The Instigator
nivac817
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Currahee150
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The American military budget should not be reduced

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: 6/27/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 608 times Debate No: 103061
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

nivac817

Pro

I already posted this debate but someone accepted it and then didn't post anything.

Hello, I am a current Sailor, in the USN, and a proud patriot of the United States.

One of the most frequent, and controversial, debates in American politics, is our vast military budget, of hundreds of billions of dollars, which is by far the largest in the world. While it draws a lot of criticism, i believe it is reasonable, necessary, and benefits the American people, far more than it hurts us.

There are 5 rounds
1st) Acceptance
2nd) Opening arguments
3rd) Rebuttal
4th) Additional arguments
5th) Closing statements/final thoughts (no new arguments)

As with most debates
-No personal attacks
-Cite your sources in each round
-Try to follow the format
-Try to ensure proper spelling/grammar

Anyone can accept this debate, however bear in mind, as a military member, i would prefer to debate someone who is a bit more well versed in these things.
Currahee150

Con

I accept this challenge and look forward to having this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
nivac817

Pro

First I'd like to apologize for the multiple day delay. I'm not sure if anyone else had this problem but i couldn't access debate.org for several days, and now the interface seems distorted.

Anyways, thank you for accepting.

The United States military is beyond any doubt the most well funded military in the world. In 2016 the United States spent $580 Billion on defense, where as China, the country with the worlds second most well funded military, spent just $146 Billion. We can dig even deeper, and find the United States spend more on it"s military than the next eight countries combined. Not to even mention our massive number of Aircraft Carriers, and overseas bases. [1] [2] [3]

This is all true. But simple number comparisons are just too... simple. If we are too debate this then we must ask ourselves... WHY is the budget this large? Where is this money going? What is unique about the American military capabilities, as compared to other countries? And how does it help America more than it hurts us?

For my opening arguments i hope to help explain these very questions to demonstrate why it is necessary.

One thing I've always found interesting, when i researched any data on the US military is how unique the American Navy and Air force are compared to other countries. For instance if we compare the US, China, and Russia's capabilities, to each other we get some interesting numbers.

Fighter jets by country [4]
Russia-806
China-1,271
USA- 2,296

The US has more than both countries combined. We see similar numbers with nearly every aspect of Naval/Air warfare

Destroyers by country [4]
Russia- 15
China- 35
USA- 63

Aircraft Carriers by country [4]
Russia-1
China-1
USA- 19 (if you include LHA/LHD)

Unfortunately i can't include everything from my source, but if you go to [4] and flip through the Naval/Air figures, it is clear the US has a strong advantage over our adversaries in these areas, with the exception of certain ships such as frigates/mine warfare/ and coastal patrol craft. However the US chooses not to invest very much in these ships anyways, due to their inherently coastal nature.

However something interesting happens when you look at land systems

Tanks by country [4]
USA-5,884
China-6,457
Russia- 20,216

Self propelled artillery by country [4]-
China-1,710
USA-1,934
Russia- 5,972

Now the point of my message isn't too say that our Army is ineffective, or even that it needs more funding. My point is that this goes a long way in demonstrating where the American Military's priorities lie. It is clear America want's to have control over Naval and Air spaces. Much more so than any other country.

I apologize if it took me a while to get too my point, but ultimately the reason for these numbers is because the United States military has the intention of establishing "Command of the Commons". For those who don't know, Command of the Commons, is when one country has established sufficient control over the worlds trade routes and economic areas.

Think back to World War 2, and the devastation German U-Boats caused the British. The British frequently suffered supply, and food shortages due to their dependence on trade. The current American strategy is built around establishing control over these trade routes. This allows us to protect our merchant ships, while simultaneously, threaten adversaries trade during times of war.

Unfortunately however... this requires money. Lots of it. Having a global military presence is very expensive. But it is worth it, as it allows us to safeguard our economy.

Now unfortunately i was gonna show some pictures, and maps to demonstrate my point, but i can't seem to figure out how to do that. So instead consider where our bases are located.

