some charitable position you hold. Only you can speak for yourself.

"We're here for a good time, not a long time!"

We have but one life to live. And in this one life, I only hope that each of us live it to the fullest. Help yourself, help your fellow man, help your community. Do what you can do. The simple truth in this equation is that some can do more than others. We're not all equals when it comes to physical and mental capacity. But are we going to say that a young man born with Down's Syndrome is not capable of the greatest honor? Are we naive enough to think that a genetic disorder a man or woman is born with is going to restrict them from the honor we've discussed?

As I've said, we all have a different route to this pinnacle of honor. My journey may be shorter or longer than yours. It may have a few detours along the way. But the one truth that we can not turn our backs to is that you, I and everyone reading this has a path in front of you that can take you on this journey.

You do not have to serve your country, you do not have to go to war and you do not have to die in order to achieve this accolade.

---

---

So with that, I'm done!

This has been a great experience and I'm glad I was able to discuss this topic with this opponent. We've talked about it for awhile and it was every bit of what I hoped it would be and then some.

Thank you!

The results are in and the victory goes to chissler.

semper & chissler, this was an amazing debate!! You both came out of the gates full bore, and fought valiantly to the very last. I must admit that I'm in awe of you two. I've not seen a debate quite like this yet. As a frequent reader of the debate forum, I'm pleased to see the level of passion being expressed by the debaters, as well as the moderators that participate themselves. It's commendable. That being said, I would now like to get to the part that I've been called to do...

semper,

You came out right away, defining what you expected the topic to cover, and set up a very hard to defeat position. I found this approach very reassuring, as it sets you up for future posts.

However, as the debate went on, there were a few points which you seemed to have an issue with. Namely, you maintained that giving your life for your country was the single most honorable thing that anyone could do. I feel that I should ask a rhetorical question here though... What about giving my life for a complete stranger, or group of strangers? Does this not equate to the same level as dying for one's country?

The whole concept of dying for one's country seems predicated upon the notion that we're dying for our own, and nothing more. This would seem synonymous with chissler's analogy of dying for a child vs dying for your country.

What about those that willingly give their own lives for someone who is not related to them in any way, by nationality or heritage? These I think attain TRUE honor.

As far as your argument goes, it was sound and certainly contained everything needed for a win. But we'll get back to that in a bit.

chissler,

You opened up with a bang as well, and immediately set out to set up your side, as well as to begin refuting semper's claims. You clearly state what your goals are, and you back them up with evidence.

As with semper's side though, you seemed to get stuck on a point caused some concern.

You state that the only true way to achieve true honor is not by serving your country, but by serving people in general. While this, on it's surface is a noble standpoint, it seems to stand juxtaposed to all those that fought for their country before. You state:


My opponent believes that the greatest honor a man can achieve is through dying for his country. I do not. I believe that the greatest honor a man can achieve is attained through life and the way we live it.


While both you and semper are sharing an opinion on this, it should be noted that BOTH opinions achieve honor on some level.

Which one is superior is subjective. As the reader, these two issues throughout the course of the debate stood out the most, as they were the most contentious points.

All this being said, it is the opinion of this reader that chissler held the better argument, but only by a slim margin, as semper had an argument that was virtually as solid as chissler's.

I had a great time reading this debate!! I'll keep an eye out for you two in future debates!!

Congrats Chissler!!

The topic for this debate is "The greatest honor a man can achieve is to die for their country.”

"semperfortis" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"chissler" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Opening Statement
Semperfortis:
Makes an eloquent opening statement regarding honor and its’ meaning in relation to a warrior’s mentality.

Chissler:
His contention is that making the most of life and love is no less honorable than seeking death as a patriot. His view is extremely thought provoking.

Round 1
Semperfortis:
Basically states that there are other ways to lead an honorable life; it’s just not as honorable as making the ultimate sacrifice for one’s country. He side-steps answering Socratic question #3.

Chissler:
Death is the great equalizer and honor is granted by those left behind who remember them. He has taken his opponent neatly to task for his answers to every one of his three Socratic questions – a deft blow to his opponent. He asks a pertinent line of questions.

Round 1 goes to chissler.

Round 2
Semperfortis:
He has become defensive of his previous remarks in rebuttal. He has also worked himself into a tight corner by implying that the deaths of servicemen from other countries in the heat of battle are completely devoid of honor dependent upon the country of origin – and his personal perspective. In other words, honor is a matter of individual perspective – not necessarily the ultimate sacrifice. It is strange to see him imply that the deaths of Nazi servicemen are not honorable, whereas the deaths of Japanese servicemen somehow are honorable, as both countries committed unspeakable acts of war atrocities.

Chissler:
He takes his opponent to task for attempting to differentiate honorable deaths in military service to countries of origin – another deft blow. He answers the Socratic questions posed to him admirably. He also poses another pertinent line of questions.

Round 2 goes to chissler.

Round 3
Semperfortis:
Again implies that men who die in service of their country are only deserving of honor if it fits “his” individual perspective. In other words and honorable death is not an absolute – it is a matter of personal perspective.

