The Instigator
jayd324
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
AlwaysRight12345
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Should Military Be Paid More Than Celebrities?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
AlwaysRight12345
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 300 times Debate No: 91120
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

jayd324

Pro

Military risks their lives to protect our future and our freedom and get paid next to nothing, while celebrities may twist an ankle in a game or get hit in the head during a movie shoot. Celebrities have these huge mansions and lots of expensive things, while veterans have almost nothing when they come back from battle. An actor can get $1 million dollars for a single movie, while soldiers will never get that much, even if they serve 5 tours of duty.
AlwaysRight12345

Con

First, since my opponent has not defined his/her terms, I will provide them.

Should: used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. [1]
To clarify, obligation includes practicality as well as morality, as opposed to ought.
Celebrity: a famous person [1]

I am supposing that my opponent is specifying the US for this debate, as a global policy would simply not pass through the UN.

Now I will present my arguments:

1. Such an ideal is practically impossible
Since the government pays the military but not "celebrities" this is impossible to enforce. Sure, it would be nice if soldiers were paid more, but the budget is not enough to suffice to be paid more than a professional athlete or a singer or an actor. The reason that these people get paid so much is because there is so much revenue in that business that they are generating. If Leonardo DiCaprio had never acted in Titanic, it would have had potential return losses higher than what he got paid for the movie. As for worker's compensation, we already pay soldier's families more if they die in combat, but (again) the budget can only suffice for so much. According to Business Insider, the US military budget in 2014 was $610 billion. [2] According to Forbes, the average NBA player earns $5.5 million a year. [3] Finally, according to the Heritage Foundation, there were just over 1 million US soldiers in 2014. [4] Doing the math, we can see that either the US military budget would have to be 10 times higher or 900,000 soldiers would have to be fired without pension for soldiers to be paid the same amount as NBA players. This, of course, is assuming that the entirety of the US budget goes to its soldiers, which it of course does not at all.
2. Such an ideal is mathematically impossible
Regardless of practicality, what my opponent proposes is simply ridiculous because its legitimate meanings do not make sense. For example, John McCain was in the military and he is also famous and a person. Thus, my opponent says that he should get paid more than himself, which is simply nonsensical. However, for the sake of debate I will merely urge my judges to keep this in the back of their minds.

Finally, I would like to refute my opponents arguments.

My opponent seems to have provided three arguments, which I will refute individually.

1. Soldiers should have worker's compensation if "celebrities" do.
As I mentioned earlier, soldiers already do get their own version of worker's compensation. Regardless of this, my opponent is comparing apples to oranges here; this is nowhere near a serviceably fair comparison. Finally, athletes (for example) get terrible worker's compensation, just recently a new law was set in place barring athletes from most compensation requests in California. [5]
2. "Celebrities" have "lots of expensive things"
I've addressed this in my arguments, we cannot forbid people pay for their services.
3. Soldiers get very little money
I've also addressed this in my case. There is not enough in the budget, and we can't force a tax rate or lay so many of the people my opponent claims to protect off to afford this.

Sources:
1. New Oxford American Dictionary
2. http://www.businessinsider.com...
3.http://www.forbes.com...
4. http://index.heritage.org...
5. http://www.latimes.com...
Debate Round No. 1
jayd324

Pro

jayd324 forfeited this round.
AlwaysRight12345

Con

AlwaysRight12345 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jayd324

Pro

jayd324 forfeited this round.
AlwaysRight12345

Con

AlwaysRight12345 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DomriRade4444 1 year ago
DomriRade4444
jayd324AlwaysRight12345Tied
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: This definitely could've been a very good round. There were lots of good responses pro could've made, but I had to give it to con. Conduct- both sides forfeited multiple rounds. Don't do that. S&G- Con's argument structure was way more organized, and his organization and grammar were much easier to follow. Nice signposting. Arguments- OK, I hate doing this. I had to give this to con, because even though I thought some of his points were weak, I had no choice but flow through all of his contentions. Sources- Easily Con. Pro didn't have sources.