The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
13 Points

Current LD topic

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,201 times Debate No: 15733
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)




Full resolution;
"The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives."

Rules; This debate will take place in an LD (Lincoln-Douglas) format
If you are not familiar with this style, or do not know how to debate this style, then do no accept this debate. Accepting this debate and not debating in an LD format will be the equivalent of a forfeit of all seven points.

I will offer no further rules beyond those specified here;

The above link is also a fantastic source for debating this resolution.

Aff will start debate next round
the round structure will be a follows

1- Rules/clarifications
2- Aff constructive (6,000 character limit + or - 50)
3- Neg constructive/ Neg's Attack (7,000 character limit + or - 50)
4- Aff rebuttal/ Aff's attacks (4,000 character limit + or - 50)
5- Neg rebuttals/ Extensions (optional)/ Voters (6,000 character limit + or - 50)
6- Aff closing (3,000 character limit + or - 50)

Since LD is usually spoken debate, I am putting character restrictions here to even out he playing field. If you'll notice both debaters end up with a total of 13, 000 characters, so it's fair on both sides.


I affirm: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives

First, the definition of justified according to is to "show to be reasonable or provide adequate ground for"

Second, the resolution by the statement to pursue its military objectives implies that it is a means to do so, but that doesnt mean the U.S. will not pursue those objectives with a negation.

The value for the round is GLOBAL STABILITY:

1. The US is within the context of a global society. As such, we cannot separate the policy actions of the U.S. from the overarching impacts that are created.

2. All values are dependent on global stability. his is true because morality and justice cannot be exercised to the greatest extent if the environment in which it is being applied is unstable.

3. Global stability has the greatest link to any impact calculus, especially in terms of magnitude on the fact that the impacts being analyzed would be affecting the entire global community.

4. Reasonability, as implied by the resolution has to be weighed somehow. Global stability gives the largest encompassing weighing mechanism in the round since it is observable and weigh-able as opposed to other competing values like justice and morality.

5. The exercise of rights can only be maximized via a stable environment. If global stability is not maintained, the right to exercise ones rights would be impeded on a massive level. E.g. because of the war on terror, the patriot act was implemented

The criterion for global stability is: MAINTAINING US HEGEMONY

Kagan ’11 The Price of Power The benefits of U.S. defense spending far outweigh the costs Jan 24, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 18

Terrorists constantly search for safe havensto and carry out attacks. American military actions make it harder to strike and are why for a decade there has been no repetition of September 11. To the degree we limit our ability to deny them haven, we increase chances they will succeed. • American forces have for decades prevented the outbreak of major war, provided stability, and kept open international trading routes, making possible an unprecedented era of growth and prosperity.A nuclear-armed North Korea threatens war with South Korea and fires ballistic missiles over Japan someday capable of reaching Nations turn to Washington for reassurance If the U S cannot provide that assurance they will have to choose building nuclear weapons. In the Middle East, Iran seeks to build its nuclear arsenal, prospects of new instability in the region grow every day as a decrepit regime in Egypt clings to power, A nuclear-armed Pakistan seems to be ever on the brink of collapse. Prospect of war between Hezbollah and Israel grows, with it the possibility of war between Israel and Syria and Iran. Nations in the region increasingly look to Washington for reassurance, and if they decide the United States cannot be relied upon they will succumb to Iranian influence or build their own nuclear weapons offshore balancing it had led to great, destructive wars in the past and would likely do so again. Their new global strategy was more likely to deter major war and therefore be less destructive and less expensive in the long run. .

Contention 1: PMFs are necessary to maintain US hegemony

A) Military Readiness.

Rakowsky 2006 Kateryna, J.D. Candidate,

Experts recognize thatwithout contractors, our military simply cannot project itssuperiority abroad." The Pentagon estimates that there are approximately 20,000 civilians working in Iraq, "driving trucks, serving food and conducting other duties." Yet experts place figures at closer to 80,000 to 100,000, once security personnel are taken into account. (PBS) , observes that military contractors employ up to 155,000 individuals in Iraq, including those hired to handle support/logistics, security, and reconstruction efforts.

Allison Stanger and Mark Eric Williams, “Private Military Corporations: Benefits and Costs of Outsourcing Security,”

Outsourcing permitted the United States to allocate military resources more efficiently, thereby enhancing the military’s overall agility. Washington could have implemented its Andean counternarcotics policy without DynCorp or MPRI simply by deploying U.S. special forces By contrast, employing PMCs enabled Washington to implement its Andean policy without undermining America’s own military readiness by placing a larger reservoir of talent at Washington’s disposal without straining its all-volunteer force.

