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

The United States defense budget should be decreased by at least $100 billion a year

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 459 times Debate No: 97958
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Structure of debate:

Round 1: acceptance, outline of your position
Round 2: Main arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusion/reasons why you believe you won.

Alternatively, if con wishes, they may start their argument in round 1, but you must waive round 4 to keep the arguments even. If you choose to do that, here's what that structure would be for you:
Round 1: Main argument
Round 2: Rebuttal
Round 3: Conclusion/reasons you believe you won
Round 4: Waive this round by saying "I waive this around as agreed upon"


Hello! Good day to you. Let me just start off with a full acceptance to your format. I will just say that this is my first debate.

I will say in part that I agree with your position only in certain circumstances. As of right now, we are still in conflict in the Middle East. Seeing as how that is the case, I do not believe any major military spending decreases are needed until the large conflicts are resolved.
Debate Round No. 1


First, I wish to point out that there is massive waste that goes on in the military. Trillions of dollars per decade are wasted in the military for bureaucratic nonsense from the pentagon[1], to useless projects[2][3], to the military having to spend everything that is given to them or else they won't be approved for more money. Seriously, I've heard stories where soldiers have to fire all of their bullets before the end of the fiscal year so that they can be approved for new ones, if they instead were able to save those bullets, that would save some money. So, already nearly a hundred billion in military spending can be saved every year if we cut back on wasteful spending.

Next, I'll point out the the US military has bases all over the world that require maintenance. There is no good reason for us to be in those other countries for the most part. Let those countries defend themselves. The US spends over $150 billion a year on over-seas bases [4]. We only need bases in the middle east at this point, so we can get rid of a vast majority of the bases we have. There is really no good reason to keep these bases, for they are no necessary for us to protect ourselves which is all we should be worried about. If a war were ever to happen where our ally is declared war upon, we can simply ship our troops over there, and we don't need the bases to be there to be maintained every year.

I've basically argued all of my points and I turn this over to my opponent.



I will restate what I said before, I partially agree with you. Especially since this is the first time I have heard of the wasting of bullets on this scale.

On the other hand, the bases abroad are obviously for the protection of our allies, where it wold be easier to station troops for use. There are about 800 U.S. military bases all around the world. The majority of which cropped up after WW2 as a means to prevent such a conflict and as a way of policing other nations. You said,"Let those countries defend themselves." If they are our allies, we have a relationship that makes it so we help each other out. (That does not mean they should be doing nothing in return though.) The estimates of how much it costs to ship and keep a soldier overseas is from around $800,000 to $1.2 MILLION per year. If we were to just send them over willy nilly, the cost would insurmountable. There are also an approximate 9800 troops stationed in Afghanistan alone. That multiplied by 800,000 equals $7,840,000,000. Before you lose your mind, do not the that this cost is the lower end and includes, ammunition, protection, weapons, other equipment, food, and water. This would be about the cost to ship troops overseas.

My argument is over. Good luck to you.
Debate Round No. 2


Yeah, I was wondering what you would disagree with, since you already stated you partially agree.

While you say it costs 7.8 billion to ship 800,000 troops, I don't see how that is a logical argument. Think about it: it costs 150 billion EVERY YEAR to maintain those bases, which is nearly 20 times more than the cost of shipping them. For the most part, our allies are at peace for many more years than they are at war. We would be saving a LOT of money in the long-run if we didn't have to maintain our bases over seas and just shipped our soldiers when the need rises to defend an ally.

There's really no reason to keep those bases that I see. Sure, our soldiers will be able to respond sooner to a threat if they're already there, but it would only delay them being there by a week maybe. No country has ever been taken over in a week, unless it was some tiny country like Liechtenstein or something.


Hold on there pal,

I said that it costs around $800,000 dollars to maintain a soldier overseas like in Afghanistan. That 7.8 billion came from that cost, multiplied to the number of troops in the middle east alone. As Bob Dylan said,"Peace is the time it takes to re-load your rifle." Peace doesn't last long. Our troops are stationed in those bases to protect our allies from threats against them, and us. The very moment they are needed, they will be there. In days like these, time is very precious and something we should not waste.

But also think of the political disputes. A good example is WW2. Joseph Stalin believed that Churchill and Roosevelt were plotting against him as Allied support was slim and the main of the Europe fighting was left to Russia. (Not exactly an over exaggeration.) So I say yes, cut down on some aspects, but the budget needs to remain above other countries to keep our role in global affairs.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok, as I agreed to, this round would be used for conclusions and reasons why you won, so no new rebuttals, or arguments.

To summarize, the fact that there is much waste in the military indicates that the current defense budget is not completely needed, and we can cut some spending(about 100 billion) if we cracked down on the waste. In addition to this, I argued that the military bases over seas are not needed because we can respond within a week most likely if our allies were attacked. This would save over 100 billion dollars as well.

I believe I have won this debate because I have presented how the military is needlessly spending a couple hundred billion dollars every year, which means we can decrease the budget by an amount greater than $100 billion which was my original argument. While I did misinterpret something my opponent said in round 2, the fact still stands that it would save more money to eliminate the over seas bases and instead spend money whenever we need to ship troops. Additionally, my point that our allies are at peace many more years than they are at war is a strong argument for why we don't need to wastefully spend money on military bases in their borders.

It was a good debate, and thank you for your time.


As well as I have, time for concluding arguments.

While I did say I partially agreed with my opponent, I do not think it necessary or resourceful to make such dents in our military budget. Especially since the U.S. has been involved in a large scale war in the middle east for over a decade. The only issue that I do believe you won out on is the wastefulness of the military and some of it's resources like ammunition.

I hold my belief that our bases abroad, while fairly costly, does more good than harm. These bases are major support in peace keeping endeavors, and they would also be a huge advantage in actual war efforts. You could mobilize troops from anywhere in the continental U.S. to Japan. I also made a good point in that even mobilizing and sustaining an army is costly. Even more so when you constantly transport them to different areas.

I gladly say the same and thank you for being my first opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by XxFoxlordxX 1 year ago
As I'm assuming an American, threats of bodily harm or death is illegal. Punishable by jail time. Also, you aren't behaving very much like Christ. Kind of the point of our religion. You should look at my comment on that post as it proves several points. That is neither here or now though, as this is an entirely different debate.
Posted by TruthLoveAndGod 1 year ago
Please see my comments on your pedophilia post as your life depends on it..Thanks :)
No votes have been placed for this debate.