The Instigator
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
b_switez
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its milit

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: 4/11/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,547 times Debate No: 15887
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

wierdman

Con

THis debate will consist of the following:
Round one: Introduction
Round two: main round
Round three: CX
Round four: RE-buttal
ROund five: conclusion
b_switez

Pro

In using private military firms abroad, the United States would open itself up both diplomatically and economically. On the diplomatic stand point, we can see that the United States would keep consistent positive relations with other nations in order to keep these privatized militarise avaliable for use. On the economic side, the United States, altough the war time payout may be greater than the status quo, in times of peace, the United States will save both revenue and tax dollars on funding military bases abroad and supplying salary for enlisted soldiers along with future veterans. For these two reasons, we can see that a privatized military is nothing but beneficial to the United States in war time efforts.
Debate Round No. 1
wierdman

Con


I negate the resolution “Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.”

For clarity in the round, I offer these definitions: PMF: a private business organization, which markets military training and expertise, and in some cases, personnel and equipment, to foreign clients (e.g. governments of developing nations), usually in a counterinsurgency or internal security situation. (Military dictionary.com), Justified: when something is just, right or reasonable. (meriamwebster.com). “The term military objective is often used to describe the overall plan of a given mission:” (crimes of war.org)

Also, I offer an important resolution analysis: the resolution does not necessarily mean efficiency rather it requires justification.

My thesis: it might seem reasonable to use the pmf due to “efficiency” however we must weigh the positive effect of the PMF as well as the negative effect to decide what is justified.

V. Justice or Morality or Governmental Legitimacy
C: Social Contract
The resolution uses the phrase "is justified," which may be defined in moral terms. The moral obligation of the State is based on its contractual duties and limits--and its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Subcontracting this to PMFs is a dangerous policy, since PMFs are accountable to stakeholders who may not even be U.S. citizens or have the U.S.'s best interests in mind. In contrast, the U.S.'s citizen-soldiers have strong commitments to the U.S's military objectives; it's the focus of their recruitment, their training, their everyday life, and the entire command structure

Contention one: accountability

One fundamental characteristic of the military is the fact that the government can be held accountable for their actions, however; when it comes to the PMF, it is clear that they can’t be accounted for. These individuals are from different places therefore the United States does not have jurisdiction over them. At the same time the ICC cannot punish them because the United States is not under the ICC laws. Due to these reasons, these individuals are given the power to do whatever they want. They are not held accountable for their actions.

Blackwater Guards are accused of killing 17 Iraqis in Nissour Square, Baghdad, in an unprovoked hail of gunfire. Blackwater was under contract to the US State Department, and as such they are claiming immunity from prosecution in Iraq and the US.” (peaceworkmagazine.org)”

· Neither the Department of Defense (DOD) nor the military have clear PMF guidelines. Personnel responsible for monitoring contractors are not sufficiently trained; many military commanders have limited knowledge of PMF activities.

· Some PMFs enjoy preferential treatment because of close ties with government officials. The Center for Public Integrity reports only 40% of PMF contracts are awarded in open competition; the 50 largest contractors receive more than half of the DOD PMF budget.

· PMF contracts rarely comply with standards for monitoring performance and clear conditions; mechanisms penalising contractors for over-spending and/or non-fulfilment of contracts are inadequate.” (security sector reform”

Contention two: objectives

The United States objectives are always changing thus these individuals are unable to keep up with the constant changes. We must see that the PMF’s are owned by stakeholders who may not have the US best interest in mind. The PMF do not have a strong commitment to the US objectives

Contention three: justification

· The military risk losing control of key tasks and diminishing their own capabilities in outsourced areas, thus reducing its autonomy and operational flexibility.

· Transferring military training to PMFs uses funds to upgrade PMF, instead of army, expertise.

· As civilians, PMF employees do not fall under the military chain of command and can not be forced to remain in their posts in the event of increased hostilities.

The PMF regardless of there position are paid more than an average military for doing a job that is not superior to that of the military.

Peter warren singer reports in his book cooperate warriors that the pay that the PMF’s are offered far surpasses the pay that personnel receives in cooperate positions in official state military.

WE must also look into the fact that just because something is effective doesn’t mean it is just. The United States is a country that upholds a democratic equality, by giving the PMF this immunity from the United States constitution, we are allowing them to stray from the United States believes as well as demolishing the United States reputation with other countries.

“Justice officials revealed shocking new details of the attacks at a DOJ press conference today, which they said included shooting a grenade into a nearby girl's school and the killing of an Iraqi man who has his hands up in the air.

All of the victims were unarmed and none were insurgents, officials said.

“Many were shot while inside civilian vehicles that were attempting to flee from the convoy," said Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. Attorney. Taylor said the guards knew that they were not allowed to use suppressive fire, engage in offensive military action, or "exercise police powers."

In documents filed in connection with his guilty plea, Ridgeway acknowledged killing at least one civilian, a female doctor, with "multiple rounds" into a vehicle.

Ridgeway, in the document, acknowledged the government evidence would prove he and the others "opened fire with automatic weapons and grenade launchers on unarmed civilians." ( abc article of dec-2008)

b_switez

Pro

b_switez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
wierdman

Con

since my opponent did not post his argument, i am unable to counter his argument.

thank you for the debate and i urge you to vote for me.
b_switez

Pro

b_switez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
I am very sorry!!
NEW format==
Round one: intro
Round Two: Main point
Round Three: clash
Posted by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
i didn't realize that it was only three rounds.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Wow...
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Not just conduct. It would screw up the format so bad it deserves conduct and args.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Not just conduct. It would screw up the format so bad it deserves conduct and args.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
Yep. Your outline suggests 5 rounds, but you've created a 3 round debate.

If someone accepts before this is modified, they lose the conduct point.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
If you want a 5 round structure then I recommend changing this away from the three round structure you have this at.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
wierdmanb_switezTied
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 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: ff
Vote Placed by CGBSpender 5 years ago
CGBSpender
wierdmanb_switezTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed up.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
wierdmanb_switezTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
thett3
wierdmanb_switezTied
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 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: Pro forfeited, and Con's arguments were more convincing anyway.