The french are cowards

Framework: 1) No timeline on the resolution, so we'll take the view holistically. 2) "Coward" is not a synonym for "incompetent", "dumb" or "frail". The ability to act is not what defines a coward, it is how they act. This will be brought up later. 3) "The French" doesn't mean "The French Government"; if it meant that, it would say "France", rather it means the french people on the whole. This will also be brought up later. ==Pro Contentions== (he doesn't outline any real points, it's more just an incoherent mass, but I'll group the arguments and refute accordingly. I'm also going to correct his grammar because Mozilla Firefox is giving me annoying red lines.) Pro C1: "The french people demonstrate cowardice in civil life." - He cites the following examples: "[The French] have proved to be very annoying when things don't fall their way: by going on strike, closing the channel tunnel and attempting to bring Europe to a halt." What I don't see here is how this fits the definition of a coward. If a coward is one who REFUSES to act in the face of opposition, and the french frequently act against their oppressors then my opponent seems to be advocating a negative point here; he outlines that through France's strong social policies, labor unions and political activism they demonstrate supreme courage despite actions that could cripple their strength and perhaps threaten their very existence. At this point, it makes more sense that the french citizens do not demonstrate close to cowardice in their civil life, and rather are courageous in action. Pro C2: "The French demonstrate cowardice in military action." He gives two examples, WWI and WW2. I'll address them separately. WWI: "Next, the Great War. Many Americans have always mocked France, telling anyone who'll listen (and plenty who won't) that the French would have been speaking German if America hadn't joined the first world war. Let's think about this now. The war lasted four years, and France lost around 1.5 million soldiers fighting for freedom, while on the other hand, America joined for the final 6 months and lost around 130 000...Lest we forget Verdun in 1916. For nigh-on ten months the French defences held their lines. The General in charge of the fighting in Verdun, Henri-Philippe Petain, was once quoted as saying "Ils ne passeront pas!". Literally, "They shall not pass!"You will excuse me if I make the leap of calling a total of 220,000 men (which was the original number, before reserves were drafted in) holding a line against one million enemy soldiers for over nine months an act of bravery." [1] WW2: "When it comes to the Second World War, things, one might argue, get a bit blurry. That is, if you're as short sighted as to call what France did cowardice. By 1940, Germany was moving fast across Europe, and France was the obvious target. Belgium and Holland attempted to stay neutral, but were overrun. Their failure to warn France of Germany's strike from the Ardennes caused France to improvise their defensive maneuvers, and France consequentially could do nothing to stop the onslaught of Germany's tanks. Facing pointless slaughter, the French Premier -the very same Henri-Philippe Petain who held Verdun- asked for an armistice. The war, France decided, would have to be fought from the inside. Which it was. Throughout the rest of the Second World War, the French Revolution helped greatly, infiltrating German groups, stealing important documents, and keeping detailed notes on everything happening inside the country. The French Resistance had an immeasurably great part in operation Overlord (the Normandy landings), apprehending the plans for the defensive walls to be built on the Normandy coasts before German troops even knew about them. Throughout the run up to the Normandy landings, detailed maps of the personnel, troop maneuvers, ammo stocks, morale and innumerable other facts saved thousands of lives and helped to bring the war to a faster end. The French resistance were better placed than any trained spy could have been, and more practically minded." [1] I encourage you read [1] http://www.ubersite.com... for more information. ==CON CONTENTIONS== the points that I craft out of rebuttal are listed above and they provide adequate incentive to vote CON. However, I provide a third and unique reason: Con C1: We must not perpetuate the kind of reasoning the PRO advocates. - Simply put, the mentality of the PRO by characterizing a group of people as "cowards" is blatant ignorance that reflects the years of slavery, bigotry and dehumanization that has been shoved aside in recent years. This mentality has lead to numerous inhumane actions against minorities and other oppressed groups. To vote for PRO is to OKAY this mentality, and that simply cannot be done. Regardless of any other points, one has a MORAL OBLIGATION to negate. I reserve the right to impact this case later