(I really wish i could have had a map for this)

If you scroll through the internet and happen to find a map yourself, you will notice that there are generally two types of overseas military bases.

1.) Bases in Countries we frequently trade with, such as Germany Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Australia, various Eastern European Countries, etc.
2.) Countries near "Naval Choke points" such as Turkey, Bahrain, Italy Spain, Japan, South Korea, etc.

[5] [6] [7]

I don't wish to sound rude to certain people when i say this, but when you think about it, we don't really have any large military presence in poor countries. (Except maybe Afghanistan). We do have a few hundred soldiers in various South American, and African countries. But this presence is very small. Japan, and Germany have the two largest foreign American bases in them, and they are two very important trade partners.

I think a question people often forget to ask during these kinds of debates is "Can we afford NOT to have such a well funded military?" If our allies and trade partners are threatened... does that not threaten our economy? If certain Naval choke points (which contain significant amounts of merchant traffic), are threatened, then will that not threaten us? 90% of the worlds trade occurs by sea. That's 90% of our imports and exports.

During the Iran-Iraq war only a few decades ago, numerous merchant ships from various countries were attacked and sunk by both sides. This had such an effect on the American economy, that US warships were sent to the Persian gulf to escort Allied merchant ships. This was known as "The Tanker War". By the end of the conflict hundreds of ships were sunk including two American ships. [8]

You see countries like Russia, and China do not have these global capabilities. They simply can't afford them. China's GDP is half the size of America's and Russia has a GDP smaller than California. This puts them at a significant disadvantage. If such a conflict such as the Tanker War were to happen again, they would struggle to do anything about it. Especially if it was far away from their own country.

Now i know you may be thinking that i spent too much time talking about where our military is, or why we do what we do, and not enough about money itself. But that's also my point. Our military logistics capabilities far exceed that of any other country, allowing us to protect our economic interest on a global scale. But we also have to be able to pay the bill. Because defending the United States doesn't always mean protecting our soil. It also means protecting our assets . It means protecting our economy.

The United States and our Allies have collectively put ourselves in a very powerful position. A position to safeguard our economic interests for many many years. It is expensive... yes. But honestly ask... can we afford NOT too?

[1]
http://comptroller.defense.gov...
[2]
http://chinapower.csis.org...
[3]
http://www.pgpf.org...
[4]
http://www.globalfirepower.com...
[5]
https://www.stripes.com...
[6]
https://www.airforce.com...
[7]
https://qz.com...
[8]
https://www.usni.org...
Currahee150

Con

I didn't know if I was going to have internet access for the next 2 or three days or not, so sorry if this seems a little rushed.
Anyways, thanks for responding.

The US military is a crucial force in protecting America, her citizens, and her allies.
However, today, the US military is over equipped for any conventional forces it may face, and is woefully inefficient. Therefore, I advocate for a cut in the US military"s budget.

I would first like to make an observation: Pro advocates that ANY cut in the military budget is bad, therefore if I prove even a small cut is warranted then I win the round. (Within reason, if I prove that the US military should fire some guy and then cut the cost of his paychecks from the budget, that does not count)
Moving on to my case.

Contention 1: The US military is over-equipped for conventional threats.

The main conventional threats that face the US militarily are Russia and China.

Their individual military compositions are listed below.

Russia: http://www.globalfirepower.com...
China: http://www.globalfirepower.com...

And then we have the US: http://www.globalfirepower.com...

