The Instigator
Kazybek
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sketchy
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

U.S. army is the most powerful army in the world

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/28/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,875 times Debate No: 18067
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Kazybek

Pro

There is no place in the world, which can't be attacked by U.S. army. They also have one of the best training systems in the world. There is no scenario that has not been addressed. Moreover, U.S. military units can coordinate their actions with each other. So they are really effective. The United States defense budget is the largest in the world. In fiscal year 2010, the Department of Defense has a base budget of $533.8 billion. Therefore U.S. army has the latest weapons such as fifth-generation fighter F-22 Raptor. The United States has more nuclear capability than anyone. So I think that none country can defeat it.
Sketchy

Con

Before I start, I'm going to assume by U.S. Army you mean the United States Armed Forces. Just tell me if you literally meant the United States Army. Also, it would really help if you included sources, because it makes it much easier to validate information. Anyways, onto the debate!

"They also have one of the best training systems in the world." I agree that the United States has very good military training, but I couldn't find any website that gave evidence that it was one of the best in the world.

"The United States has more nuclear capability than anyone." I'm not sure if you are talking about nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons. The U.S. does have the highest megawatt capacity in power plants (http://www.world-nuclear.org...), but I'm not sure what that has to do with warfare. If you are talking about nuclear weapons, that statement is flat out wrong. Russia has significantly more warheads than the United States. (http://www.fas.org...)

Although their technology is less advanced, I think the People's Republic of China is the most powerful. They have about six hundred million more available troops than the United States, and about five hundred million more that are fit for military service. America's money can only go so far. If the Liberation Army and the U.S. Armed Forces fought head-to-head, it's pretty obvious that the Liberation Army would win, simply because of their size. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)(http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Debate Round No. 1
Kazybek

Pro

Before I start, I also mean the United States Armed Forces. So I would like to present some information to support my point of view.
First of all, I would like to present information why I think that U.S. Army Forces has the best training system in the world.
"Training

Training in the United States Army is generally divided into two categories – individual and collective.

Basic training consists of 10 weeks for most recruits followed by AIT (Advanced Individualized Training) where they receive training for their MOS (military occupational specialties) with the length of AIT school varying by the MOS, some individuals MOS's range anywhere from 14–20 weeks of One Station Unit Training,(OSUT) which counts as basic and AIT. Support and other MOS hopefuls attend nine to eleven weeks of Basic Combat Training followed by Advanced Individual Training in their primary (MOS) at any of the numerous MOS training facilities around the country. The length of time spent in AIT depends on the MOS of the soldier. (ex. 25B- IT Specialist MOS is 24 Weeks, 11B- Infantry 15–17 weeks) Depending on the needs of the Army BCT is conducted at a number of locations, but two of the longest running are the Armor School at Fort Knox, Kentucky and the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia. Following these basic and advanced training schools, soldiers may opt to continue with their training and apply for an "ASI" which stands for "Additional Skill Identifier". The ASI allows the Army to take a wide ranging MOS and taper it into a more unique MOS. For instance, take a combat medic whose duties are to provide pre-hospital emergency care. With an ASI the medic can receive additional training and become a Cardiovascular Specialist, a Dialysis Specialist or even a Licensed Practical Nurse. For officers this training includes pre-commissioning training either at USMA, ROTC, or OCS. After commissioning, officers undergo branch specific training at the Basic Officer Leaders Course, (formerly called Officer Basic Course) which varies in time and location based on their future jobs. Further career development is available through the Army Correspondence Course Program.
Collective training takes place both at the unit's assigned station, but the most intensive collective training takes place at the three Combat Training Centers (CTC); the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort Polk, Louisiana, and the Joint Multinational Training Center (JMRC) at the Hohenfels Training Area in Hohenfels, Germany".
(http://en.wikipedia.org... )
Secondly, I don't think that China can win the war, because China doesn't have strong navy and therefore can't attack the USA. You can use site http://www.globalfirepower.com... to compare their power. So it is obvious that U.S. navy will defeat Chinese navy. As a result Chinese can't redeploy its forces in the U.S. and use their size. The war will be held in China. U.S. has far more planes and helicopters than China. Therefore they will take the airspace under its control. However I agree that ground invasion might fail, but the USA can use nuclear weapons. China has only about 20 intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of targeting the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction) , which isn't enough to defeat the USA, but the United States has thousands nuclear bombs, (http://en.wikipedia.org...) which is enough to kill everyone in the China.
So the USA will win, because nobody in the China will survive.
Sketchy

Con

Please note that unless specifically stated, China will refer to the People's Republic of China, not the Republic of China (Taiwan). Also. I assume that Pro is fine with me using Wikipedia as a source, but if you question the validity of Wikipedia, I would be more than happy to find other references.

Your description on American military training is very detailed and 'original' (copy-pasted directly from Wikipedia), but it still doesn't prove that it is the best in the world. Israel's military training is much more rigorous than the U.S., and American special forces actually travel to Israel for the most advanced training. (http://www.guardian.co.uk...)

