The Instigator
oka
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sgtpepsband
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 621 times Debate No: 54470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

oka

Pro

P1) There are many benefits to a year of mandatory military training and service. First, US citizens would gain a mental and physical health boost from the motivation and rigors of military training. Second, US citizens would gain a healthy respect for discipline, and an understanding of group work, which could help boost our economy due to a motivated population.

https://www.cypanthers.org......

P2) Having your population well-trained for combat is certainly a benefit within itself. If ever threatened, the US would have well over 50 million trained, battle-ready soldiers at any given moment, ready to respond to any threats. This would give the US political leverage during international deliberations.

http://www.studymode.com......

C) Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training before the age of 24.
sgtpepsband

Con

P1) Having mandatory military training for all US citizens would be expensive. As of 2013 the United States Department of Defense requested 0.5 billion dollars for force development and training. Yes, there could be over 50 million trained men and women, but If US started mandatory military training for people ranging 18-24 years old, there would well over 25 million trained men and woman at any given year. America is already 17 trillion dollars, and counting, in debt. Mandatory military training would only put fuel on the already huge fire that America set under themselves. If we ever want to shorten the national deficit mandatory training would not be the step in the right direction.
http://www.defense.gov......
http://www.newgeography.com......

P2) Forcing citizens to go into military training would take away from allowing them choose the education they want to go into. US universities are world renowned for their flexibility. Students are encouraged to take broad assortment of classes, allowing them to paint a better picture for what they want in life. By placing citizens in mandatory military training you take away from allowing them to find what they want in university.

C) Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training before the age of 24.
Debate Round No. 1
oka

Pro

The allocation of 500 million USD to force development includes all forms of training, including the millions of dollars it costs to train a few pilots. The training that we are debating would not involve any advanced training. It would not cost nearly as much as you posited. As for your second point, you've again used incorrect statistics. Only 6 million Americans turn 18 every year, and many of those would not be eligible for service, much less than the 25 million you cited. You are providing much false information.

American universities are much more expensive than comparable universities worldwide. If citizens were to attend a year of mandatory military training, and then have part of their University tuition paid for, I they would not be losing anything in the process. As I previously argued, military training would improve our citizens physically and mentally, and allow them to mature, allowing them to appreciate a good education more than if they were to simply move from high school to college.

Overall, I argue that boosting a populations physical and mental fitness, allowing them to mature, and then paying for their college education would be such an economical benefit that it would offset the costs incurred by sending them to training in the first place.
sgtpepsband

Con

First off, when the United States military requests for a budget they ask for the over all amount they need. 0.5 billion dollars is the amount The military needs for all training. If we were to increase the amount of people going in to basic training that number would only go up. Basic training is around six months long . A single trainee maxes $4,000 a month ( minimum). Add lodging and food, and the cost to keep up basic training will even be higher. On top of wanting to pay them, house them and feed them, the military would have to build new training sites to compensate the amount of people coming into be trained. To build these sites wold cost millions.

I think you might be confusing yourself. The chart that I attached was not the amount of people living in America that are 18, but in fact, the population of Americans ranging from 18-24. You were the one that stated in the first round "1 year of military training before the age of 24." So i was right to say, that there would be 25 million.

Over all, America would be fighting an uphill battle trying to pay for civilians to go through training. At a time where we are just getting out of a resection, starting mandatory training would not be the smartest move.
Debate Round No. 2
oka

Pro

For any budget anywhere, the budgeter asks for the overall amount of money they need. What I am informing you of is that the money the US requests for training does not all go to basic training; as I stated, a pilot costs MILLIONS of dollars to train, which vastly skews how much money is left for the basic recruit.

How does a single trainee max $4,000 a month (minimum)? I do not understand that statistic. As you stated, when asking for a budget, all factors are considered, including lodging and food. The $4,000 includes both food and lodging. If the US could find a way to standardize the basic training procedures for massive amounts of people, then the cost of basic training would not significantly rise. Building basic training camps (some concertina wire, a few barracks, bathrooms, a kitchen and an armory) really does not cost millions of dollars. They're relatively primitive facilities.

I believe that you are the one that is confused. Each year, approximately 6 million Americans turn 18. If a policy was put into affect to train all eligible Americans, then why would we have to train every American between 18 and 24? The idea here is to train every American that turned 18 the year the policy was legislated, and next year, every American that turned 18 that year...it's a rolling effect. For no reason would we need to build facilities to train 25 million Americans at one point, when the only expected yearly incoming group of Americans is 6 million. I hope that clears things up.

If by 'resection', you mean recession, then it is a common economic policy to invest money into long term plans to make money. This investment into training Americans would be a policy meant to pay off in the long term.

As previously stated, boosting the population's physical and mental fitness, allowing them to mature, and then paying for their college education would produce economical benefits that would greatly offset the incurred costs.
sgtpepsband

Con

Whats the title of this argument? "Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24." not Every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 19. If you want to debate for U.S. citizens should start military training when they turn 18, start another debate and put that as your title. The fact is you stated not only in the title of the debate, but also in your conclusion of the first round, that every able-bodied citizen in the US should attain at least 1 year of military training by age 24. So no I am not confused When I give you a graph of the population of U.S. citizens ages 18-24.

I wish you were right about cost of building basic training camps but sadly you are wrong. Federal contracting is a thousand times harder than commercial. Where you might be able to freely substitute materials and systems on commercial work you better not go into a federal contract thinking that you are going to get by with anything less than what is called for. You will be held accountable for everything in the Contract Documents whether you picked it up or not. Above this contractors have to deal with government inspectors, which are sticklers for making workers comply to every aspect in the contract document. So, what does this all translate to? time and a butt load of money.

I am not arguing that mandatory training has the potential to boost the populations physical and mental fitness. But the fact that the amount of money it would cost to create these facilities, feed these people, cloth them, train them and then pay for their college education is just to costly for the American government. At a time when the American population is asking to reduce the amount of money the U.S. military is burning, razing the budget for any means is the wrong action.

For all these reasons, I strongly believe that there should not be any form of mandatory training for any U.S. citizen before the age of 24
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.