Naval strength: There isn't much competition here. If you ignore the patrol craft, the US numerical dominates not only each individual country, but also both of them combined. The US navy is much, much more advanced than those countries so the difference in combat capabilities is even greater. The most important thing here is the number of aircraft carriers. Modern naval combat is dominated by aircraft carriers. However, Russia only has one left over from the cold war, and China only has one it bought from Ukraine as a offshore casino before refitting it to be an aircraft carrier[1]. The US in the meanwhile, has 19 highly modern aircraft carriers, with more being built. This is almost 10 times the combined force of the 2 countries. (This is only numerically. More than likely a single USN aircraft carrier equipped with a proper air wing can take on both China's and Russia's carriers and win). [2] While aircraft carriers are vital in order to project the force of the US military, and protect her interests and trade routes, 19 is too much. Therefore decommissioning one(or several) of them is in order, along with perhaps other ships in the navy. In a war, Russia and China can't possibly hope to be more than a minor nuisance for more than a month against the overwhelming odds that face them, and the US and her allies will easily be able to defend against any surface incursions against trade and economic interests.(Though, if preserving the economy is number one priority, avoiding war with china entirely is the number one concern because no matter how hard we try, we can't make them trade with us while we are at with war them). This will not significantly change if the US decommissions or sells a few of its surface ships.

Air: Again, not much competition here. Not only does the US have more planes than these countries combined, we also have much better aircraft, such as the F-22, arguably the best air superiority aircraft in the world. In fact the US has so many aircraft that the US military has the first and second largest air force in the world, the air force's air force, and the navy's air force.[3] The victor in modern ground and naval combat is largely determined by air superiority, which the air force can EASILY acquire given proper logistics, which then means the US also has increased superiority in the ground and sea. A reduction in the number of aircraft, especially in the air force branch of the military, is in order given the massive technological and numerical advantages to the point of being redundant.

Land: While I have problems with the Us military's ground forces, they are mostly lie with inefficiencies, which I will get to later. The finance given to the army and marines is fine for the most part, and cuts should not be focused here.

Clearly, the US has a MUCH stronger military than its two main conventional threats combined, and this doesn't even take into account the fact the Russia and China are at odds with one another and one would probably join the side of NATO against the other. In addition, the US is not the only major military force capable of opposing these countries. Japan alone can stand up to China"s military.[8] The military of the EU is capable of holding off the Russian military [9](Numerical advantage in Russia is offset by technological advantages in the EU military and better funding). A cut in the number of planes and ships the US military has would not significantly impact the ability of the US military to project force abroad and protect America"s and her allies" interests. For these reasons, a budget cut is acceptable.

Contention 2: The US military is woefully inefficient.

In addition to the redundancy, which has already been discussed, there is also outright inefficiency. Examples can be found in projects such as the incredibly wasteful F-35(and arguably unnecessary, thought that could be a whole other debate). This project has wasted billions of dollars.[4] [5]

This is only an example of the waste of the US military, and it shows through many other examples, a few of which are here:[6] [7]. By cutting the US military's budget, the money can be used for more productive ends. In addition, a reason that the US military can afford to be so inefficient is because it can afford to. By cutting the military"s budget the US military can no longer afford to be this horribly inefficient, and therefore it will adapt to be efficient. Simply cutting down on the inefficiencies could save billions of dollars without even reducing the size of the military. For this reason, not only does my opponent have to prove that the current size of the US military is practical, he also has to prove that the US military needs to either be larger, or continue to inefficient.

What would a plan to cut the US military look like? Obviously, we cannot just say to the military all of the sudden that 20% of their budget is cut and wish them good luck dealing with the massive disorganization that would cause. Cuts need to be gradual. VERY gradual. Like 1% or .5% per year until some desired budget is achieved. By making it gradual it gives time for the US military to cut down on waste as to not impact the actual force of the us military, or to plan out what aspects would be cut down, and minimize the effect on the organization structure of the US military.

What would this money go to? Anything really, healthcare, NASA, poverty, reducing the national debt, lowering the burden on taxpayer, ect. Something more useful than committing billions of dollars to redundancy and/or inefficiency.

For these reasons I support the reduction in the budget of the military.

[1]http://nationalinterest.org...

[2]http://www.militaryaerospace.com...

[3]http://nationalinterest.org...

[4]http://www.foxnews.com... [5]http://www.nationalreview.com...

[6]https://www.washingtonpost.com...

[7[http://harvardpolitics.com...

