The Instigator
Bribri10114
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
RonPaulConservative
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Should the United States increase military funding/spending?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Bribri10114
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 98140
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Bribri10114

Con

Hello and thank you to whomever accepts this debate.

I would first like to set the round format:
R1: Acceptance and Pro arguments
R2: Neg Rebuttal and Pro rebuttal
R3: More Rebuttal/Rebuild
R4: Appeal to judges and final words

This is going to be a defensive debate meaning that I will take the side of the Con and will be attacking the Pro's arguments.

Let's remember the Ad Hominem logical fallacy: An argument directed at a person and not the position they are maintaining is not a valid argument.

Finally, let's keep this a clean round and while evidence is not necessary, please at least utilize strong logic.

CLARIFICATION OF RESOLUTION: Remember that the resolution says increase military funding/spending not CUT military funding/spending. The pro needs to argue why increasing spending/funding for military is good while the Neg proves the opposite.

Thanks again and for voting, please remember to include good comments and don't attack the person, attack the argument!

(I had to re-publish this debate because it was previously accepted by a troll.)
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Military spending is good for the economy
Debate Round No. 1
Bribri10114

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

First, you have one argument which I am assuming is that military spending is good for the economy. If we are INCREASING military spending, wouldn't that in itself be funneling money OUT of our economy and into the military? There is one more way you can argue this which is that the military will push money back into the economy, which would result in net increase in the economy, but the fact of the matter is that the military, if they even are doing it, are doing it now with the current funding they have. Throwing more money at them is not going to be the solution

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) Doctrine - If one country decides to nuke/attack another country, this will urge the other country to nuke/attack the other country which would effectively lead to both countries falling and being destroyed. This is why even if the military of the United States fell in funding a little, it would still be okay as long as we held on to some of our nukes.

The United States spends almost 600 billion on our military, and because you accepted the debate you are encouraging this number to grow even more. (https://warisboring.com...) The U.S. military wastes money on super weapons that have been ineffective in combat, all the new ships and planes the military has made LOSES AGAINST FOREIGN MILITARY SHIPS AND PLANES even though the spend MUCH less than US (almost 500 billion less).

I think these two arguments are enough to prove that increasing the U.S. military/budget will be ineffective because A) the U.S. wastes a lot of money which doesn't even come to be productive and B) Even if we DECREASED military spending, the MAD Doctrine prevents other countries from initiating war with the US. Remember, declining to increase funding for the military means that the U.S. will maintain it's strong military not debilitate it. We are not taking money away, we are simply not giving it more. Therefore, voters, don't look toward any arguments that try to convince you that the U.S. military will fall apart without further funding because it won't. The U.S. is fine right now with it's 600 BILLION dollar budget which, we should be looking at cutting not increasing.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

Actually military spending goes into the economy, which would create industry as there would be a demand for guns and weapons. This would also employ hundreds of thousands of people for combat and hundreds of thousands more people in the war industry. These guys wuld thus buy stuff and icrease the demand for stuff, which would incline buisnesses to employ more people.
Secondly, we have this problem called ISIS, and what we need to do is carpet-bomb them, send troops over to shoot them, and predator drone them, which requires military spending.
Debate Round No. 2
Bribri10114

Con

You said in your argument that "...military spending goes into the economy, which would create industry as there would be a demand for guns and weapons."

There are 2 problems: 1. You don't say WHY military spending goes into the economy, you make an assumption that it does when I clearly proved in my previous argument that it doesn't. 2. You argue that military spending creates a so called "industry" which you don't define specifically what it is. There already is a demand for guns and weapons, which A) You don't link how raising military spending increases this and B) should actually be decreased (led to shootings all over America)

Then you talk about ISIS and "carpet bombing" them. If there is such an easy solution to employ against the terrorism in the world, why haven't we done it yet? It clearly isn't funding because if there was a one step solution to fighting an international enemy simply by raising money, we would have done it. Moreover, after terrorism really shook the world after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. the military budget ROSE from 300 billion in 2001 to the 600 billion it is today. Have you seen ISIS or other terrorist organizations suddenly disappear because of a 300 BILLION increase? Nope, in fact more terror groups have spawned do to anti-American sentiment. This is why raising the military spending/funding amount is not going to solve terrorism.

Now I agree that these problems need to be solved. But what the U.S. military CAN do is stop the Department of Defense from wasting money on super-weapons that don't work (mentioned in previous argument [audits]) and get that wasted money and funnel it into the economy. A few billion dollars given back to the economy can help fix this problem. For your ISIS problem, what we need is international cooperation. What we have seen so far is the U.S. and other European countries actively fighting terrorism while middle eastern countries have stayed "wish-washy" at best. Once we have international cooperation we can talk about "carpet-bombing" ISIS, but increasing the military budget in America hasn't and will not solve anything and will make the U.S. policemen of the world while the U.S. economy and social structure and infrastructure continues to crumble.

Therefore, I urge the voters to vote for the Negation as clearly the arguments the affirmative has brought up are problems that CANNOT be solved by simply increasing the spending/funding of the U.S. military. Rather, look to the harms that I have brought up in Round 2 which was not rebutted by my opponent.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

First of all, guns do not create shootings all over America, that's ISIS, thus the reason we need to carpet bomb them.
Second of all, Vladimir Putin has been carpet bombing ISIS for a bit and it has been quirte effective, the US hasn't been doing it because we have a moron for a president who thinks we can fight Islam with- love, or whatever.
Third of all, military spending goes toward American war manufacturing companies, who employ people, and toward soldiers, i.e. jobs, and jobs spawn more jobs.
Fourth of all, terrorists hating America because we do not tolerate the kind of evil that is endorsed by their 'religion,' is not any reason to just sit by and let them do whatever. We need to carpet bomb them all to hell where they belong.
Debate Round No. 3
Bribri10114

Con

Alright so here is the counter-attack to your 4 arguments.

