The Instigator
futurepresident7
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Should America cut it's defense budget?

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 4 votes the winner is...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 68353
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

futurepresident7

Pro

Please be respectful and kind. Thank you for debating.
We have a 17 trillion dollar debt and that debt is going to be passed on to future generations. We cannot let this continue. 56 percent of our discretionary budget goes to defense spending, not including homeland security. Our military budget is 626 billion dollars according to the President's FY2014 budget. China's is only 166 billion US dollars. Meanwhile, our students are falling behind in education, our health system needs fixing, our economy is not diong well, and our highways are crumbling. The truth is that we are not in the Cold War anymore. We are in an era of globalization and international relations. Our budgeting priorities are a little bit off, and it would be more beneficial to spend more money in other areas.
funnycn

Con

To begin this debate I will refute my opponent's claims.

" Meanwhile, our students are falling behind in education"

Actually due to the increase in education budgets, new discoveries, and proper budgeting US high school GPAs have increased. We are actually doing better in education, not worse. Since the 90's GPAs have grown to 3.1 in 09 and it's gradually getting better.
[http://www.usnews.com...]

"our health system needs fixing,"

Compared to other countries we actually have pretty decent health systems. Looking at this chart for Heart disease, there has been an overall decline in heart disease in recent years.
[http://statehealthstats.americashealthrankings.org...]

"and our highways are crumbling"

No they're not. According to this federal document

",In 2007 the public sector spent $146 billion dollars to operate, and maintain highways in the United States"
[http://www.cbo.gov...]

"our economy is not diong well"

I saved this for last. While it isn't perfect, no country has a great economy right now. We have the money to spend on defending our country, we have money to build highways, and we have money to keep the health overall well.

I feel like my opponent didn't eleborate that well in his first round and I would like to give him the chance to list sources and present his argument even further in the second round and I will present my argument further in the second round as well.
Debate Round No. 1
futurepresident7

Pro


I would like to point out that according to Business Insider, in 2013 the US slipped from 25th in the world in math to 31st and in science we have fallen from 20th to 21st. The fall in reading is also is significant, from 11th to 21st. While overall grades might be improving, we are still far behind considering how developed of a country we are far behind. Its alarming. We are actually trending downward compared to the world.

Next, health.

According to the Commonwealth Fund, we are underachieving in health care Among 11 developed nations studied the US came in dead last. Again, though, its sad to see a first world country like us fall so low. In addition, I would like to point out that after looking at the budget, the average American's share of the amount spent on cancer research in America is significantly lower than the amount the average American spends on fast food per year;again, sad. I wish what you were saying is correct, but it is not.( I do have sources, but it would take ages to list them all)


According to the Washington Post, 63,000 US bridges are structurally deficient.
According to infastructurereport.org, 1 in 9 US bridges are structurally deficient.
That is intolerable.

Also, while our economy may be improving, we still have a long, long, long way to go.

So, yes, we do have bigger priorities.


Second, my 1st argument.
We spend a RIDICULOUS amount on defense.

According to the Washington Post, we spend more on defense than the next 13 combined. 9 of them are friendly with us.
The truth is that we are still the world's biggest superpower and we cant ALWAYS be Earth's police. Our intervention in several conflicts made life worse for those citizens. Look at what is happening in Iraq right now. There is a ton of tension and we caused some of it. The terrorists became even angrier at us and have become even larger threats. We have to fight terrorism, but we shouldnt create terrorism by fighting it. Look at Central America. When Mr. Reagan went in there in the "name of fighting communism", he (illegaly, by the way) supported dictatorships that were mean and ruthless to their own people. I'm not saying we should become Switzerland or anything, but come on, shouldn't we use our power for peace, not war?




funnycn

Con

"I would like to point out that according to Business Insider, in 2013 the US slipped from 25th in the world in math to 31st and in science we have fallen from 20th to 21st. The fall in reading is also is significant, from 11th to 21st. While overall grades might be improving, we are still far behind considering how developed of a country we are far behind. Its alarming. We are actually trending downward compared to the world."

Actually compared to the world we're doing fine. Other countries don't have an education like ours such as Nigeria. While we did slip, we are still doing fine.