[8]http://www.businessinsider.com...
[9]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
nivac817

Pro

I will now provide rebuttals to your 1st, and 2nd arguments

Contention 1: The US military is over-equipped for conventional threats

I feel as if there is a fallacy in your argument, mostly because what you proved was the United States has a much larger Navy, and Air Force than Russia, or China, but you did not prove we were over-equipped. What do i mean by that? Well we must remember different countries have different goals, and objectives for their militaries. We also have different geography, we have different allies, and different enemies.

As i said before, simple number comparisons are just too simple unless we know why the numbers are different. Essentially the problem i have with your argument is that you prove our Navy and Air Force are larger than Russia's, and China's but you never actually prove we have too much. If our military members are already spending a lot of time deployed, then do we have the capabilities to reduce our military by a significant amount?

After all, as i said in my first argument it is expected the United States would focus on having such a large Navy, and Air Force, because we would want control over our trade routes, to ensure our economic security and stability.

Contention 2: The US military is woefully inefficient.

I actually agree with this... BUT... i would like to reword your statement to "The US GOVERNMENT is inefficient" [1] [2] You see, as unfortunate as it is, Governments are never efficient. To single out the military would be misleading. This however is not a reason to reduce the budget, but instead a reason to increase accountability.

Another important note, is you suggested some of the money could go to "healthcare, NASA, poverty, reducing the national debt", but it is important to note, if we consider the government is inefficient with money, then why should we assume there would be any less waste in these programs?

Overall i think you make a good point with contention number 2, but too me that is still not a good enough reason to reduce the budget, as frankly it is something I believe we will never be able to truly eliminate.

[1]
http://www.heritage.org...
[2]
https://posey.house.gov...
Currahee150

Con

I will first defend my case, then attack my opponent"s case.

Against my first contention, my opponent stated all I proved was that the US had a larger military than Russia and China, not that the US military was over equipped. I feel I do prove that. In my case, I state the fact that we have 17 more aircraft carriers than both Russia and China, all of them more advanced than Russia"s and China"s. This shows that Russia and China cannot hope to threaten our interest for any extended period of time. The point being here, that if the US had, say, 15(or less even) aircraft carriers instead of 19 thus saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually and billions of dollars in building costs, [1] wouldn't change the fact Russia and China still cannot hope to threaten our trade routes and other interests in a conventional manner for any period of time. By using these statistics, I feel they prove that the US is over equipped for any threat Russia and China pose. Analysis of statistics along with other data is the only way we can prove if the US is over equipped or not, and this is what I did in my first contention. However, I clarify my position in the rebutting of my opponent"s case.
My opponent also asks, "If our military members are already spending a lot of time deployed, then do we have the capabilities to reduce our military by a significant amount?" Not only can you link back into the rest of my contention 1 to prove that we do have the ability, it is further proved that the USN only has 2-4 carrier strike groups deployed at any one time. [2]. We have at least 5 to 10 times the carriers the US Navy itself deems necessary to have deployed to protect America"s interests. A similar story is told in the air force. Thus, a budget cut is validated.
Against my contention 2, my opponent stated that while the US military inefficient, so is the rest of the government, and implied that all government organizations are equally inefficient. First off, just because we cut something does not mean we should spend it on another government organization. We have a rather large national debt that needs to be paid off, and cutting the military"s budget is a way to help do that. Second, my opponent assumes all government organizations are equally inefficient. I call this into question. There are bound to be organizations with more capable leaders that are more efficient. I mean, I generally do not see FEMA or the department of agriculture wasting as much of their budget as the military with the f-35.
In case you do not buy this, let us say the government managed to get more efficient, thus increasing the efficiency of the US military. The money would either, A. Stay in the military or B. Go somewhere else. Because my opponent did not prove that the Us military needs a larger budget, he must now prove that government, or more specifically, the US military, can NEVER be more efficient. This is going to be hard for him, especially because he did not specifically respond (thus conceding) to the argument in the second contention that states by cutting the military"s budget it gives them less room to waste money, and this will force the army to adapt to be more efficient. While I am under no illusions that this will lead to a complete removal of inefficiency it is bound to help. If he doesn"t sufficient disprove that the US military can become more efficient even though cutting the budget makes them more efficient (Again, he dropped my argument that stated that), then I have fulfilled my burden in proving that we can afford to cut the US military"s budget.

