The Instigator
thewhitespoon
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
OhMyPancake
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

military payment

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
OhMyPancake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,194 times Debate No: 32789
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

thewhitespoon

Pro

someone who protects our country should get paid more than someone who protects a ball
OhMyPancake

Con

Hello and thanks to thewhitespoon for posting this debate. As this is my very first debate I will be doing the best I can. Since there isn't a clear or defined structure I will proceed as best as possible.

I'd like to start by saying that my argument will take the form of a logistical and economical argument. My argument will be primarily stated as: While the members of our armed forces provide a service of greater importance to our country than professional athletes do, it would be impossible to pay armed forces personnel the average salary equivalent to that of professional athletes.

Since this is the first round I will be quite brief in making my point. My first source of information will be the May 2012 report on occupational employment and wages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics; the second source of information comes from the Department of Defense on February 28, 2013.

Source 1: http://www.bls.gov...
Source 2: http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil...

I'd like to end this round by saying that I completely and fully understand the importance of our armed forces and I think that paying them with a respectable salary is extremely important; however, their amount they are paid must make sense logistically and economically. It wouldn't be reasonable to pay all E-3's the salary of Payton Manning or even of a standard defensive lineman. While I do think the pay for military personnel is a little too low I also realize that it is unreasonable to think they should be paid a higher salary than professional athletes. In a perfect world everyone could be paid in proportion to their measurable contribution to society, but we don't live in a perfect world and we must frame all of our arguments within the context this reality.
Debate Round No. 1
thewhitespoon

Pro

well if we took about 44%, this is just a estimate, we could pay or armed forces a little more and stop some of the military cut backs. we need the military but we don't need all of those sports because we can live without football but not without a military.
Also, if the US was taken over because of a small military there would be no sports
OhMyPancake

Con

Let me first say thank you for proceeding in a timely manner.

First I take your argument to say the following: The military is necessary for the USA's continued existence as a free country and thus should be paid more than it currently does.

I would like to say I agree in full with what I understand your argument to be saying, but what makes me continue to disagree with you are some of the finer points regarding the military.

What we are currently spending on our military is absolutely ridiculous. The US currently accounts for 41% or two-fifths of the world's military spending. The next three after us are China, Russia and the United Kingdom; all of those are allies of ours and their spending goes as follows: 8.2%, 4.1% and 3.6% of world military expenditure. We are drastically overpaying into our military. A simple solution to the problem of undesirable wages for armed forces personnel would be to decrease the number of people in our military. Let's say we decrease the amount of people we have by 5%, we could then spread the money they would have been paid amongst the rest of the military; imagine if we decrease by 10, 15 or even 20% the number of people in our military, we could increase the average pay quite substantially. The people who are no longer in the military could find a job in the private or public sector using the skills they gained while serving in the armed forces.

The more important thing to note here is that we are unrealistically spending money on a military that shouldn't be as large as it is. If the goal of our military is to preserve peace then we are still overpaying. The most peaceful countries in the world are New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Sweden, Japan and Canada. This is all according to the Global Peace Index of 2009 where the US receives a rating as average in terms of how peaceful we are as a country. Their spending on their military is much less than ours yet they achieve great levels of peace; this suggests that the military isn't necessary to create peace in a society.

I would also like to address the point of a potential take-over of the US. There is no current evidence suggesting that the US will be taken over by anyone anytime soon. We have the largest and most advanced military in the world and reducing our number of troops or aircraft carriers will not make us probable to be invaded. The US in the world stage is viewed as an overly-militaristic country that interferes too much with the business of other nations. I am not in favor of eliminating or abolishing the military, but we as a country need to come to a realization that having more guns than everyone does not make us look strong or make us any safer, what it does it make us look overly aggressive to everyone else.

Source 3: http://www.globalissues.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
thewhitespoon

Pro

I agree that we do spend a lot and I thank that you are explaining in a calm manner. But we spend a lot of money because we are the world super power. we have been the world super power since t the 1860s after the civil war, which I hope we all know about it. if not, it was the war against slavery bet tween the north and the south. as I was saying, since we are the world super power we should have a good military. But putting the military aside for a second, if we took a small portion of every athletes salary, we could pay off some of the debt Obama has put its in. Now going back to the military, the marines are usually the first branch in, but they get paid less than any other branch of the military. Also, only 25% of marines come back alive, and the ones who live are mostly psycho for the war and have random flashbacks. so I believe marines should have a better salary.
OhMyPancake

Con

In closing I would like to say thank you for debating in a calm and polite manner as well. I am not vacant of care for armed forces personnel as I am one of the only men in my family to have never served in them; I understand the importance and agree that the pay is too low. Now let me close after addressing a few of your final points.

Our position as the superpower of the world is debatable, but I would tend to agree; however, this still doesn't require us to be accountable for 41% of the world's military spending. We have more military spending than the next fifteen countries combined and all of them are allies. I think we need a strong military, but there is a very important difference between a strong military and an over-inflated one. We can clearly have a strong and potent military by spending less than we do.

Next point to address is the point about taking money from athletes to pay off the debt Obama has accrued for the US. First point to make here is that the government has no say in how much athletes get paid. Not only would it be unethical to take pay from athletes to pay off national debt, but it would also be a ridiculous infringement on the rights of those athletes to keep what they are paid. Athletes are paid what they are paid because Americans by and large continue to watch sports on TV, buy sports memorabilia and spend their salaries on sports related goods. If people stopped watching sports on TV by 50% then the pay professional athletes receive would be reduced severely. On the point of Obama putting the country into debt, the statement made is almost entirely untrue. A large part of our debt comes from military spending and entitlement programs; not to mentions the two wars we continue to fight that were put on the credit card so to speak. This was a problem Obama inherited not created and it is unfair to blame it on him.

To close I would like to say that I think military personnel could be paid more and I would have no issue with that. In a perfect world people would be paid in proportion to their measurable contribution to society; however, this is not a perfect world and we need to be realistic here. There are 1,138,154 enlisted members of the US Armed Forces and only 12,450 professional athletes in the US. The average salary for a professional athlete is $75,760; there would be no way for our government to create a situation where that was the average salary of US Armed Forces. Thank you for a polite debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by OhMyPancake 4 years ago
OhMyPancake
I tried to address that point when I was arguing against Pro, albeit it was somewhat of a brief mention.
Posted by bboard89 4 years ago
bboard89
Anyone arguing that it is wrong for pro athletes to be paid more than the military ought to take this into account:
We are the ones who determine what athletes get paid. They didn't always get paid such ridiculously high amounts, but while it grew in popularity so did the salaries. this is simply the free market at work. here's a question, why SHOULDNT pro athletes make as much as they possibly can? Why should they make less simply because the military doesn't make enough? Why shouldn't doctors be the ones to take a pay cut? Or actors? Or lawyers? Or authors? Or teachers?...... See where im going with this? any argument for lowering pro athletes' pay can be made for lowering the militaries pay.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
thewhitespoonOhMyPancakeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with Con before and after the debate, but the debate was pretty much a draw.
Vote Placed by nigga_swag 4 years ago
nigga_swag
thewhitespoonOhMyPancakeTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Go Pro
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
thewhitespoonOhMyPancakeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Good question to ask pro, however you got really off topic with talking about using socialist wealth redistribution to pay down the debt. Also con, great job on using government sources, so very very rare.
Vote Placed by Gondun 4 years ago
Gondun
thewhitespoonOhMyPancakeTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Well done, both of you. Con wins because he had the more convincing arguments and good sources. In the future, though, state your evidence in a direct quote or paraphrase, don't just give a URL.