"According to the Commonwealth Fund, we are underachieving in health care Among 11 developed nations studied the US came in dead last.....( I do have sources, but it would take ages to list them all)"

I would like to see these "sources" otherwise you're just making up this statistic.

"Our intervention in several conflicts made life worse for those citizens."

Not true. When we pulled out of the middle east ISIS took power again and started killing more people. When we got back there we stopped most of their actions again.

"When Mr. Reagan went in there in the "name of fighting communism", he (illegaly, by the way) "

Without a source this is a false statement.

"but come on, shouldn't we use our power for peace, not war?"

Which is why we have a big defense budget. Allow me to explain in my argument...


Terrorist groups have been coming out and saying they will attack the west, most notably recently, England.
[http://www.independent.co.uk...]
[http://news.yahoo.com...]

These two sources above both explain western attacks. Our buget, according to you(without a source to prove it) is "626 billion dollars". If this is true, if we cut it by about 60% the military budget would amount to around 250 billion dollars. The average cost for soldier equipment is $17,500.
[http://www.militaryeducation.org...]
[http://www.seattlepi.com...]
And we have about 1.4 million people on the frontlines, ready to fight and 145 million available manpower.
[http://www.globalfirepower.com...]

Using these statistics and the new "budget cut" in this scenario the cost for all of the soldiers on the front line alone would be $250 billion dollars. Yep the whole budget would be used to pay for each soldier and the equipment. Since the US population is growing, more soldiers will sign up eventually. This means we would have to raise the budget.

If we cut our budget we would no longer be powerful even if we cut it by a little bit. A slight decrease would heavily impact the amount of supplies we could have. We would then be vulernable to countries that would love to destroy us and thus lives would be lost should we be attacked because we didn't have the power to stop it.

Should the budget remain the same, countries would fear us and wouldn't dare attack us. Just recently someone tried to blow up the capitol. However before anything was done he was stopped. What if we cut our defenses? Would he bomb the capitol since he knows we couldn't stop him? This was an ISIS inspired attack.
[http://www.foxnews.com...]

Debate Round No. 2
futurepresident7

Pro

Ok, you want sources, here they are
Cancer stat
slate.com
Columbus CEO
Google search "us population"
Cancer reasearch funding per person: approximately 19 dollars/year

US defense budget: timeplots.com Death and Taxes Visual

I did have the resorce for my health study fact, reread my argument

Reagan did go into Nicaragua and supported the Contra anti communists who were very inhumane

OK, I have my sources, ok

When you say that terrorists want to attack the West, you are proving my previous point.
We fueled some of that anger by going into a ton of conflicts. We should fight terrorism without fueling it with billion dollar wars.
Had we not gone into Iraq in the first place, their would not be all the tension and destruction that led groups such as ISIS to take power.
(By the way, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and were not affiliated with terrorists)
Had we stayed out of Iraq, Sadam Hussien still would have likely lost power due to pressure from all around the world. A much more effective strategy would have been to have the UN consider a trade embargo or severe sanctions.
Im not saying that we should stop fighting terrorism, I am saying that we should fight it in a way that doesnt fuel them even more.

Um, I am definetly not proposing to cut military pay or to decrease the budget by THAT much. Let me disdinguish between the military and Homeland Security. While they are very interrelated things, I am not proposing to cut Security efforts to prevent attacks at home. The type of cuts I am proposing are to operations in other countries(not the total budget). Stuff like spying on our Allies and going to war gets people angry at us, costs a ton, and loses lives-in an era of global cooperation.

Here is an example: the Iraq War

According to Reuters:

Iraq costed 1.7 trillion dollars
Iraq costed roughly 176,000- 189,000 lives

And Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction and was NOT affiliated with terrorists.

Here is what we could have done with that money:

Increased cancer reasearch funding

If we found a cure or at least improved treatement quality we would
a. Save lives
AND
b. Think about it: if less people get cancer, or we have more effective treatment, , we wont have to spend as much treating it.