B) Air Power. Michael Rich; John Birkler; Mark Lorell. ―Defense Industry Goliaths, RAND Corporation. August 2003.

Today only three American companies—Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman—are capable of leading the design of a manned military aircraft, and major contracts for which they can compete will emerge only once every other decade or so. For perhaps the first time the U.S. military is relying on only one prime contractor to design and build its new tactical fighters: Lockheed Martin, an amalgamation of more than a dozen former major aerospace companies, is developing the F-22 and the F-35.

AND this is key to heg

Hazdra ‘01
(Richard, Major – USAF, Air Mobility: The Key to United States National Security Strategy, Fairchild Paper, August,

Air mobility is a form of airpower that should be exploited to its fullest because of the positive political gains from noncombat operations, deterrence, and combat when necessary. However, steady-state operations in support of the NSS have created an unprecedented use of AMC forces and resources that are currently targeted for wartime use. The United States is likely to continue a policy of intervention. The concept of rapid global mobility has become the means to achieve military intervention and, as such, has become the backbone of both military and peacetime operations. The force structure of AMC is straining to execute these steady-state operations. Further growth in these operations is beyond the capability of AMC's current force structure.

Meilinger ‘03
(Philip S., Retired Air Force Colonel and Dir SAIC, Air and Space Power Journal, 3-10,

The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon. Air and space dominance also provides our civilian leadership with flexibility. Air and space power permits new types of strategies that make war on things rather than on people and that employ things rather than people. This is America's strength- one that we must ensure.
Debate Round No. 1


As a Brief road-map I will be going NEG then AFF;

Since our founding the United States has been a country that has stood for Justice. In the name of this principle billions of men and women have died fighting for our country, they have willingly given up their lives because of how strongly they believe in this principle of justice. And it is because of this I must negate the resolution, The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

Knowing this I offer the value of "Justice", defined by as the quality of being just or fair.
If we wish to continue to live under democratic ideals, Justice is the highest value in the round; and we must look towards it.

I offer the criterion of "Rejecting the Affirmative stance". Again this is a value debate, and it is only by completely and utterly rejecting the premise the AFF offers that we can begin to evaluate this as such. I will explore this further in my attacks on the Aff

Obs 1: Empirical evidence-
LD is a value debate, not a policy debate. Thus when debating this issue the value premise must be the core aspect of the debate. We debate philosophy and ideas, thus when the debate is centered solely on evidence, debate cannot take place. It ends up being entirely one-sided, and the one who has the author with the most credentials wins. However we must utterly reject this stance.

Obs 2: BoP-
The burden of Proof is on the AFF; the resolution directly indicates this under the "Justified" clause. The resolution calls the AFF to prove this, and the NEG to simply negate the AFF.
Thus to fairly debate this, the AFF's job is to show the resolution true under their value premise, and the NEG's job is to show why PRO is false in their their constructive. Thus I need not present any contentions of my own, the only job I have to do; is disprove my opponent.

Obs 3: Value Premise-
Ultimately in LD since it is a Value debate, the most important thing is going to be the value. We must concentrate and look to the value to even consider the Contentions. Without a value the contention are useless.

with this I move on the the AFF

First off when looking at the value we see that is a state of being. When we think of "Global Stability" we do not make this the equivalent of of some-kind of ideal or inward belief, instead we see it as a destination we must get to, something we must achieve. Thus it is not a value, an cannot be considered.

Second, Global Stability begs. What I mean by this is we can never know when we've achieved Global Stability, because we do not know what is stable. This and the AFF never gives us a bright-line to know when we have achieved stability. So even if it where a viable Value, it would still be a lesser value because we don't know what constitutes Global Stability.

With these two things known, my opponent's Value points 1-5 fall as they are trying to build on a a premise that as we can see does not exist. And me must look to the value of justice.

With this we look at my opponent's Criteria of "Maintaining U.S. Hegemony"
First make a direct link between the Attacks on the AFF's value and their criterion; this is crucial in seeing why this weighing mechanism is so poor.

We see first that there is no value to guide such a Criterion; it is mindless action to achieve an end, that may not be a just decision.

Second, my opponent uses a card from Kagan in '11 to paint this scene that Terrorism is some all-inclusive thing that is the driving force behind all war, and while terrorism is a huge issue that does need to be addressed, it is not the biggest issue at hand. Looking at our history, this is something we've only really begun worrying about since the tragic events of 9/11.

