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

The U.S. Government Should Increase Funding to Their Military

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 94289
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Hi, there debaters!

This debate is for me to try and persuade you all that the USFG should create a larger expenditure for the American military. My opponent can do whatever they wish in Round 2.

I. American Interests Are Currently Suffering

The United States has suffered a series of budget cuts to the American military ( and due to such expenditure shortenings, the U.S. should try to rekindle the fire of our great military. It is evident and prevalent how our enemies are flowering as our military is cowering and our rivals, empowering! The United States can take an example from Syria because our sissy foreign policy of not having boots on the ground, there was an open invitation to Russia to stick their flag in Syria and destroy American-backed rebels under the curtains of morals saying they were targeting ISIS ( Now that the Russians knows the American military isn't willing to get fully involved, they have the stronger foothold in Syria to such a potential, we lost our window of opportunity to take down the dictator Assad and free Syria! This of course can be changed on America's next military campaign if we increase our budget and maintain our position as the world's strongest military!

II. American Allies

The United States is also losing their allies in Europe as Putin stuck his fork in Ukraine and is eating at the sides! NATO has been questioned for their potential to actually defend against a seemingly imminent Russian invasion (, and our allies can rest assured and feel safe enough themselves if we increase our military expenditure. This will also be a slap in the face to Russia for thinking they can reach in Europe and take what they want, knowing that America has the potential and know-how to fight back!

Those are my points for now. I hope my opponent provides good arguments!


I disagree with Pro that our interests are suffering and that our allies should be our foremost concern.

Our military should be used for American DEFENSE (not offense) and to protect trade.

The U.S. spends 58% of the total military dollars paid out by the world's top 10 powers. With its unparalleled global reach, the US outspends China, the next-biggest military power, by nearly 6-to-1. It outspends the next biggest competitor, Japan, by 12-to-1 and so on. We spend more than the next 26 nations combined on the military - 25 of whom are allies [1]. Because we not only spend more but infinitely more than everybody else, we do not need to add more to the budget.

Security is of paramount importance for prosperity, but to what extent is a military attack on the U.S. realistic? No other nation comes close to the resources they allocate toward their military; it would be naive to assume that any major super power would find it productive to wage an attack on one of the most influential nations in the world. Indeed, the U.S. still has more sophisticated weapons and military technology than any other nation [2, 3].

This enormous burden on tax payers hurts our economic standing. The U.S. is losing financial credibility which is the real source of power and influence in a global economy. Moreover, it's taking money away from funding other/better causes such as education, combating poverty, infrastructure, medical research, etc. The money required to eradicate hunger for everyone in the world has been estimated at 30 billion dollars per year - what the world spends on the military every 8 days.

The UN's entire budget is less than 2% of the world's military expenditure. It is revealing that the world can spend so much on their military, but contribute so little to the efforts of global security, international cooperation, and peace. Let it be noted that while every other facet of government is scaling back, the military is not. The Marine Corps Times said, "the Armed Services Committee's proposals on major weapon programs were left unscathed" [5].

The Global Peace Index attempted to quantify the value of peace, and rank countries based on quantitative data and qualitative scores from a range of sources. The top ranking nations on the global peace index were New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan, Canada, Finland, and Slovenia [6]. Most of these countries spend very little on their military. While strategic alliances are important, one repercussion of U.S. expenditure is that other countries can afford to spend a lot less on their own. Many countries have outsourced their defense to us, which is problematic and unfair for obvious reasons.

Excessive military spending is used to maintain unwarranted control of the U.S. population, assert a level of political dominance, and foster the dangerous and very real Military Industrial Complex that is crippling our economy and putting citizens in danger. As long as there is profit in war and politicians have connections to war profiteers, the world will never know peace. A militaristic arms race is detrimental and only helps those who benefit from investment in war materials, such as defense contractors. Politicians support these industries because they have both direct and indirect ties to individuals and corporations who benefit from an expanding military.