Improved Education (by the way, if a first world country has an education system comparable to that of Nigeria, that country has a REALLY BAD education system)

Benefits are pretty self explanatory

Improved Health care

a. Save lives
And
b.(if a. Isnt enough) Be able to respond to medical emergencies quicker and more effectively


Improve Homeland Security

a. Prevent attacks
AND
b. Save lives

Lower Taxes
a. Put money back into the pockets of Americans
AND
b. Improve the Economy

or we could have continued the legacy of Surpluses Bill Clinton left us

The list goes on...

We should only take military action if absolutely necessary. War is a cycle of death. War spurs violence that leads to more war and even more deaths. We dont have to go to war everytime someone disagree with us. We should try to work with our neighbors, not fight them. Warmongering makes countries even angrier at us. Increasing the dfense budget will not 'scare' people out of fighting us as much as it will make it the whole world vs America.

Peace is better than war because life is better than death
-Mario Cuomo

funnycn

Con

Your so called "sources" don't have links and you are saying I must search for myself to find the answers you should have provided through a link.
"Reagan did go into Nicaragua and supported the Contra anti communists who were very inhumane'
How can you verify this? You lack sources for this still.

"Had we not gone into Iraq in the first place, their would not be all the tension and destruction that led groups such as ISIS to take power."

We went to Iraq to defend the civilians from being killed by the extremists not to make the extremists attack. You seem very uneducated on this topic.

"Had we stayed out of Iraq, Sadam Hussien still would have likely lost power due to pressure from all around the world"

Very unlikely. The man had complete control over the country and the "pressure" around the world wouldn't stop him. Most likely he would have kept killing people and would have remained in power.

Another scenario to support my claim is Castro. Many countries disagreed with him but the pressure didn't kick him out of office
"And Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction and was NOT affiliated with terrorists."
It's actually unknown whether or not they have WMD but to say they aren't affiliated with terrorism is a lie. It's likely that they were seeing how they hid them for years.

"Improve Homeland Security"

My opponent has conceded. By saying we should cut defense budgets then go and increase defense budgets is going against the original claim. My opponent even acknowledges the fact that homeland security is defense by saying " budget goes to defense spending, not including homeland security."

"We should only take military action if absolutely necessary. "
We did take action when necessary. Innocent people were dying and we took action to save them.
Debate Round No. 3
futurepresident7

Pro

To explain myself, let me say that I am new to this site and have not found the link tool yet so please dont hold it against me.
Also, you want proof about that Reagan thing, huh. In every non bias book and website about Reagan's presidency, you will hear about something .He took money from an illegal arms deal with Iran and gave that money to the rightist Nicaragua Contras.

Also, yes we did go into Iraq for possibly good reasons, but what did we acomplish?
Not much.
Yes we did take out Sadaam out of power, but what is Iraq's government like today?
Well, when we examine the facts, it doesnt appear much better.
Iraq is at best as semi-democracy, and the Shiite leadership has been very unkind to Sunni Muslims.
Soon, Sunni extremist groups like ISIS got really angry at the regime and started attacking. We went into the war without a real mission, our goal was to kill Hussein and instate democracy. It sounds good, right?
But how were we going to do that? ( crickets)
Well, heres what happened.
According to a video on You Tube published by the CaspianReport, after Sadaam left power, the US set up a system where anyone associated with Hussein's party was not allowed to get a public job. The problem? When you live in a dictatorship, you dont have much of a choice. This hurt their military and angered many Sunni Muslims. The new leadership did not quite respect the veiws of everyone. This set the stage for militant groups like ISIS who kill just as frequently as Hussein . Even assuming that they did have WMDs and were affiliated with terrorists(both of with are highly unlikely), we didn't achieve much, we just switched who was oppressing who.
Let me remind you again that Iraq costed 1.7 trillion dollars and more than 175,000 lives.
When I said that he would have lost power even without war, this would be if we didnt normalize relations.
Many nations did normalize them with Castro (even though America did not, many nations did). Had we made a UN resolution to snction Iraq's arms program and mandate that nations were forbidden to sell weapons to Iraq, and by UN mandate no nation would be allowed to normalize relations, while having the UN send humanitarian aid, not via the gov), would likely have passed and very few nations would go against it,
Even if it did not pass, we still could have done so with NATO. This would result in Iraq collapsing from the outside in, without sacrificing lives. One by one, Hussein's officials would turn on him, his army would, and his people would. Then the military might be able to run a quick operation to kill him, not a long war. From then on, the UN could establish a REASONABLE government that respects all Sunnis and Shiites, leading to little faction division and no chaos that groups like ISIS thrive in.
We did not get much out of Iraq and it costed ALOT of lives and money. War did not achieve much and we would have saved many more lives without war. You need a good plan.