I was completely startled by his answer to the third Socratic question:
3. If a parent jumps in front of a bullet to save the life of their child, is this less honorable than a soldier who jumps on a grenade?

“Yes. The parent is being heroic in the need to carry on the blood line, the Soldier is completely altruistic in love for country.”

I fail to see how a parent’s ultimate sacrifice is less honorable than a soldier’s. Again it comes down to a matter of personal perspective.

Chissler:
He reasserts his position that the greatest honor can be attained in how we live our lives and not necessarily if we die for our country. Makes compelling points regarding his opponent’s stance.

Round 3 goes to chissler.

Closing Statement
Semperfortis:
His closing statement is both sincere and heartfelt.

Chissler:
His closing statement is nothing short of poignant.

Overall, both opponents made strong, compelling arguments for the most part. However, in the end chissler was able to not only consistently maintain his stance, but to point out certain weaknesses in semperfortis’. The win goes to chissler.

Difficult debate to judge for comparing something as subjective as degrees of honor is by definition elusive.

Having said that, below are the crucial elements of the debate, or at least the ones that captured my attention.

Semperfortis' contention that some combat deaths stand up to the "greatest" honor standard but not all are "honorable" by definition had me scratching my head on several occasions and wishing for further clarification.

Semperfortis states in this regard:

My point was that like in life, there are cowards in the military as well. Being killed while running away is not an honorable death.

Therein lies a serious "hole" in this position for it negates that dying for your country is by definition honorable. Furthermore this is indicative of semper's continual qualifying (nazi soldiers for example) that he perceives some battles and some countries less honorable than others. Precisely because this may be true, it is contradictory by the definition of his debate position.

In fact chissler jumped on this inconsistency:

Originally posted by semperfortis
We are discussing ALL soldiers that have stood to defend that which pulls at the true patriots heart strings. Home and Country.


Chissler: All soldiers!

So when I bring up the Nazi soldiers that fought for Germany in World War II, suddenly we're not speaking in absolutes anymore.


Furthermore, in a debate where the topic is in great part subjective, the outcome hinges on a few salient argumentative points.

In this case the most important aspect of chissler's argument was the following question and answer:

"Let's assume for a second I am a member of the FDNY on September 12th, 2001. Please explain to me how my efforts yesterday pulling men, women and children from the burning buildings is less honorable than a soldier who died in Iraq or Vietnam.

To which semperfortis responded:

If you died while performing this action, you died for your country…


That is fundamentally incorrect. Others might view it as such retrospectively in the case of 9/11, but a fireman's job on a daily and less advertised basis is to help others for it's own sake. Not as the debate topic states for "country." Semperfortis further tried to broaden the "country" terminology by stating:

"Yes. There is also honor in stopping your car to move a turtle out of the highway. Yet this does not compare to the Firefighter that loses his life rescuing children from a burning building, or the Police Officer that is killed while trying to apprehend the rapist, or the Ranger shot and killed while on patrol in Iraq. "


But again, this is incorrect. As this is a crucial element of semperfortis' argument, stating once more "I am sorry but I just can’t fathom the difference," I begrudgingly took the liberty of researching several fireman and EMT oaths and none that I could find mentioned the word "country." I say begrudgingly because if this was indeed as semperfortis contended he really should have provided source material to substantiate this claim.


Overall, semperfortis' argument is passionate and true, but it is mostly based on a personal understanding that he has having served his country. Though it may be the truest truth to him he has imo failed to communicate its virtues to the lay person who has not served. This may be simply due to the fact that one has to have lived it to understand it, yet for the purposes of a debate that understanding needs to be conveyed to the reader and cannot be accepted as a given.

Ultimately I keep going back to chissler's 9/11 fireman example. For even if one is to accept all that semperfortis has put forth in this debate at face value, the "sacrifice/altruistic/honor" dynamics are almost identical to those of a soldier dying for his country. That by definition negates semperfortis' argument that dying for your country is the "greatest" honor. His position at best may have concluded that "sacrificing one's life for your fellow man" is the greatest honor but did not conclusively argue that doing so for country supersedes all other such sacrifice. Again, even if one accepts the "ultimate sacrifice" premise as the foundation for "the greatest honor," as chissler pointed out there are many who display this virtue for other motives than country. Semperfortis throughout this debate failed to convince that "country" specifically should be regarded as a foundation for higher honor above all others when "the ultimate sacrifice" is made.

My judgment is in chissler's favor.

In closing I would like to say that it was a privilege to read this debate for it exemplifies how two people who are true friends can passionately express their disagreement only to further strengthen that friendship as a result. In the process setting a shining example of all that is best about the ATS community.

Congratulations My Friend!!!

You won far more than just this debate. You also managed to further build the respect I have for you.

I thoroughly enjoyed this debate and learned much.

Thank you

Semper

I usually open up the results of a debate with great anticipation to see how it ended. This time though it was a little different. If I lost this debate I think I'd still feel as good as I do right now.

Some victories aren't measured with winning and losing.

With that said.. I'm very excited at the thought of avenging a previous loss to semper. That loss was still burning me!

I'm sure we'll see a rubber match in the future.

I tip my hat my good man. This was a lot of fun.