Terrorism is something relative to those receiving the backlash of the the action. To us, Islamic bombers are considered terrorists; to them, they are considered heroes for fulfilling the words of their religious doctrine (Exercising freedom of religion, a basic American principle).

Third, My opponent's criterion is not something relative to all of mankind; it is only relative to United States citizens. So not only is this in complete clash with my opponent's value of "Global Stability". But is not an all-inclusive weighing mechanism.
Thus you cannot look to this value, you must reject the AFF stance (Thus adhering to the NEG value)

With this I move onto my opponent's sole contention-
I have but one sole attack here, and that is that this is strictly evidence with no analysis.
Make a direct link of this with my observation 1 on empirical evidence and we see that this contention loses any and all impact.

Thus in closing, my opponent does not a viable case; his value is faulty, his criterion is biased, and his contention has no further analysis, it's only evidence thus not viable in a value based debate. Keeping in line with the framers intent yo must no vote for the AFF, as there is no value based reasoning to do so.
Instead you must default NEG in order to uphold Justice.

For all of these reasons I urge a NEG vote in this debate.



v: Justice

--> No link to the resolution. XA definition of justified.

--> No warrant as to why we need justice in a democratic society.

VC: Reject Affirmative

--> Abusive framework. Frameworks are created sooth can potentially link in to make the ground of the debate fair. Fairness is a voter because one cannot have a substantive and good debate if the ground is skewed. Debate is a competitive activity. Fairness is necessary. Vote against my opponent as punishment for violating fairness.

--> No link to justice

Obs. 1

--> LD is a value debate, but that doesnt exclude empirical evidence. If its proven that the value and empirical evidence is intertwined then empirical evidence isnt precluded from the round

obs. 2

--> Negation theory doesnt exist in LD. LD is exclusively reciprocal burdens. If necessary we can reference the LD Rules guideline from the NFL website.

Obs. 3

--> Yes, values are important, but contentions are necessary to impact back to the value structure. The value seperate from any impact analysis is void of any meaning.


1. He says global stability isnt a value.

--> A value according to conceptions of LD is what the resolution asks what is important in the resolutional question. It does not have to be an ideal or inward belief. An end CAN be a value. Just like national security and safety are highly used values in debate.

2. GS begs the question

--> All values beg the question. How can we know when we achieve the ideal of justice? we cant. However, thats the purpose of the criterion. The criterion gives us the ability to effectively weigh and analysis the value o a "maximization" period.

3. VC is poor weighing mechanism

--> This is non-responsive. Hegemony and GS are intertwined. XA Kagan Evidence

4. No value to guide criterion

--> Um, that would make the value structure an infinite progressive stage. You would need a value and VC for every value and VC.

5. Kagan = Terrorism

--> true Kagan refers to terrorism as a drive for global instability, which is a case in a lot of instances. However, terrorism is only one link Kagan isolates. He also isolates the Korean Peninsula, other Arab States, Pakistan and India, and others. Moreover he isolates the benefits of free trade and cooperation. This is known as Hegemonic Stability Theory. The Hegemon is the driving force behind free trade which increases cooperation.

--> He then says backlash, and these terrorists are fulfilling their religious doctrine. This does not negate he criterion at all. Just because they think they are doing something good doesnt mean that the externality of increased global instability is negated.

6. Relativity

--> It is coming from a US standpoint, but that doesnt negate the warrant that U.S. Hegemony leads to global stability. Remember the value s "global STABILITY," not like "Global Perspectives" or "opinions"

7. Contention is empirical

--> XA answer to Ob. 1


1.The five warrants for G.S. This means G.S. has a DIRECT link to the resolution, much moreso than the vauge, unwarranted and unlinked value of justice

*1A* Dont let him warrant or link his V in the next speech, its new info.

2. The isolated links in Kagan, hghlighted above. This means U.S. Hegemony does directly link to G.S.

3. Rakowsky - PMFs necessary for miltiary readiness, and isolated link to Iraq and Afghanistan

4. Stanger and Williams - PMFs needed for specialized operations

5. Rich - the only military airpower industries are PMFs.

6. Hazdra - Air power is necessary for war effectiveness. Airpower necessary in U.S. hegemonic operations

7. Melinger - Airpower is the U.S. unique hegemonic ability. Airpower is key to maintain heg.

*Dont let him warrant or link anything in the next speech. Unfair, and 2nd speech*
*Dont let him respond to the specific extensions highlighted above*
Debate Round No. 2


As a brief road map; I'll be reviewing my opponent's last speech, going AFF and NEG as needed, and I'll close with a few voters.