First, "guns do not create shootings all over America" you are absolutely correct. What I meant was if we create more industry for guns in the United States then you INCREASE the POSSIBILITY of a shooting. If there weren't any guns, no shootings, but then again that is unreasonable as well. When you increase guns in the United States, you give radicalized people easier access to guns and therefore may increase the probability of shootings, but even if you don't buy this point, more important is

Second, "Vladimir Putin has been carpet bombing ISIS for a bit and it has been quite effective." But did you know that carpet bombing doesn't care about the innocent people that are being harassed and are eventually killed by the carpet bombings? If we, as I have stated multiple times, take a systematic and international mindset of beating ISIS, we can do it. When you say the U.S. hasn't been doing it out of love, it's not love it's governmental and human morality. "Several months ago, the US press and military had a field day with Donald Trump's suggestion to send the heavy equipment to Syria and Iraq and "carpet bomb" the Islamic State. In February, Army Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland, who directs the coalition fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria, butchered the idea and detailed why it's militarily unacceptable. "Indiscriminate bombing where we don't care if we are killing innocents or combatants is just inconsistent with our values," he said in response to a question from CNN on the possibility of using carpet bombing." -(http://www.zerohedge.com...) If you are still going to argue that we need to carpet bomb Mosul and other cities where ISIS is known to exist, you are advocating for the genocide and homicide of millions of innocent people that have done nothing wrong in their lives and just happened to be in a city where ISIS decided to stay, which I cannot advocate for. Look at France and Germany. There were terrorist attacks there, but have they carpet bombed ISIS yet? NO because of the same reasons. Russia just happens to be a emotion lacking country whose only goal is to extend international presence which the U.S. has enough of.

Third, you talk about how military spending goes into American war manufacturing companies who employ people and therefore create a job market. (This is an extension of your previous remarks) However, as I have also previously mentioned, that's what everyone else thinks will happen, too. However my previous arguments have stated that the U.S. military wastes billions on developing weapons that never work, building ships and planes for billions that don't even compare with China or Russia's military tech, and worse is that they create what is known as "empty jobs" meaning that large quantities of civilian personnel are hired by the Defense budget to fake employment rates - (http://www.csmonitor.com...- biggest-jobs-program-The-US-military)
So clearly your argument about how military spending American war manufacturing companies is countered as the military tends to waste a lot of the money that is funneled into it and second, most of the jobs you are seeing being created are empty jobs which means they barely do anything, get payed near nothing, and are only there to make it seem like the United States is doing a GREAT job.

Fourth - You discuss how terrorists hating America because we don't tolerate evil based on there religion doesn't mean we should just sit there and we should carpet bomb them instead. We are NOT going to just sit here, but as I have previously mentioned carpet bombing goes against the ethics and morals of any human being and the government as we could kill innocent civilians. Even the idea of "collateral damage" does not apply here because we would have attacked deliberately knowing that civilians would get hurt and there was a way to avoid it: INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION. If we had cooperated together, ISIS would have been long gone, but because Russia and other countries are full of themselves and how to extend THEIR territory, they refuse help and go in all for their own glory. This is why we can't and shouldn't carpet bomb ISIS. But again, this strays away from the original debate of increasing the military budget. You never link how increasing the military budget somehow allows for carpet bombing. The U.S. has nukes and could do it even without increasing the military budget/spending which is why this argument doesn't even apply to today's round.

For the voters: You have clearly seen I have refuted the arguments of the Affirmative while they still leave some of mine hanging (MAD doctrine, useless weapons being created, we need to audit the DOD not throw more money at them, and more), which is why I see it fit that you should vote for the negation.
RonPaulConservative

Pro

If we simply purge all the terrorists ("refugees") from our country, there will be no terrorists to shoot people, besides, these guns will be used by the military, and wouldn't increase the supply of guns outside of this. And, more guns equals less crime.
It doesn't matter if the military wastes money, it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is the American economy. The solution is to just not waste money, then military spending will employ a lot of people. This is exactly what we did during WW2 which employed millions and ended the Great Depression.
Carpet bombing ISIS may kill a few civilians, but that's just because ISIS used women and chhildren as human sheilds then cries about the women and children who accidentally get killed by military raids- the situation is stil the same, ISIS needs to die, and carpet bombing can do that very efectively, but that requires money, so we should increase military spending.


Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
Bribri10114
I forgot to mention in my last round, but thank you so much RonPaulConservative for the wonderful round! I thoroughly enjoyed having this debate and am glad there are intellectuals out there in this world like you who are brave enough to engage in conversation of ideals! Thank you once again!
Posted by Bribri10114 1 year ago
Bribri10114
@Exoprimal I believe I said this is a defensive debate in the introduction which means I will be rebutting the affirmative's arguments but if you so wish I can provide some arguments.
Posted by godsend221 1 year ago
godsend221
I do not think we need to increase defense spending. I think we spend enough money on it now and we're already spending too much on it as it is. We need to be smarter in the area of Defense, not just throw money at it and hope we stay safe.
Posted by EXOPrimal 1 year ago
EXOPrimal
Where is Neg arguments?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Bribri10114RonPaulConservativeTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more convincing arguments because they backed up their claims of the military wasting money, MAD, among other things. Pro, for the most part, made claims without any backing, logic, or reason behind them. Pro also ignored several points made by con. Con used sources which had news articles linked inside them in order to confirm the claims made within them, pro's only source was their own knowledge on the matter.