Now on to my opponent"s case.
Essentially his case boils down to this: While the US has a very large military, it is necessary to secure economic security against threats. We need such a large military because we need to protect our vast trade network.
While my opponent is correct in the fact that we need to protect our interests, the current Navy we have far exceeds that goal. Link back into my case where I prove that Russia"s and China"s navy and air force cannot hope to be a major nuisance to our economic interest beyond not trading with us. That is mainly from a statistic based perspective though, so let us look at a map. If Russia declares war on us (and thus NATO), the only realistic way for them to avoid the NATO controlled straits is to go North through the Barrens sea. As said before, the UK alone can take care of that threat the Russians pose. Even if the British are busy with something else, it would not be hard for one or two aircraft carriers battle groups with submarines as scouts and satellites as better scouts to protect shipping. If China were to declare war on the US, the most they can really harass the shipping around Japan and Korea. Again, Japan alone with its navy can probably defeat the Chinese Navy. But if they are predisposed, one or two carrier strike groups can probably take care of the Chinese navy, and probably not even that many, considering the enormous number of air bases around the Pacific. This is all assuming, of course, that China or Russia decides the best course of action is to be a minor nuance at best to our economy, and assuming the Chinese or Russian navy does not get effectively wiped out by US aircraft, missiles or countries allied with the US in the first days or hours. The point being here that the US Navy does not need 19 aircraft carriers, it needs about 5, especially considering the strength of her allies. Similar things for the Airforce.
I would also like to shed doubt on China"s or Russia"s ability to effectively reduce trade given the current shape of their navy"s. If, according to my opponent, we need 19 aircraft carriers and the complement of destroyers and cruisers, to cover our sea lanes, how can China or Russia hope to achieve the feared 90% disruption to our economy, (Again, besides not trading with us). My opponent seems to concede to this in his fourth to last paragraph. He states, "You see countries like Russia, and China do not have these global capabilities. They simply cannot afford them. China's GDP is half the size of America's and Russia has a GDP smaller than California. This puts them at a significant disadvantage. If such a conflict such as the Tanker War were to happen again, they would struggle to do anything about it." My opponent admits Russia and China lack a global reach, even lacking the ability to protect their own trade. I fail to see how they can be a serious threat to our shipping if this is true.
My case only considers a war with the two biggest military powers that can threaten our interests, smaller ones, such as North Korea, would pose an even smaller nuisance through conventional methods unless my opponent can think of some other relevant country.
He also mentions the tanker war. I would like to point that there are only so many ships you can fit into the Persian Gulf without it being redundant. This is the same case for defending straits or trade routes. Essentially, by having such a large navy, the US military basically has about a dozen carriers and dozens of other ships in reserve, because there is no point in ever having that many, or close to that many deployed in peace or war. There is also no point in having so many ships in reserve. To prove this, link back to my source that states that the US only has 2-4 strike groups deployed at a time. The fact that China and Russia has such a weak navy and air force combined with the fact that the US has allied with navies that outmatch both China and Russia, further combined with the fact that the US has air bases all over the world, make it extremely unlikely that the US will ever need more the one or two carriers pulled out of reserve. Therefore, a cut in a few USN ships and a corresponding budget cut is in order.

[1] http://www.rand.org...
[2] http://www.defensenews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
nivac817

Pro

The defense budget primarily boils down to 2 things we must consider

-What we need
-What we can afford

In round 2 i argued what the United States needed. I will now hope to prove that our current defense budget is affordable, and even reasonable given the size of the US economy.

As i already stated in round 2, the United States spends more than the next eight militaries combined, on it's own military. Initially this may sound absurd. But you may be surprised at other areas of the US budget as well. For instance space travel, as i recall you mentioning NASA earlier. Now you suggested that we should take some money away from the military and put it towards NASA.... but would you call it wasteful if i informed you that the US already spends more on space travel than every other country in the world combined? [1] You may think It's crazy or even false... but it's true. Now believe it or not... this is how almost every aspect of our budget looks.

