It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We’re not talking about the beaches or Normandy or the troops on the front-line in Afghanistan after 9/11.
We're saying that a soldier who gave their life for their country is the greatest honor a man can achieve. The greatest!
that there are far greater honors in our lifetime than to die for your country
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!
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.
Ultimate
–adjective
1.
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats.
2.
maximum; decisive; conclusive: the ultimate authority; the ultimate weapon.
3.
highest; not subsidiary: ultimate goal in life.
Sacrifice
the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
Considering this is the greatest honor, surely there would never be the need for a draft and force citizens to enlist against their will.
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.
For those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, we are grateful that such men and women were among us. For those who continue to serve, we honor their commitment. For those who return to civilian life, we honor their service.
[Steve Buyer]
Not everyone that dies in combat, dies honorably.
“What greater honor can a man achieve than to throw his body on a grenade and save the life of his comrades; all in the name of cause and country?”
How can any sacrifice be as great, or greater than that which costs one’s life?
What would you describe as an action as intense as performing something that you know will kill you, but you do it to save others. Ie. For Country?
How is the word “Ultimate” dissimilar to the word “Greatest
In death on a battle field, I am not achieving this honor.
"The greatest honor history can bestow is that of peacemaker." -Richard Nixon
My son and your son go to war. Your son is killed by the enemy and my son is killed in a friendly fire accident. So in your words, my son did not die an honorable death and is less honorable than your son.
Honor is bestowed on those for who they are, not for what they do.
Once my son and your son depart on that mission, both are men of honor.
It is achieved through servicing what you believe. To serve your children is no less honorable than to serve your country.
We're not debating the greatest sacrifice, we're debating the greatest honor.
When it comes to sacrifice, I can not think of a greater sacrifice than that of our life.
And I don't see how you did anything that you knew would kill you. Maybe the possibility existed, but it obviously wasn't an absolute or we wouldn't be having this debate.
Not family, country. Not servicing your country, just death. Only by dying can you attain this great accolade.
Oskar Schindler protected almost 1,200 Jews during World War II
1. Explain to me, as if I was one of the 1,200 Schindler's Jews, that what Oskar Schindler did for me is less honorable than a Nazi soldier who died for Germany?
2. Do you believe it is not what you do but how you do it?
3. Are Nazi soldiers just as honorable as American, Canadian & British soldiers?
Survivor, survivor's, or survivors guilt or syndrome is a mental condition that occurs when a person perceives himself or herself to have done wrong by surviving a traumatic event.
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.
“Imagine yourself a soldier. At what point can you KNOW you have given the utmost?”
“If you could give your life to ensure the continuation of your country, your way of life, would you not do so willingly?”
This is what I was saying in my last post, not what was quoted out of context.
So when I bring up the Nazi soldiers that fought for Germany in World War II, suddenly we're not speaking in absolutes anymore.
Sacrifice and honor are not synonymous.
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
Sacrifice is much more socially acceptable when we sugar coat it with a lining of honor.
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.
2. There is absolutely no connection between my death and our continuation of life.
I'm also not naive enough to think that the continuation of our way of life is only found through battle and death.
We are all capable of earning the greatest honor possible and we can all have a different route in achieving this honor.
Is this not honorable?
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?
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.
For when you sacrificed your job for your children, you achieved honor. Not when you took them to the park for Frisbee practice.
“In your opinion can a Police Officer die for his country?”
“In the context you have outlined above, at what time is personal sacrifice NOT socially acceptable?”
Yes. The parent is being heroic in the need to carry on the blood line, the Soldier is completely altruistic in love for country.
“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.”
Police officers serve communities, towns, cities, etc. Not countries. So no, I don't believe a police officer dies for their country.
You reserved the term altruistic for the soldier and not the parent? Honestly, I'm just in awe of your position on this.
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.
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?
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?
“Why Not?”
“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.”
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.