China's communist government makes it much easier for them to attack, because they don't have to go through the lengthy American process. They could very easily set aside hundreds of billions of dollars for warfare if need be. Martial law can be declared quite easily in China, especially when compared to the U.S, as evident in the June
Fourth Incident. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) America's major
disadvantage is that many people will be against the war, and will protest to the government. This can cause major problems like in Vietnam where the U.S. actually had to pull out its troops from Indochina, resulting in a communist victory. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

The US would be extremely hesitant to use nuclear warfare, especially due to all of the legislation banning it. (http://en.wikipedia.org...); (http://en.wikipedia.org...); (http://en.wikipedia.org...) But if this theoretical war did include nuclear warfare, Russia would definitely win. Russia is much bigger than the United States (by around 3 million square miles), so the US would have to use much more of their nuclear weapons to completely eradicate the Russian population. (http://en.wikipedia.org...); (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Russia also has 2,500 more warheads than America (see link in previous round), so it would be the United States that would be defeated.
Debate Round No. 2
Kazybek

Pro

First of all, in nuclear war nobody would win, because life on Earth would be destroyed and nobody would survive. The United States has a total nuclear weapons destructive force of 1,800 megatons, which is an ability to destroy humanity 18 times. Russia has a nuclear weapons destructive force of 2,900 megatons, which is an ability to destroy humanity 29 times. (http://www.wagingpeace.org...) So I don't think that it is really big differences how many times we would be killed. However, I don't think that this war will start. Therefore I just compared the military capabilities of China and the United states.
The United States often violates various international norms and laws, if they need it. Therefore I don't think that the government would have serious legal problems if they need to use nuclear weapons. For example, the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Finally, if the nuclear warfare started, protests wouldn't make any difference, because quite a few hours to launch a nuclear strike.
Sketchy

Con

Before I state my rebuttal, I'm going to define two words. I apologize for bringing semantics into play so late in this debate, but I think it will help. I know the third link is broken, but this is DDO's fault, not mine. If you want to check out the source, it can be found by searching for 'People's Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction' on http://en.wikipedia.org....

Most - greatest in quantity, extent, or degree (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

Greatest - markedly superior in character or quality (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)

"First of all, in nuclear war nobody would win, because life on Earth would be destroyed and nobody would survive." "Therefore I don't think that the government would have serious legal problems if they need to use nuclear weapons." "Finally, if the nuclear warfare started, protests wouldn't make any difference, because quite a few hours to launch a nuclear strike."
Your statements seem to contradict each other, and I'm not really sure what you are trying to get at. We can both agree that China and the USA probably have enough nuclear potential to kill all life on Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)
This would result in a stalemate, and according to the definition of most, this means that the United States Armed Forces is not the most powerful army in the world, because it is not superior to every other army in the world.

"The United States often violates various international norms and laws, if they need it." I understand that there are some cases where the US bends some rules, but it is pretty obvious that China does it as often, if not more. But, even if China followed the rules and the US didn't, the PRC stated that they would retaliate if a nuclear war was started.(http://www.nytimes.com...); (http://www.asiaone.com...)

Without nuclear weapons, there is no way that the United States could successfully invade China, simply due to their massive population and communist government. China could very easily enlist every single civilian to fight, and American technology only goes so far. China would overwhelm the Americans, and the US would be forced to surrender.

As you can see, no matter the scenario, the United States Armed Forces is currently not the most powerful army in the world. I've had a great time debating with you, and I'm always open to a rematch of any kind.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kazybek 2 years ago
Kazybek
Thank you.
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
If you're asking for help, then sure.

Defining Terms
define "army":
define "powerful":

This makes your argument clearer and the debate more understandable. It also avoids semantic distortion of meanings.

Structure your arguments in form that is easy to read and concise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Example:
C1. The U.S army is the most powerful because it has the best trained personnel.

Training is a measure of competence and capability on the battlefield. One U.S soldier has the capability of 5 Chinese soldiers" (1) etc.

C2. The U.S has the most amount of advanced weapons in the world.

In modern warfare, military might is not determined by size of army, but rather its resources. Regardless of China's army size, if its weapons and the weapons of any other nation in the world are not equal to or greater than that of the U.S, then all those countries will not possibly win a modern war. "U.S has the most advanced weapons and largest arsenal in the world" (2)

Sources

1. www.example.com
2. www.sample.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your explanations in a real debate will be much more detailed and logical than my example, but its a stepping stone.

Don't just make an argument, quote and refute your opponent's arguments as well.

Also reread and revise. There were too many grammatical errors and typos.

Be sure to research thoroughly.

Aesthetic appeal is also considered, so your debate would seem less jumbled if you would cite and list your sources at the END of your argument in that round, like I did in the example.
Posted by Kazybek 2 years ago
Kazybek
Dear 000ike.
This debate was first in my life. I understand that I made a lot of mistakes. So could you explain my mistakes.
Posted by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
I found pro's round 2 paragraph fishy, since it was so informative and coherent, unlike the rest of his argument. Further searching revealed that he copy and pasted the whole thing from Wikipedia. Lol
Posted by quarterexchange 2 years ago
quarterexchange
To go on what Falcon said, you are going way off the topic of Army Pro. Nuclear weapons and F-22's are U.S. Air Force weapons. Don't bring them into your main argument.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Hey, you might want to change "U.S. army" to "U.S. armed forced" so as to include the navy, coast guard, marines, and air force as well. Your opponent can easily take your debate at face value. (Unless you specifically want to talk about just the army.)
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
KazybekSketchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Args to Con for showing that Nuclear War will end in a stalemate. Conduct to Con for allowing Pro to argue "armed forces" and pretty much declining the opportunity to exploit the debate by only arguing against the US army. SG to Con for better structure and organization. Sources to Con because Pro abused wikipedia by directly copying and pasting.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 2 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
KazybekSketchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a very easily resolution but argues it very badly.
Vote Placed by 000ike 2 years ago
000ike
KazybekSketchyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro went on a tangent lecture of unnecessary information about U.S training in round 2. Pro also copy and pasted that entire irrelevant lecture from Wikipedia, losing him conduct. Pro's argument was wrought with grammatical errors and typos. Furthermore, pro's argument was infested by unproved subjective conclusions and assertions. Very good argumentation from Con, very good trolling from pro.