The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should the president be able to commit troops to war?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 115 times Debate No: 87674
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Many people wonder if the president should be able to commit troops to war. Some believe they should and others don't. Some believe they should because of speed. If the congress doesn't approve reaction can be made quickly.

Another reason people think they should is because it has been done for over two hundred years! We have done it this long and had no problems at all. The Korean War didn't involve congress at all ! Since we' e had no problems so far why change?

When the president can commit troops to war he can prevent consequences of attacks. When 911 happened the president save many lives. If you stop an attack before its climax you can prevent damage. Bush even killed Osama Binladin with a unit he committed


First let's talk about if they make the wrong choice.if we start an attack to early it may mess up our chance .it may be bad if the president has no political experince. The president may have never done any thing with war.

One other thing is the general can intervene. If you attack you may lose many troops. It would also prevent irrational behavior. The last thing is checked choice. It would prevent loosing troops. you would also not lose money. You can also prevent over reaction.
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.