The Instigator
lightingbolt50
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
DoaaAbulebbeh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The USA should spend a lot less on their military.

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 2 votes the winner is...
lightingbolt50
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 518 times Debate No: 55713
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

lightingbolt50

Pro

I will be arguing that the U.S. spends to much on it's military, and should decrease military spending significantly, and divert the funds to more important issues.

Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: Opening arguments.
Round 3: Refuting arguments.
Round: 4 Closing statements.

You have 24 hours to make your arguments.
You have a character limit of 8,000.

Good luck ;D
DoaaAbulebbeh

Con

I will be arguing that the USA should spend money on their military. If we happen to have a war, we should be prepared as not to lose our country. Although they do spend a lot of money, it is important to have a strong military power and also intimidates other countries.

Good luck(;
Debate Round No. 1
lightingbolt50

Pro

First off, I would like to state that I am not saying the U.S. should cut of military spending completely, just that it should decrease it significantly. There is no milatarial threat to the U.S, and there never will be. Our military spending is about the same as the rest of the world combined![1] We can cut back. We spend around 700 billion dollars yearly on military [2] (and that's a low point, we spent around a trillion in the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.), that's 4% of our GDP! Think about everything that could be used on. Healthcare, welfare, education, infastructure, homes, jobs, transportation, pollution control, energy, and much more. The military is one of the worst polluters in the world, thus if we cut back we would spend less on pollution control and help the environment. The funds used for 1 week of military spending could fix world hunger[3], for goodness sakes.





[1] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.storyleak.com...
DoaaAbulebbeh

Con

DoaaAbulebbeh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lightingbolt50

Pro

Soooooooo....... Ummmmmm........ your argument, please? I have nothing to refute.
DoaaAbulebbeh

Con

DoaaAbulebbeh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lightingbolt50

Pro

If you're gonna accept a debate, please finish it.
DoaaAbulebbeh

Con

DoaaAbulebbeh forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Logi 2 years ago
Logi
And we don't ever want to be week enough that someone thinks they can attack again
Posted by lightingbolt50 2 years ago
lightingbolt50
Only-Human, that was in America's infancy. You can't apply that to today when so much has changed. America hasn't been threatened by a militarial body since WWII. America's army doesn't defend, it attacks.
Posted by Only-Human 2 years ago
Only-Human
In the War of 1812 President Jefferson( beforehand) cut the military and navy and the British invaded and burned down the White House. Luckily, we got saved when a storm destroyed their armies. We can never let something happen like that again .
Posted by Logi 2 years ago
Logi
The ability to launch a speedy and decisive strike against an opposing force or threat is of vital importance to the state. The maintenance of a force to easily surpass the military might of a coalition of opposing nations must be maintained for the citizens' peace of mind and to keep peaceful foreign relations if not by diplomacy then by "oh heck no I don't want to mess with that crap.".
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
lightingbolt50DoaaAbulebbehTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
lightingbolt50DoaaAbulebbehTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided reasons which affirmed the resolution that Con did not address. Conduct to Pro for Con's forfeits. Sources to Pro, seeing as he/she was the only debater to provide any, and they were legitimate.