Remembrance Day Should Focus Less On Honouring Veterans

Rebuttal:"So you don't think any cause is noble to fight for, well then lets take a historical look at all the causes that you must agree weren't worth fighting for, and the consequences that arise. It'll be fun on the bun!" I would like to clarify my point on this. It is not that I believe no cause is worth fighting for. I think that no cause is worth fighting and killing for. There is a difference. There are many ways to fight for a cause that don't involve killing. "1.The moors, who were Muslims had invaded Europe, and conquered southern Italy as well as Spain and Portugal. In 732 A.D they invaded France. They were turned back[1] by Charles "the hammer" (king of France) [2] , so using pro's logic France should have just let them conquer all of Europe, Western civilization would be nonexistent, and Europe would be like the middle east, sharia law for everyone!"The Battle of Tours, to which if I am not mistaken you are referring, was yet another war of conquest. The Muslims had invaded Europe in order to claim more land and resources. When they were forced to retreat by King Charles, he ended up claiming more land and resources for France.Would I personally prefer for Europe to have been conquered by the Muslims? I don't know. There's no way to know for sure what our society would look like now had that been the case. And yes, my position still stands that even in this case, fighting and killing should have been rejected."2. American Civil War, here's another good example of the consequences of using your logic, if the north had simply let the south have its slaves, then the south wouldn't have had a reason to secede and the civil war would not have occurred. However there were 4 million slaves in the Southern Confederacy[3], all of which would still be enslaved today, and the treatment of slave was horrible[4]. They were whipped and beaten, separated from their families they could even face death if they learned to read! And yet pro thinks that it would have been fine for the North to not fight slavery and secession, because he believes that no cause if noble to fight for."Do you honestly believe that there was no other option than to launch a civil war in this case? For example, those involved in the underground railroad were able to free slaves without fighting and killing."3.The Korean War was fought between what we now call North and South Korea, with the U.S and U.N fighting for the south, and China for the North. Again using por's logic we should have not gotten involved in the war meaning that south Korea would be like the north, which is not a very nice place to live, with its starvation and tolataian government[5]."This is a widely debated topic. Many Americans do not believe that soldiers should have been sent to fight in the Korean War. "SO SOMETIMES WAR IS A NECESSARY EVIL BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE "PEACE" ACTUALLY WORSE!"As I've already asserted, I disagree. Young people fighting and killing each other is neither necessary or helpful in any way. "Ok well, couldn't we thank veterans AND reject war? Soldiers above everyone else want peace! Because there the poor saps who will have to fight." Why are you under the impression that soldiers have to fight? It is up to each of us to work towards peace, including soldiers who can choose not to fight. "No, i think life is very valuable, and is obviously worth more than a trip to jail, but i may have understated punishment for not fighting, Great Britain alone shot 306 Soldiers for desertion[6], and this is missing the point because if war is fought for a actual reason, unlike WWI, then you will have to face consequences like the ones i listed above. So Soldiers in manny situations have a strong reason to fight." You mention that 306 soldiers were shot for desertion in Great Britain (I assume you are referring to soldiers who deserted during WW1). And how many young men were killed in battle? A far higher number. If all of those soldiers had refused to fight, first of all it would have been impractical to kill all of them for desertion, and secondly the war would not have taken so many lives on either side. "So useing pro's logic we should have let Hitler have his Third Reich, and his final solution (the extermination of jews). And your also arguing that are allied soldiers fighting against the axis was bad specifically due to the loss of life, and yet you'd be ok with millions more Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Gays and Slavs, being killed.Which whould have resalted in manny more deaths in the long run, For the sake of preserving life? That's very hypocritical of you." As I mentioned before, there are many ways to fight for a cause. I would absolutely not have been okay with the extermination of the Jews, or any of the other groups you mentioned. However, I believe that in every situation there is always an option preferable to killing. "What you said is completely unwarranted! You provided no sources, and only used your own warped sense of history to make your point. Of coures hitler wasn't directly responsible for the"rounding up, imprisoning, and killing millions of Jews". Thats because it whould have been impossible for him to kill all those million's people on his own, (his arms would get tired after shooting the 200th jew). It was because of him, and political figures like him that the holocast happened, not soldiers, and to suggest otherwise is silly, Canada had soldiers so did Great Britain, but no holocaust. But sure Hitler was a nice guy, i could really see how his soldiers mistook such a compassionate, kind, loving man, lets see what hitler had to say about jew's[7]!" What I said was based on common sense. You say yourself that it would have been impossible for Hitler to personally kill all of those people on his own. In that case, it is necessarily true that without the soldiers who carried out Hitler's orders, the deaths would not have happened. Hitler was not a nice guy, but he was an intensely charismatic leader. He was able to mislead the young men in his service to think that getting rid of the Jews was necessary for the good of Germany. If those young men had refused to carry out his dirty work, how would he have accomplished it? "Why shouldn't we "gloss" over the deaths of nazis? The rest of your statmen is pure opinion." Because Nazi soldiers were young men just like our allies. Their lives had just as much value."Ok, thats nice? How does that prove your statement? We could both honor our vets and talk about the horrors and loses of war, they often go hand in hand." The reason that Germany's National Day of Mourning is relevant to my argument is that they seem to have a better understanding of the horrors of war. Closing Argument: My position in this debate is that Remembrance Day should focus less on honouring veterans. Young people attend the Remembrance Day ceremonies and are misled to believe that there is honour in waging war, and that serving their country through answering the call to fight and kill other young people is something to aspire to, something worthy of praise. My argument has been that by inspiring these feelings in youth, we are sending more young people to their deaths. There is no right or wrong side to a war. No heroes or villains. Just young men and women who are fooled into thinking that they are doing the right thing, in the best interest of their home country. Instead of continuing to feed these thoughts of honour, heroism, and duty to one's country to our youth, we should be using Remembrance Day as a reminder of all casualties of war. And also as an opportunity to work towards peace.