The Instigator
emmanelson
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Contra
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Should the US military budget get cut?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Contra
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,162 times Debate No: 29967
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

emmanelson

Con

Should the US military budget get cut? Yes or No? What are you thoughts.
Contra

Pro

We should reduce America's military spending. We spend hundreds of billions on America's military budget, while making America more insecure by bombing civilians and children overseas, creating thousands upon thousands of new enemies.

We should reduce military spending in a smart, pragmatic way. The military should be focused soley on defending the nation. America should have a humble, smart, non-interventionist foreign policy that gives us the respect and friendship of nations around the world, while we also engage in free trade to make our economy prosper.

That is my basic viewpoint. Present your case!
Debate Round No. 1
emmanelson

Con

There is no option but to have the military required. We have to pay for it, we can cut our budget otherwise our american foreign policy will be a failure. If we cut our military we cant achieve our goals.
Goals:
-To promote Democratic freedom
-Peace,
-Crisis Aid (ie: Indian ocean, Tidal wave,)
-"American Values" (rule of law)
(capitalism freedom of religion, public education, freedom of internet and speech.)
Defend Against
-Those that hate us
-Terrorist
-Threats from around the globe such as north korea, Iran, Yemen, etc.
-Keep illegal drugs out of US
-Military invasion
Contra

Pro

Thanks Con for your arguments.

Arguments

Currently, the U.S. spends over $700 billion annually on our military budget. [1]

The United States Constitution, Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to "provide for the common defence". [2] So, we can both agree that protection and ensuring our national defense is a legitimate government function.

"We can cut our budget otherwise our american foreign policy will be a failure."

A cut in spending is not an entire elimination of spending. It is just a reduction in the total pie that makes up the military budget. We can easily make probably $100 billion in military budget cuts without endangering the nation.

"If we cut our military we cant achieve our goals."

The Constitution of the United States is clear. We must have a smart military policy. We should only have two foreign policy directions for America when it comes to the military, as it should be:

- Non-Interventionist

- Defend the Nation

All the other "goals" that Con pointed out may sound nice, but are unconstitutional, expensive, unnecessary, ineffective, and counter intuitive.

I'll take down a few, one by one.

Promoting Democratic freedom is a nice goal. We could best do this by allowing nations to develop independently. Nations that independently develop a form of government have a political structure that is best crafted for their needs. So, promoting democratic freedom is best promoted through individual, bottom-up action.

Having rule imposed on one's nation is a recipe for disaster.

Peace is strongly supported through non-interventionism. The U.S. has funded Al Qaeda and supplied them with rockets, missiles, and guns, this all only contributes to war, death, and destruction.

Nations should have their government reflect their people, so promoting "American interests abroad" is simply arrogance that harms both our security and their freedom.

Terrorism would be much less so if we had friendly relationships with other nations, coupled with a humble foreign policy.

"we can cut our budget otherwise our american foreign policy will be a failure."

We could easily cut the military budget. Some good reductions in military spending could be accomplished relatively easily;

1. Modernizing the military force size,

2. Reducing our military presence overseas, and closing overseas military bases,

3. Ending the overseas wars,

4. Ending foreign aid,

5. Eliminating expensive, unnecessary, and ineffective programs like the Osprey helicopter.

Conclusion

The United States already is the strongest nation on Earth.

We need a humble, yet strong national defense strategy that gains the respect of nations around the world, enhancing America's security. Free trade can help our relations with other nations as well, generating peace as well as prosperity.

The current neoconservative/ liberal escapades have endangered America by creating hundreds of thousands of young terrorists and new enemies of America. Big military spending just allows more of this to occur. If you blow up a Mosque in Iraq, and kill 20 parents, you can be positive that you have probably 60 new enemies on your hands, who are deeply devoted to harming America (their families). We are sending the wrong message. This is insanity.

We also have a debt crisis on our hands, and, when combined with large government cuts in general, reducing the military budget is needed for our fiscal health.


"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search of absolute security." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick; you will go far." - President Theodore Roosevelt

"Cutting Pentagon spending recognizes that national security is more than military power. The United States is stronger with a strong economy, sustainable jobs, investment in education, renewal of our infrastructure and a sensible energy strategy. Continuing to waste money when our nation should have other priorities is bad policy and bad for security." - Lt. General Robert Gard

^^ And we could have a strong economy through more laissez faire economic policies. We could invest in education by allowing parents the freedom to choose where they send their kids. We could renew our infrastructure and have a balanced energy strategy through privatization and allowing the free market to deliver these goods, which would be better through the process called competition.


[1] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...)

[2] (AP Government in America. 14th edition. Pearson, 711-713. Print.)

Debate Round No. 2
emmanelson

Con

emmanelson forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Brycekinney 4 years ago
Brycekinney
nice arguments, con
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
emmanelsonContraTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Pro's R2 scared off con. Well done pro.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
emmanelsonContraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a reasonable case with graphs to illustrate his points. Con forfeited. Arguments and sources and conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
emmanelsonContraTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and Con was unsourced
Vote Placed by darkkermit 4 years ago
darkkermit
emmanelsonContraTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con uses no sources. Con forfeits his round. PRO shows that military spending, while necessary, is too large as it is and foreign intervention is unnecessary as well as other military programs.