The reason for this is simple. The United States has the largest nominal GDP in the world, and the 3rd largest population in the world. Simply put the United States is a big country, with a lot of money.

What i believe is interesting to note is that despite having the largest budget in the world, proportionately we are only just above average when it comes to spending proportionate to our GDP, with 3.3% of our GDP going to the military.

Where as other countries can spend much more
Russia, one of our adversaries for instance spends 4.5% of it's GDP on defense, and military. The of course there are countries such as Saudi Arabia, which spends 10%, and Oman which spends 16.7%. [2]

Now you are probably thinking that this doesn't demonstrate how much money we need to spend on our military. However, that was the point i tried making in round 2. As i said in the beginning this is just answering the question "what can we afford?".

My point here, is more or less that simply the United States is a big expensive country. But we are also a very wealthy country, and we have the ability to invest more heavily in programs than other countries. We can afford our current military budget, and given the size of our economy, i would say it is a budget that is reasonable.

---Sorry if this argument felt short I've been very busy the past few days and only had a few hours to post this.---

[1]
https://www.weforum.org...
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Currahee150

Con

While I agree that the US can afford to have such a large military, that does not mean the military needs such a large budget. One hundred billion too much is still one hundred billion too much whether it is .01% or 10% of one"s GDP. It can be used to more effective ends. Just because we have the largest GDP in the world does not change that fact. To this end, the main debate boils down to this: What we need and what is useful. What we can afford takes only a secondary position because the fact we can afford the current military and the fact my opponent is not advocating for an increase in the military makes it largely irrelevant.

We spend so much on NASA because NASA is useful. The reason we spend so much compared to other countries is mostly as my opponent says, we have a larger GDP. However, unlike out military, the spending on NASA is not redundant because NASA is involved in exploring the nearly endless depths of space and knowledge, unlike the military whose main goal is to protect the finite confines of US territory, trade routes, allies, and interests. Whether you agree NASA should get funding is not really the point here. If there is something else the money can be spent more usefully on, the point that the military"s budget should be cut still stands. Link back to my prior rounds where I prove that the military"s budget is too big for what is useful.

While my opponent has stated that we can afford a large military, and I agree with that statement, he has not proved that the current size of the military is what we need. He simply states because the size of the economy is large, and our GDP is large, it means that the budget is reasonable. Here he is guilty of something he argued against in the rounds before: Looking at the simple statistics. He never goes farther and proves why we need such a large military. Why does the US Navy need so many ships even though it would almost never deploy even half of them, even in a time of war? Why do we need to waste billions of dollars on unnecessary projects such as the F-35? My opponent, at a minimum, needs to prove that these things are necessary in order to win this debate, and he has not fulfilled this burden.
Debate Round No. 4
nivac817

Pro

The United States and Russia are often seen as two very old adversaries. But, today the Russian military operates nearly 4 times as many tanks as the United States. Is this an excessive number? No. Why? Because Russia is a very large land based country, and they require a large, and powerful ground force to defend themselves. As Russia's generals decide how many tanks they need to defend themselves, they do not base this decision solely on how many tanks the United States has. They base this decision on how many tanks they need.

One of the most common mistakes made in these types of debates, are budget comparisons. "The US spends significantly more on our military than our adversaries therefore we spend too much on our military." While this argument may seem sound, it does not address the question of how much do we NEED. And that is the very mistake i feel my opponent made throughout our debate.

You see, our Country is unlike any other, in that we have economic interests across the globe. And it is this that we must protect. As i proved in round 2, this is what our military is designed to do. Our Global economic reliance is both America's greatest strength and weakness. It is our strength as it bolsters our economy, and it is our weakness as it leaves our economy vulnerable and our assets spread out across the globe. That is why our Navy and Air force are so heavily invested in, to protect these areas, on a global scale.