1. My opponent claims I don't link to the resolution, but doesn't tell us why not. this is an abusive attack as I don't know how to defend and argument if my opponent doesn't tell me what the argument is. Also ignore the definitions attack; these ruin debate
2. America was founded on justice; the warrant is intrinsic to the resolution
1. First my opponent's only warrant is on ground; in all debate you want the judges to reject your opponent's stance (This is exactly what my opponent is doing right now) thus the warrant is faulty and falls.
2. No warrant; the link is in my attacks (as I explain later on)

True; I never claim evidence is bad. however with-out logical analysis, and value basis; evidence is worthless. We're debate Value, not policy.
This attack is abusive, my opponent doesn't present the evidence in the round; and I don't have another speech to negate it. Thus this attack is N/A
Untrue; The resolution doesn't give me a burden of proof, (something my opponent doesn't negate) thus my job is simply to disprove my opponent; My V/C is established in both my observations, and the attacks I make on my opponent's case.

Untrue; this is a logical fallacy, the Value is supposed to "guide" the debate- meaning it has to be an inward belief, or an idea. At the point that a Value is and end, there is no guidance but a goal.
This is policy debate; as my opponent is solving a problem. Value debate is where we determine the highest Values in a situation
AFF's prior refutation defeats this defense. His value is a self-proclaimed "end" an end cannot be vauge, but must be specific. otherwise there is nothing to guide anything; we have to keep in mind that the value is the scope to view the round, which "Global Stability" does not do.
First of all there are two things here,
a. My opponent doesn't cover the attack I made thus it will extend across and he still has a poor criteria
b. The fact that they are intertwined does nothing for the realm of this debate, as it is still not a weighing mechanism; ultimately my opponent does nothing in the way to defend my earlier attacks on his Criteria, he simply re-iterates the earlier faulty claims. My opponent's Criteria utterly falls.
The attack I make here is only relative at the point my opponent's value falls; I have shown that "Global Stability" is not a value thus there is no value for this criteria.
a. Two points here, first my opponent admits in his opening remarks that true terrorism is a drive for global stability, link this with my prior attack and he looses the main impact here, as this is essentially the equivalency of the red scare. Second my opponent's latter remarks about Hegemonic Stability Theory, only prove the lack of content to this card; we as the Global Hegemon want to instill the fear akin to the red scare in our people so we can hold the world in out vice-grip of our own bias.
At this point we lose justice, and the resolution cannot be properly met. We deny out central core values; war no longer becomes something we fight for justice, liberty, or to protect what is right, but something we fight solely to maintain hegemony and power. This corruption can certainly not be a high value in the round, and thus you must vote it down.

b. I think my opponent is missing my point here; I do not call religion into play as the main point I wish to drive home, but as an illustration to clarify my prior point. Thus I simply extend my prior un-attacked point across.
This proves my point exactly; so as an extension on my prior attack, I'll add my opponent's refutation into the mix. My opponent's value isn't "global stability" but "United States Stability" at this point we realize that my opponent's case is entirely biased to their own side, again through this we can never gain Justice, America's core value and principle

Cross-apply defense; I'm not arguing that it's empirical evidence thus we should not look at it, that would be utterly stupid; what I'm saying here, is that it is nothing BUT empirical evidence. It is at the point we realize that it is solely empirical evidence, with absolutely no personal analysis; that we can see it's irrelevant to the scope of today's debate. This is a value debate, so at the point that his contentions are only trying to prove a point (a debate style/technique more suited for PFD) he is not fulfilling the standards of this debate; thus I don't need to waste my time arguing them.

Empirical evidence is good, but it IS NOT the driving force behind argumentation. He does not have that driving force, thus these contentions are irrelevant to the debate.

As for my opponent's drops and extension portion, I did cover these in my constructive, so these are going to fall.

1. V/C debate; my opponent doesn't have a value; whereas I do. My opponent doesn't attack my criteria, but simply calls abuse; whereas I show that his criteria doesn't uphold justice, and ultimately defeats it's ultimate purpose. Thus this too falls, and you must look to the Negative's.

2. Lack of reason to vote AFF; My opponent does not fulfill his BoP in terms of what should happen in an LD debate, whereas I do so. at the point we realize this there is simply and utterly no reason to vote AFF. When we realize this it is obvious that the vote goes to the NEG, as I was able to uphold the burden the resolution gives me by refuting the AFF stance.

Therefore for all of these reasons, I urge a Negative vote in this round!