So, you ahould only go to war if...
It is justified
We have a concrete plan
It will not cause further violence
If peaceful measures do nothing
It is for a good cause (AKA:not for oil)
It is reasonable

The military should be used extremely scarcely since small conflicts can turn into full scale wars(Vietnam)

Also, I did not concede since Homeland Security and defense are not the same! They have 2 separate departments! Defense deals with foreign issues and homeland security deals with at home threats.
Plus, improving does not always mean increasing budgets
I did not accept homeland security and defense as the same.

(Any proposals I made about Iraq were just to show that there is a peaceful alternative. )

There has never been a good war or a bad peace.
-Benjamin Franklin

funnycn

Con

"In every non bias book and website about Reagan's presidency, you will hear about something .He took money from an illegal arms deal with Iran and gave that money to the rightist Nicaragua Contras."

That's odd because I've never seen that before. I've looked around the web and nothing about that popped up.

"Also, yes we did go into Iraq for possibly good reasons"

"We have a concrete plan
It will not cause further violence
If peaceful measures do nothing
It is for a good cause (AKA:not for oil)
It is reasonable"

The Iraq war had a plan, limited violence to lower levels, peaceful measures that were attempted by the UN did nothing. Yes the UN tried to use words but it didn't work.

"In March 2003 the United States government announced that 'diplomacy has failed'"
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]
An essay was written on the topic as well [http://www.colorado.edu...]

Did we limit peace? While it appears as if ISIS has control again, this is only because we pulled out.

Is it a mere coincidence that when we pulled our troops out that ISIS became stronger? I don't think so.

"The military should be used extremely scarcely since small conflicts can turn into full scale wars(Vietnam)"
The spread of communism, torture, oppression, and slavery through Vietnam was no small conflict. The same thing is going on in the Middle East. Constantly, on the news there are stories of Americans being beheaded.
[http://www.foxnews.com...]
[http://www.americanthinker.com...]

One article says human rights were violated. They are completely right.
[http://www.globalresearch.ca...]

"I did not accept homeland security and defense as the same"

Then why did you state that the defense budget was shared with homeland security?

"The purpose of all war is peace.
- Saint Augustine, 354-430"

""It is war that shapes peace, and armament that shapes war."
- Thomas Fuller"

"If you want peace, prepare for war!"
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus"
Debate Round No. 4
futurepresident7

Pro

futurepresident7 forfeited this round.
funnycn

Con

My opponent has forfeit the last round. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Voting on this debate.
Posted by ColeTrain 2 years ago
ColeTrain
War never really solves anything. Encouraging war by investing in more money to protect ourselves from the affects of war is simply wrong, in theory. Problems will never be solved by war, and defense budgets shouldn't rise with something that is problematic in concept.

Good job, I hope you win this, Pro :)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
futurepresident7funnycnTied
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 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: THIS IS NOT A VOTE BOMB! Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeiture. Spelling and Grammar also goes to Con do to the repetition of Pro's grammatical errors. Sources to Con for being the only one to use sources and a vast number of them as well. Many of Con's arguments were dropped and thus the resolution is negated and Con wins the debate.
Vote Placed by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
futurepresident7funnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con refuted Pro's arguments. Pro did not site sources. Con's grammar was better. Both had decent conduct.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
futurepresident7funnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Reasons stated above, obviously.
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
futurepresident7funnycnTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Okay working my way Backwards, Sources to Con, because Con was the only one to use sources. Arguments, This wasn't even close as I saw Con's arguments more than fulfill his BoP, they were also far far more fluid and well structured. Now onto S and G, also to Con, because Pro made several reoccurring spelling and Grammar errors, other than that, the debate was good.