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

This House Would reduce the military budget

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 411 times Debate No: 67009
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




- "This House": The United States
- "Reduce": Reduce the military budget by $10 billion dollars

The military budget of the United States is one, throwing us billions of dollars in debt, and two, it's also unnecessary. If we implemented the resolution, the Department of Defense would still be able to combat terrorism, maintain law, and fight other aspects such as the War on Drugs. The United States is the largest military spender on this planet. If we were to reduce the budget by $10 billion dollars, imagine what that money could go to. Eliminating poverty, Health care, foreign aid. We do not need such a large budget for one of the already largest militaries in the world.


First off, poor economics led by the Obama administration along with the aggressive cash injection policies of the Federal Reserve over the past decade is what's really putting the US government into debt, and not the Department of Defense. Nowhere is this point more vibrantly demonstrated than with the Stimulus Act of 2009 ($830 billion) compared to the total costs of the Iraq war over 10 years ($770 billion).

1) $830 billion Stimulus Act
2) $770 billion Iraq War;

Secondly, prior to each of their retirements; General David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Secretary Robert Gates, and Secretary Leon Panetta each warned against cutting the defense budget at a time of intense security peril, ongoing wars, and 21st century threat uncertainty; citing the rise of China, middle east turmoil, cyber warfare, and global international terrorism. Outgoing DIA Director Michael Flynn (known for the killing of Al-Zarqawi) has even remarked the current security climate is
"the most uncertain, chaotic and confused international environment" he has ever witnessed in 33 years of defense intelligence operations.


But if the opinions of the leading defense experts in the country do not convince you of the need and imperative of maintaining the level of current defense readiness and funding of the military, then perhaps the combine effects of Sequestration and the Obama defense cuts on the DoD will.

The Air Force now has the oldest fleet of bombers, fighter, and tankers in its history.

The Navy now has the least number of ships since WWI.

The Army and Marines are now facing over 25% reductions in active duty troop levels each.

And our nuclear deterrent is about to expire.

In conclusion, I will be so bold as to say that the Obama defense cuts have resulted in the loss of more American service men and military hardware from active service than all wartime casualties since the Korean War combined (based on my knowledge of historical American casualties figures since 1950).

It is therefore absolutely irresponsible to scrap another penny from the current defense budget. There is nothing more vital to the safety and security of the American people then a strong national defense, and I will remind everyone that this nation is still at war with international terrorism. Cutting the defense budget, even by $10 billion dollars, also risks losing vital defense sector jobs in many local state communities who depend on government contracts for a source of revenue and economic growth.

But if Pro really wants to begin saving $10 billion dollars to combat the national debt in a responsible manner, then perhaps he should first begin by cutting the pay of US congressmen ($220,000/yr) along with 3D pizza printers for NASA.

Debate Round No. 1


I understand where you're coming from, but I certainly do not agree. We are spending trillions of dollars on the defense budget, a lot of which is excess on new inventions we don't currently need. The money that is taken from the military budget can go to to other more pressing problems such as foreign aid, eliminating poverty, and putting money back into the economy in general. The average consumer will have more money to spend thus creating a larger demand for a product. It's the simple "Supply and Demand" theory from basic economics. I agree, security is important and we do need it. But at this amount? Do we need to go trillions of dollars into debt just for security?

After being through streets that are littered with garbage, and after seeing people (especially the elderly) living on the side of the road, many of which have probably been veteran of foreign wars, I say no. Cut back military spending to better the United States economy and help those in need.


The US only spends 3.8% of GDP on National Defense. This is not a significant spending percentage of the US economy that is showering us with debt.

That being said I am not aware of one major defense acquisition contract (of $10 billion dollars or more) that was not awarded to a private US company or domestic contractor. Defense companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing provide 100,000s of high paying jobs to the US economy as well as an assortment of other far ranging benefits, such as research into new computer technologies, robotics, aerospace, communications, and new methods of constructing and developing energy efficient infrastructure. To say that defense spending, therefore, is wasteful and does not benefit the US economy or even help fight poverty, is naiive.

And in the final anaylsis, I still maintain the opinion that maintianing a nuclear deterrent from expiration (as well as fighting global terrorism) is still in many more ways essential then foreign aid and government welfare programs. There are much more wasteful government programs that should be cut to help Pro's agenda prior to defense. And defense, as I already argued for in round one, has already been reduced to critical levels.
Debate Round No. 2


So you believe that providing food to the starving families on the streets is less important than a few tanks to fight off terrorists? And that fighting Ebola in Sierra Leone and Africa is less important than a few fighter jets? Our military budget is off the charts which is totally unnecessary. $10 billion dollars isn't a big cut back on military budget, but when that $10 billion goes to feeding the starving kids, it's like a gift from God.

Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will still recieve benefits, we aren't cutting those back. We're just taking money away from other aspects of the defense budget. I agree that those two companies, as well as many others, provide well-paying jobs for thousands, that's why we aren't removing their subsidies.


So you believe congressional pay and 3D pizza printers for NASA should be prioritized over national defense? Two can obviously that game.

What I have argued for is that it is currently irresponsible to cut defense spending in the current secuirty climate. Defending the American way of life is important, and I have proven that the money put into expensive defense programs does provide economic benefits to the nation. Defense spending at just 3.8% of GDP is not responsible for putting the nation into debt, and money and cuts should be somehwere else in the governments budget before ever touching and gutting the military. Our troops are providing the nation with an important service and deserve the best equipment and support that we can afford. And right now, especially from the severe cuts from sequestration, I don't believe we've done a good job at that.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
Conduct: Even.

Spelling: Not included.

Arguments: This debate was largely one-sided. Almost immediately, Con provided an array of sources and legitimate reasons why the budget shouldn't be cut. Bringing up the opinion of defense ministers of any given form (the Admiral, or a General) wasn't as good as Con likely assumed it was. These people are in control of the military, so their opinions have less impact on the debate... I can expect them to not want to budget shrunk, even if they don't really think it'd hurt... What they said, however, stood strong. They were reasonable assessments of the situation.

Pro could have focused more on why we don't need the budget and less on where the money could have gone. Where the money could have went isn't important if he can't first prove why it doesn't need to go to the military first... If Con proves the military needs it, then it's not important if the other groups need it, unless Pro can prove that them needing it is more important.

Sources: Pro had none. Con had many.

Pro could use more sources, and organize his arguments into groups to make it easier to read through. It would also help to bring up more than one argument. If you only use one argument, you have no safety net when it fails. Hope Pro takes this advice to heart. He did good, and I'd love to see his later debates.

Con broke formation after R1. It's not an issue, but it'd do good to keep one's format through out the whole debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
How about getting rid of government waste in all branches. That would cut around $1,000,000,000,000.00 off the top. Then get rid of the freeloader programs. Another $500,000,000,000.00. Now we would have a lean, streamlined government that would be still under the constitution.Instead we voted for decades to put democrats in office that have passed mountains of junk legislation and effectively buried the constitution.It is still there waiting for people with a backbone to resurrect it. But I have only seen a handful of politicians that have that kind of honor.Few republicans and no demorats.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
I may take this
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 1 year 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: I thought this was a decent debate. Con does a good job of framing the debate in a way to show that if the budget is reduced any more then we're crippling our ability to defend ourselves and that national security is something important to preserve. I don't get a whole lot from Pro establishing either a) a counter-framework to evaulate things against or how b) taking out the ten billion isn't going to cripple our national security. He tries to with the whole "we're only losers a few tanks or a few fighters" thing, but that doesn't make any kind of effort to respond to the analysis coming from the nation's top security experts. From there, the debate just gets really one-sided.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 1 year 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.