Waste and inefficiencies are both unfortunate. But they come with anything. Even if we reduce our budget, waste isn't going away. My opponent repeatedly brought up the F-35, but that's just another debate in itself, as i personally have seen it to be an incredible (albeit expensive) aircraft.

In summary, by reducing our budget we risk losing our position as the worlds superpower, and we risk the consequences of an unprotected globalized economy. Avoiding economic hardships, is certainly worth spending 3.3% of our GDP on the military. And i hope any American can agree with that.
Currahee150

Con

In the prior rounds, I have shown that the US military is over-equipped for what it needs to protect our interests. My evidence has not only been the statistics on other country's militaries, but also how big the military needs to be to protect its interests considering a variety of things, such as the size of our military, our allies" militaries, and how our potential enemies can threaten the interests of the US.

Many of these things my opponent has not appropriately responded to. He has not responded to my argument stating that our allies" militaries alone could defeat potential enemies or to my argument that sheds doubt on the ability and willingness of potential enemies to attack our economy in the first place. Nor has he responded to my argument that states that we have such a large military that it is redundant, or why cutting the military"s budget would not lead to greater efficiency in the US military and the money cut could go to reducing the national debt. There are more things, but these are the biggest ones.

More importantly, he has not sufficiently proven that we need the current budget to protect the US"s interests. He has merely stated that we need to protect our interests, but he does not prove that we need as big of a military as we have now to adequately protect our interests. He has not proven why a smaller military, even a slightly smaller one, could not sufficiently protect our interests. On the other hand, I have proven that the US military is over-equipped to protect our interests.

For these reasons and others mentioned in the rounds above, I advocate for a budget cut, even a small one, in the US military.

I would like to thank my opponent for offering this challenge and providing an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by byaka2013 11 months ago
byaka2013
RFD:

I agreed with Con before, but it was a tie after.
There were no blatant insults or major grammatical errors on either side, so this warrants a tie. Both sides had equally convincing arguments, as they both made excellent cases. For example, Con did not explain what things are going to waste and why they should be cut, while pro did not explain why we need such large amounts of air and naval superiority, Pro did mention trades, but that was a world statistic and not a US specific one.

Finally, if we are to define reliable as more backed up with higher edit security, etc, then it was a win for Pro. He used sources that typically ended in .gov, which might be biased, but he also used .org. To my knowledge, con only used 2 .orgs and a bunch of .coms, which are commercial and usually less reliable.
Posted by Currahee150 1 year ago
Currahee150
Sorry it took so long for the next round to go up. I was without internet for a little longer than expected. Also, sorry for the length.
Posted by Currahee150 1 year ago
Currahee150
Oh, by the way, you have to post your argument before I can post mine, just so you know.
Posted by Currahee150 1 year ago
Currahee150
If you want some background, I am a huge military and history buff with family members at West Point, so I will not be grabbing for things from unrelated topics or anything like that.

Oh, and by the way, GO ARMY BEAT NAVY!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
https://www.thebalance.com...
It is like the war on drugs...It makes no difference at all. You can wast money fore nothing..Or use them where it makes a difference.
https://www.theatlantic.com...
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
What if the american military budget was 0,0..What would happen ?...Well less wars..
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
And since it does have the mightiest military in the world, well it really doesn't matter now does it? Nope. Not one damn little bit. Because all in all this country could easily vaporize, so could Russia, China, North Korea, etc etc etc to blackened little cinders every single man woman and child and pretty close to every living thing with all of its petty little dino-saucers nuclear war-heads to cause massive extinctions so that no life form could ever grow again. So what difference does it really matter if this country cuts its military budget when it really especially should spend its money on something like education? Wow. I used that big "e" word.
Posted by nivac817 1 year ago
nivac817
*existed
Posted by nivac817 1 year ago
nivac817
+backwardseden

If only a website exciststed where 2 people who disagree on something could debate about it.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
I'm not going to debate with you because I do not believe in destroying the world considering the absolute fact that this country has the mightiest military BY FAR than any other country in the world.
No votes have been placed for this debate.