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

The united states' defense budget should be decreased by at least $200 billion

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
bdsbds95632 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 302 times Debate No: 101690
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Please don't accept unless you plan on posting!

I am doing this debate again because it seems the last person to accept it when I posted it before is not going to post. They still have some time to do so, but it doesn't seem like they are going to. I don't care if I have two of the same debate going on, so I decided to create this again.

Now, I will be arguing in favor of the above proposition in the title. My opponent may take any of the following positions:
1) That the current defense budget should be decreased by a smaller amount than I propose
2) That the current defense budget should remain the same
3) That the current defense budget should be increased.

I believe we should both share the burden of proof, but I am willing to settle for something else if my opponent convinces me I should have the burden of proof. What I believe my opponent should prove is that the United States currently needs to spend the amount they propose. What I will try to prove is that we don't need as much of a defense budget that my opponent proposes, and that we should at least decrease it by $200 billion and that we can afford to do that in terms of not being too weak if we had it lowered by that much.

Current facts:
The current US defense budget for fiscal year 2017, is $582.7 billion[1]

Rules of this debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults
2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus 1. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument between us even, since I am not using round 1 for argument. My opponent may begin their arguments in round 1 if they choose, but should waive round 4 if they do that. They may do the opposite if they wish though.
3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this round. New facts and statistics can be shown, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.
4) The first round of argument should just be main arguments, no rebuttals this round. So, if you are second to post, you should not rebut what your opponent said directly.

Violation of the above rules is justification for voters to give the person who did not violate these rules the point in conduct.

Debate Round No. 1


I am just curious what my opponent believes between the 3 positions I offered for you above: should the defense budget be decreased by a smaller amount, stay the same, or increased?

The military is wasteful with its allocated funds
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. There is easily 100 billion a year that is wasted by the military. If we cut back on this waste, we could cut the military budget by 100 billion. I'll point out where the other 100 billion will come from.

Do we even need a majority of our military bases overseas?
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], and when was the last time we've had a war in Europe, for example? World war 2? We only need bases in the middle east at this point since that's all where we have enemies, so we can get rid of a vast majority of the bases we have, I'd say at least 2/3 of them, which is where the other 100 billion will come from(since 2/3 of 150 billion is 100 billion). There is really no good reason to keep these bases, for they are not 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. It is far cheaper to ship our troops when the time comes that we need troops in Europe, than to keep a reserve of troops there.

Even with this decrease of $200 billion, we would still be the country which spends the most on its military
The very next country below us who spends the second most amount on their military, is China. They spend only $215 billion a year on their military[5]. If we decreased our military budget by the proposed $200 billion, we would still be spending $382 Billion, more than $150 billion than China spends.

The money we are over-spending on our military, could be used for better causes
This money could be used for other more important things... such as paying off our debt or at least balancing our budget. It's insane how much debt the US has piled up, and everyone should be worried about our debt. We need to cut spending, or else increase taxes. I suggest cutting spending so that people don't have even more money stolen from them by the government.

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

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 11 months ago
good luck to both of you
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
I should have pointed this out specifically, but the two nations that some people consider our enemies: China and Russia, spend a total between themselves that is lower than the amount I suggested we should drop our military spending to... that tells you something. We'd still be able to handle those two large nations with out military even with the proposed decrease in spending.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Oh I just realized, I accidentally made this debate 3 rounds. I meant to make it 4 rounds. Oh well.
Posted by John_C_1812 11 months ago
Posted by John_C_1812 11 months ago
The United States Defense budget is not a Constitutional definition of the tax use. It is a United State Presidential, Congressional, Armed Service budget, and should be renamed in accordance to the separation that has been made over time.

The joint Armed Service are not defending the United States Constitution. The Armed force instead are holding a position of occupied territory. The grievance is not about money, instead it is about the expense of civil liberties without Warning of Miranda. This idea is based under the Miranda Right as a right addressed to a suspected criminal, informing said, that a person who is defending them from accusation, will never be charged as an accomplice to that crime the criminal is charged with.

A reduction is not what is called for, this is a qualification of funding issue which makes changes that can effect a main cause of delegating how responsibilities of funding is met.
Posted by TheDragon5 11 months ago
This would be a fun debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.