The Instigator
caseycool1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DeFool
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Should we remake state controlled militia in the U.S.A

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 1 vote the winner is...
DeFool
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 588 times Debate No: 36743
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

caseycool1

Pro

This may be my first debate on this site but I hope I do this right.

As the topic says I support the idea of state controlled militia because of political uneasiness in the U.S.A . If the each state had it own militia then the threat from the unknowns of the governments intention. Also if each state had its own militia then the government wouldn't have to spend so much money on the defense budget. The state's could also use the militia to do policing and security work.
DeFool

Con

I thank PRO for instigating this challenge. It is not a subject that has been over-discussed.

As I understand it, PRO is arguing that we should develop state militaries, which could help maintain martial control of the population in the event of political or social unease.

I ask for clarification here, since such state militaries already exist. These militaries are regulated by the National Guard Bureau, and are under the command of each state"s governor. [1] If this is what was being proposed, then I move that we dismiss that aspect of the conversation as moot.

It is also proposed that America militarize its legislative system, and remove "Posse Comitatus" restrictions on the use of the military in civilian affairs. ("The state's could also use the militia to do policing and security work.")

I will argue that separating the heavy hand of the military from our civilian affairs is a good idea, and that Posse Comitatus should be retained in the United States.

I look forward to the opening round of arguments.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
caseycool1

Pro

caseycool1 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

In light of PROs absence, I will only outline my argument in brief.

Posse Comitatus was enacted as a response to the Reconstruction Era following the American Civil War. It sought to end the common abuses that came inevitably with the imposition of a police state, placed under the heavy boot of constant martial law. [1]

One of the many dangers of allowing a military to enforce civilian laws is the strict chain of military command; the military is by necessity not a democratic institution. The very concept of a chain of command is to limit the number of important opinions and decision makers within an organization. At its core, this is the opposite of democracy, which seeks to extend the right of rule over to an entire population.

A comprehensive list of the abuses that military rule inflicted upon the South during Reconstruction would likely be much more than is warranted here, in what seems a light look at the subject. Instead, we can evidence how well-liked the military was by how eager the affected areas were to be rid of it.

In 1877, the Republican nominee for President, Rutherford B Hayes, (the Republicans were the 'liberal' Party at the time, and represented the Union) lost the popular vote to Democrat Samuel J Tilden of New York. The margin was 165 electoral votes for Hayes against 184 for Tilden, with 20 votes outstanding. Although Sam Tilden's margin of victory was wide enough to assure victory, the Reconstruction South was willing to trade the electoral votes needed for Hayes to claim the White House in return for a withdrawal of federal troops.

Following this, the Posse Comitatus Act was passed, cementing the compromise into settled law.

I argue that Posse Comitatus should be retained, since our nation seemed to greatly desire it at the time that it was implemented. I suspect that they should know; so I defer to their judgement in the matter.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
caseycool1

Pro

caseycool1 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
caseycool1

Pro

caseycool1 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

Still extending....
Debate Round No. 4
caseycool1

Pro

caseycool1 forfeited this round.
DeFool

Con

....and done.

My baby moves at midnight
Goes right on till the dawn
My woman takes me higher
My woman keeps me warm

What you doin in the back aah
What you doin in the back aah?
You should be dancing, yeah
Dancing, yeah

Shes juicy and she's trouble
She gets it to me good
My woman gives me power
Goes right down to my blood

What you doin in the back aah
What you doin in the back aah?
You should be dancing, yeah
Dancing, yeah

My baby moves at midnight
Goes right on till the dawn
My woman takes me higher
My woman keeps me warm

What you doin on your back aah
What you doinon your back aah?
You should be dancing, yeah
Dancing, yeah
You should be dancing, yeah
You should be dancing, yeah
You should be dancing, yeah
You should be dancing, yeah
You should be dancing, yeah
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Matthew51 3 years ago
Matthew51
I agree with a militia in every state
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Bullish 3 years ago
Bullish
caseycool1DeFoolTied
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 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: FF