In terms of self-defense, the U.S. is concerned mostly with terrorism. Terrorism is typically fought as an act of guerrilla warfare. An individual strapping a bomb to themselves and blowing up a bus is not realistically made impotent by adding a million soldiers to our army, or developing better weapon technology. In fact, fighting fire with fire has been proven counterproductive, as our highest defense officials have acknowledged that our military presence in the U.S. has facilitated the recruitment of terrorists, and made us less safe [7].

Terrorism should be dealt with by addressing the underlying causes, and exploring potential solutions outside of outright violence and aggression. Military invasions cannot stop small-scale terrorism attempts, and developing a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy is necessary. Suggestions include increased intelligence sharing, renditions, and specialized raids on terrorist bases, safe havens and training camps [8].

Keep in mind that our military is infamous for excessive waste, but I'll outline just one example here: the military engaged in Operation Green Sweep, a series of raids conducted by the military where they targeted people growing marijuana [9]. What a ridiculous waste of resources; marijuana is minimally harmful by virtually all standards even if it is against the law. The military should not be used to engage in frivolous activity, but specifically kept at a minimum to maximize defense in the most efficient manner. Our military resources are simply not being used efficiently and/or fairly. More explanation in the next round!

Debate Round No. 1


I want to thank Danielle for accepting this, I notice she's a very good debater.

The U.S. may spend 58% over the next 10 powers, but by GDP per capita, the US is only at 3.9% compared to 5% from Russia and 13% from Saudi Arabia ( Expenditure does also not equal might because Russia outnumbers the U.S. in tanks, submarines and warheads. They are also not as outdated due to recent rises in expenditure (

Security is paramount, but so is the offensive. Especially considering the other military alliances other nations hold such as Russia and China, the second and third most powerful. It wouldn't be productive for anyone to have a war, although, conflicting goals can create strong tensions like the South China Sea.

The burden on tax payers is a good point but the U.S. already has low taxes on a comparative scale to others ( The U.S. has the potential to do much more.

The U.N. is irrelevant to this argument because they aren't an armed organization. The world will ever give up arms for food, and if the U.S. lays down their arms first, others will take advantage.

The U.S. has the capability to protect these nations, mostly because of good relations and interests. Even the military combination of the E.U. falls short of the Russian military. especially with Putin trying to rip Ukraine apart. The U.S. is obligated to protecting their allies.

The world will never recover from the military industrial complex, especially since the trio of the strongest nations on Earth, DC, Moscow and Beijing continue to militarize while the U.S. cuts back. The arms race can't stop and the U.S. needs to reach the finish line first.

The U.S. is not just concerned with terrorism as I made a great many examples of international powers rivaling the U.S. trying to take a bite out of international sovereignty. The U.N. is as useful as a car with no wheels and one nation needs to stand up instead of sit down.

As for your statements concerning Green Sweep, I do agree. This does not change the fact, however, that other factors of global problems are rising and the U.S. needs to update their status quo.


Many thanks to my opponent for this debate!

Pro claims that the U.S. spends a small portion of its GDP on the military, thus the gargantuan amount we spend is warranted. In fact we spend about 20% of our entire budget on the military [1]. I have said that security is of paramount importance regarding our military and Pro agrees. Yet he suggests going on the offensive is also important and I disagree.

This country was founded on the premise of non-interventionism and avoiding foreign entanglements for a reason. Pro argues that the U.S. has an obligation to protect our allies, but to what extent? It's one thing to establish strategic and beneficial alliances; it's another to take on the responsibility of defending the entire world with little to no significant benefits. My opponent has not specified what benefits weigh this in our favor on a cost-benefit analysis.

Regarding interventionism - not only is it arguably none of our business what other countries are doing (except in the case of significant crimes against humanity, i.e. the Holocaust) but arguably immoral as well. For the U.S. tax payers are not responsible for being saddled with the cost of excessive and unnecessary military engagements. Not only does it not help the U.S., but I've argued that it HURTS the U.S. to have our military involved in so many foreign affairs and violent conflicts.

I've cited military intelligence saying that it makes the U.S. less safe. We are NOT supporting our troops when we send them into unnecessary war, and we are hurting citizens when we jeopardize our safety (by facilitating terrorist recruitment) and making us pay in indefensible amount on the military when we are not any more secure as a result of that spending.

