The Instigator
Evannnn
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Nicoszon_the_Great
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A bigger military enforces more individual rights.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Evannnn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 449 times Debate No: 57042
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Evannnn

Pro

Quick debate on military size and how a larger military means more individual rights. First round is for acceptance. Max character number is 500, to add difficulty and make things faster. No organization set for each round, use your writing space for whatever you want. Thanks! I hope for an interesting debate.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Con

I accept this argument.

I disagree with my opponent, I believe that a larger military force would actually hinder individual freedoms of a nation to a certain extent.
Debate Round No. 1
Evannnn

Pro

If people feel unsafe they are more likely to give up their personal freedoms in exchange for their protection. A larger military equals a larger feeling of security, giving people less incentive to keep their individual rights. Pre-WWII, for example, Hitler came into power because Germany's people were economically unsafe, and unsafe overall after WWI. This made people resort to giving him Power.

By the way, a nation doesn't have individual rights, only people do. Your comment lacks sense.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Con

1) My comment referred to a nation as a group of people, so my comment was merely misunderstood.
2) Germany's depression was caused by WWI Germany's large and oversea loud military.
3) The conscription of a very large military would be a deficit to the nation and it people because a) it would require a large portion I the population to surrender personal freedom in joining th military and b) would be far too expensive to maintain, resulting in a post-WWI Germany, Post-Revolution England, etc
Debate Round No. 2
Evannnn

Pro

1. Your comment was not correctly laid out
2. Germany's depression was not caused by Germany's large military in WWI, it was caused by the Treaty of Versailles forcing Germany to pay for all the damages caused by the war.
3. No members of the population would be forced into joining the military, I never mentioned anything of the sort.
4. If people feel more safe they will work more, creating money that can be used to fund a larger military.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Con

In order to have a large military, you need a lot of soldiers. And assuming we're talking about a country like america, soldiers and resources are few and far between. You cannot have any of this without spending a lot, and it's just too much to be maintained.
Debate Round No. 3
Evannnn

Pro

Interesting, instead of rebutting my points, you seem to have just restated what you have already said. An odd strategy at the very least, as I have already responded to your point about the price of a large military.

As for soldiers, a "bigger military" isn't only based of enlisted population. It's also about having more arms, weaponry, and technology.

When people feel safer, they will work harder and earn more money, because they will keep more of their individual rights.
Debate Round No. 4
Evannnn

Pro

I presume I win then?

If you didn't like the 500 word limit, you could of just not accepted the debate.

Anyway, a larger military doesn't necessarily mean attacking other countries or going into battle more, it just means more means to self protect and defend in case someone else strikes against you.
Nicoszon_the_Great

Con

I forfeit, I overestimated my ability to debate in this manner
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
Check this out: http://www.debate.org...

I had this debate about 3 weeks ago, where I also tried the 500 word limit. Although nobody voted, it turned out surprisingly well. This is why I added the word limit here.
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
It's hard to fit all that in 500 words.
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
kk.
Posted by barnesec 2 years ago
barnesec
Germany collapsed because the economy and its capacity to borrow were tapped out funding WWI. They ultimately didn't lose any territory, but had to surrender due to lack of materiel. Treaty of Versailles wasn't really enforced, wouldn't say it helped either though. France suffered too and they were on the "good side" of the Treaty of Versailles.

No mention of the 2nd amendment and why the U.S. has had a standing military until post-WWII? Truman relieving MacArthur of his command? Petraeus after his successful counterinsurgency had a good deal of political power, could've run for President. Gen Keith Alexander's been running the NSA for the past 10+ years, when's he leaving? Drone strikes on U.S. citizens abroad, though perhaps conducted by the CIA, were certainly manufactured by a defense contractor that exists because it's part of military-industrial complex (see Ike). Militarization of the police as the equipment that can no longer be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan is marketed towards police departments.

Any money spend on military hardware is money not spent on other things. Military hardware has no inherent economic benefit. It's money that could be spent on infrastructure, education, or even given back to the citizens in tax cuts or govt benefits, i.e. economic security. Military spending also leads to militarism. We have this big military, why not use it? Individuals always have fewer rights during war. Lincoln suspended haebus corpus during the Civil War, military tribunals anyone?
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
It's not that I don't like challenges, I thought I was up to this but you're right? I obviously do need some more practice in debate before attempting something like this. I concede
Posted by Evannnn 2 years ago
Evannnn
Forfeit then. I seem to be doing fine.

If you are able to use 500 words to state even the core basics of your points and rebuttals, you should be able to put together a good debate. Otherwise, you have to practice a little more.

What, you don't like challenges?
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
Look, it is pretty unrealistic to expect a detailed rebuttal of your points when we only have a 500 word limit, with which we only really have space to go back and forth with our points.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
EvannnnNicoszon_the_GreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
EvannnnNicoszon_the_GreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeits.