Instigator / Pro
48
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Topic
#2799
On balance, Accuracy is More Important than Volume of Fire
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 7 votes and with 41 points ahead, the winner is...
Sum1hugme
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1588
rating
23
debates
67.39%
won
Description
BOP is shared.
Pro - On balance, Accuracy is More Important than Volume of Fire
Con - On balance, Volume of Fire is More Important than Accuracy
Fire -The shooting of projectiles from weapons, especially bullets from guns.
(https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/fire)
Hope this is fun.
Round 1
Thank you Patmos for this debate. This won't be a long opening.
In this debate, I will seek to demonstrate the importance of accuracy over volume of fire.
"Fast is fine, but accuracy is final." - Wyatt Earp
1. The principle
When engaged in conflict, it is the duty of the fighter to actually hit what he's firing at. Humans have been known to survive huge barrages of fire, and return fire right back. The whole point of firing at the enemy, is to hit him. Even suppressive fire is typically used for maneuver, and maneuver is used to kill and demoralize, which requires accuracy. At the end of the day, without accuracy, the projectile is not being used to its full effectiveness.
2. Cost
It will always cost more to fire many projectiles at a target, than a few accurate projectiles. No matter what the projectile is, this is a truism.
3. Shooting
An accurate shot from a gun is far more likely to hit the enemy in the vital areas that are always small targets, such as the head. Furthermore, the purpose of practising shooting at a gun range is to improve the accuracy of the shooter. It is obvious that the accuracy of the shooter is more important than the amount of bullets he can propel downrange.
4. Bombs
In the past, it was common for armies to employ the strategy of carpet bombing. The devastating collateral damage of which would kill civilians and military personnel indiscriminately. Since then, armies have shifted to more precise techniques. A precise bomb strike will always cause less collateral damage than bombing runs in aerial bombing attacks.
Concerning the use of rockets and such, in Grozny, it was the placement of the anti-tank strikes, not the volume, that allowed the numerically inferior Chechens to destroy entire convoys of vehicles. "...entire tank columns were effectively paralyzed by the immobilization of the lead and trail vehicles."
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, accuracy is more important than the amount of projectiles that can be propelled at a target. When shooting a gun, dropping a bomb, or firing any other projectile, prioritizing accuracy over volume costs less, causes less collateral damage, and is more likely to eliminate the enemy.
Forfeited
Round 2
Extend.
Forfeited
Round 3
Extend.
Forfeited
Interested ?
It's a victory that isn't worthwhile to the victor. In the end, they accomplished their objective and occupied the hill, but their losses made it not worthwhile.
In my opinion, not necessarily
This is a subtle teaching that isn't directly taught, in Sun Tzu's art of war. It refers to the idea that if you can do more with less effort AND resources to ALWAYS do so. The balance of effort vs resources isn't directly taught though.
That is called a pyrrhic victory. But still a victory.
Mostly what I mean is situations like Bunker Hill.
The British took their objective, but the Americans defended the position so well that taking the objective wasn't truly a "win" for the British.
In ancient greece, one tangible way of knowing you won was when the routed side requests permission to retrieve their dead.
Well there are the tangible rewards of occupied territory, or political domination of a region. Or even the ability to treat one's own wounded and retrieve one's own dead.
Hmmm... "winning" is ambiguous and depends on what the objective is. I guess that's for the better if you're CON however.
Winning battles in general
Towards what end?
Suppression, survival or the elimination of the enemy?
On a "lighter" note, if you like war stories, you should read "Across the Fence" by John S. Meyer, or "Storm of Steel" by Ernst Junger.
Yeah you ain't kiddin'
haha, you can use examples from history as you'd like. I mean, most of human history hasn't had guns.
I hadn't. That's heartbreaking.
Stalingrad was brutal. Have you ever heard of Tanya Savicheva? She was a russian child who recorded the date and times of her family's deaths in her Diary, all the way down to the last one, her mother:
"Mama on May 13th at 7:30 in the morning, 1942
The Savichevs are dead
Everyone is dead
Only Tanya is left"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Savicheva
if the resolution was "in 1500's", I would take Con side.
It was. I read a book on Stalingrad. It was extremely depressing. Both the Soviets and the Germans were incredibly brutal and completely heedless of human life. The descriptions of the bitter cold and the frostbite turned my stomach. I'm very glad that there hasn't been a third world war.
That's true. I've been going hard on Military History for a little while now. It's really incredible what all has happened. One account I read about was from this guy who was a German Soldier, left stranded to die outside Stalingrad with 300,000 of his fellow soldiers. It was horrible, and the flow of propaganda from the Nazi state was trying to sugar coat the fact that they left several armies of loyal Germans to their deaths at the hands of the Russians, in the freezing Winter, with 1/5 provisions, for weeks. It was just madness.
The guy telling the story has like a whole realization that he's literally been fighting for evil this whole time, ruining lives because they were winning.
Cool. There's never a bad time to learn more about history.
He's the most decorated US Marine in history. He was awarded five Navy Crosses.
Ok. I don't think I've heard of him before.
Chesty Puller's biography, "Marine!" lol
Was this inspired by stormtroopers or the British Grand fleet at the start of the 20th century?