Pro writes, "The world will ever give up arms for food, and if the U.S. lays down their arms first, others will take advantage." This straw mans my argument entirely. I never once suggested giving up or laying down arms. What I said was that we already spend a SIGNIFICANT amount on our military, making us the most powerful military in the world which my opponent did not contest. Therefore, we do not need to spend any MORE on our military. I've argued that we spend too much as it is, and that money could go toward other useful things such as feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless, among a plethora of other possibilities. But I've never suggested disarming our military.

In order to win this debate, I don't have to prove that the U.S. should spend less on the military (even though I believe they should). I only have to prove that we currently spend enough in order to win this debate. My opponent has not proven that we definitely need to spend more money than we already do. Pro completely agrees that our military is known for excessive wasteful spending. That means we don't necessarily need to increase funding -- it means we need to *better direct* the funding that we already have.

For example, "According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror — and polishing the boots of senior military personnel — became Washington’s No. 1 priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.) Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number" [2].

There are innumerable other ways the military could better allocate its funding, such as minimizing scandals (like when four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions) or spending it on golf retreats. The military wastes tax payer money on frivolous things as well as misguided weapons that are not worth the investment, as I pointed out last round. So if we simply appropriated the funds better, we would NOT need to increase military funds.

The greatest threat to our security, in addition to guerilla terrorism as I've outlined in the last round, is an EMP: having our electrical grid destroyed by an enemy with a low-cost, short range, ship-launched missile armed with a nuclear warhead. The consequences would be far-reaching, with long-lasting, continent-wide crippling effects to our electricity-dependant infrastructure. Investing in military expansion won't help combat this threat.

We have troops in more than 150 countries around the world. Rather than focus on man power, we should be focusing on cyber-terrorism. In 2009, Chinese spies hacked the Pentagon's $300 billion F-35 fighter jet project. In an age where cyber security is our biggest threat, increasing our brain power that government's can invest in is more important than having such a massive military.

We don't need more spending. We need SMARTER spending.

Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Guardian66 2 months ago
Great debate. I also have a bias and believe that military spending must be allocated to the "sectors," per say that are most effective in keeping our country safe. For example spending billions on the F35 JSF Program which has not seen one combat hour is ridiculous. On the other hand allocating those resources to the men on the ground would go miles. I personally do not see this as a spending issue , more of a allocation issue. Each branch is going to do all they can to get their piece of the pie (Esecially the AF.) We need to start allocating funding more intelligently to units that are the most combat effective in today's battlefield.
Posted by WKOJ 2 months ago
ConDemocrat, thanks for your vote. It helps me with my planning so i can do better next time.
Posted by WKOJ 2 months ago
Amed, even if your bias was showing I cannot deny that my side of the debate was evidently worse than con. Thanks for the vote, it will help with my future debates.
Posted by Amedexyius 2 months ago
I do have a bit of bias, I can't deny that I also completely agree with Danielle on all her arguments.
Posted by WKOJ 2 months ago
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ConserativeDemocrat 2 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: My RFD is simple: Who fulfilled the resolution. Con did that. They pointed out how the US spends more money then the rest of the leading countries combined, but countries that spend much less are more peaceful. In Pro's argument, he talks about how China and Russia are more powerful, but he fails to link how this means we should spend more. Con, however, pointed out some examples of government waste, and used that as an effective attack, to show there are useless things the military does that could have their funding cut. Pro also strawman Con, which Con pointed out. So as a quick wrap-up, Pro never fulfills the resolution, and that, along with other factors, makes me give arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by Amedexyius 2 months ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to make more than twice the number of arguments that Pro had listed. In Round 1, Con was able to demolish all of Pro's arguments with solidified sources. In Round 2, as Pro was making his arguments, he was not able to completely analyze the details of the arguments that Con provided and therefore suffered heavily. There was also a strawman fallacy which Con pointed out which provided another lethal blow to Pro's arguments and effectively surrendered the entire debate to Con. I cannot give source points to either parties as both were able to provide trustworthy sources. Therefore, all arguments go to Con, congratulations.