Since I'm highly limited in characters, this will be very short and I wont be able to go strictly point by point

[Values Debate]

NC V: Justice

1. He says I dont say how he doesnt link, then he says ignore the definitions debate.....

--> Its the definitions that make the link. You cant separate the two. Since justified is not justice, as the definition states, he has no link.

2. America was founded on justice

--> No warrant

--> America was founded in opposition to Britain, not in the conception of justice

At this point you cannot accept my opponents value, and since he puts so much weight on it in the observations, he has no offense coming from the NC


1. Only ground

--> He didnt respond to the ground argument itself. Thus, vote on theory: opponent has skewed the ground of the debate thus violating fairness.

AC V: Global Stability

1. Logical fallacy - supposed guide the debate

--> Evaluation from an end standpoint doesn't alter the guidance of a round. It simply holds wieght from an utmost consequential view point

--> Extend the analogy of safety and such being values used in LD

--> Solvency achieves the value. Not hard to understand.

2. End cannot be vague but specific

--> Not necessarily. It is an overarching end trying to be achieved through the resolution.

*Extend gain all 5 warrants. This value needs to be accepted for having the closest and most relevant scope of the resolution*

AC VC: Hegemony

1. No response

--> Yes I responded by saying your attack didnt answer the internal links of the Kagan evidence. You took one internal link and said it was wrong. These are clearly extended internal links from the card.

2. Red Scare plus Terror analogy

--> New in the 2

*Even if you drop terror from the internal links of Kagan, the ones mentioned above are still being weighed in the round. That maintains the VC link to the V*

[AC Contentions]

Rakowsky - PMFs necessary for miltiary readiness, and isolated link to Iraq and Afghanistan

Stanger and Williams - PMFs needed for specialized operations

Rich - the only military airpower industries are PMFs.

Hazdra - Air power is necessary for war effectiveness. Airpower necessary in U.S. hegemonic operations

Melinger - Airpower is the U.S. unique hegemonic ability. Airpower is key to maintain heg.

--> All of these extended pieces of evidence are offense from the AC. They all link to heg as the VC which has a direct link to global stability.

[His voters]

1. Values debate

--> Refer to top of this. He doesnt have a value linked to the resolution. This mitigates the importance of his abusive VC, but you still should vote off the theory which he dropped

2. No reason to vote aff

--> He completely skews the rules of LD and makes his own throughout the round.

--> There is clear evidence from the AC which went dropped

[My voters]

1. The dropped evidence from the AC links to the dropped internal links of the Kagan evidence. This coupled with the dropped warrants of Global Stability means the evidence links directly to the resolution meaning an Ac ballot

2. Theory. My opponent dropped the theory under his VC

3. [Defensive Voter] No way to vote on anything from the NC. As apparent above, he has absolutely no resolutional link
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CiRrK 7 years ago
hahahaha oh well i ran fairness theory. Next time ill run education : )
Posted by GodFate 7 years ago
Wow i just started a debate with the exact same resolution, and only now I see this. Whatever.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Cirrk please run education Theory, that would be so amazing xD
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
Phew made it!

Thanks for debating this with me CiRrK! I was able to try out a new technique I've been wanting to :D!
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
@-@ I think I may time-out before I get the chance to finish my rebuttal...
Posted by CiRrK 7 years ago
well your justification for char limits was generals peaking ability. Well Im a spreader (so i can get more words in) and those cards would be cut normally..... jk : ) Srry bout that, didnt realize. You can add w/e amount u want to the NC and then I'll follow it for the rebuttals
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
You went over your character limit by more than 500 characters.
Posted by BlackVoid 7 years ago
Awesome, finally a debate on this topic with 2 decent people. Pretty cool argument with air power.
Posted by CiRrK 7 years ago
cool, np
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
I'll try to have my Neg up by tomorrow, and if not then then definitely on Saturday.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly I'm not sure what Orange was trying to do here. He drops all justifications for Global Stability, and you cant weigh the round on rejecting the Aff. Then he proceeds to drop all aff arguments, just saying that value > evidence, which I felt was just a cop-out to not refute the claims. And the theory went unanswered, which is an insta-reason to vote pro. And con didnt debate the topic, only going for a bit of (bad) theory himself. Weird round.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: All categories to aff because it's LD and neg's response to theory was terrible Anyway in judging this debate I literally can't vote neg because of the VC, regardless of the theory (that was just icing on the cake, the weird/bad response wins it for AFF anyway). When I weigh the round, if you want me to vote for you on your VC, I use the VC AS THE STANDARD. Your VC can't be weighed. There is no standard on your case. And, Aff's voter about no link. PM or ask in comments if you want me to explain