The Instigator
Vania.Ruiz
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
THE_OPINIONATOR
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points

the united federal government should substiantially decrease the production of military warfare

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 5 votes the winner is...
Vania.Ruiz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,524 times Debate No: 13481
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (5)

 

Vania.Ruiz

Pro

The united states fed gv. should substantially decrease the production of militaqry warfare not only because it will save money but because it will also get troops out of foreign countries. By reducing military warfare we arent stopping our progress in foreign countries just saving the lives of some of the people over there. When there are less weapons the united states wont have enough arms to supply the amount of troops we have now which will cause them to bring troops home because they wont keep troops out if they are not protected. Vote affirmative on the basis of saving money and saving lives
THE_OPINIONATOR

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. The united states should not decrease the production of military warfare. The troops stationed in other places besides a war zone are for protection of the people inhabiting the area and us as a country. The U.S military cant pull out of certain places such as south Korea due to the fact that a war treaty was never signed between North Korea and the UN after the Korean war. The U.S. stockpiles weapons in case of an outbreak of war so that we will not have to produce as much. "The united states fed gv. should substantially decrease the production of military warfare not only because it will save money" how much money will this save and what will it be used for? "When there are less weapons the united states wont have enough arms to supply the amount of troops we have now which will cause them to bring troops home because they wont keep troops out if they are not protected." The U.S. may direct these troops to other places such as Afghanistan, just because they are not needed in one area doesn't mean they are not needed in another. "Vote affirmative on the basis of saving money and saving lives." what if the U.S. pulls out of other places and these other countries become invaded by groups of extremist due to the U.S. threat being gone, and what if the U.S. doesn't save money as you predict?
Debate Round No. 1
Vania.Ruiz

Pro

Let me specify, the mentality of saying that we need to be ther in other coutries in oppresing them. It basically justifies the USA to go around and tell the entire world what to do and when.
THE_OPINIONATOR

Con

Other countrys have basess positioned in other countrys so why should we have to pull out when other countrys are still occupying it??
Debate Round No. 2
Vania.Ruiz

Pro

Spelling check please?
THE_OPINIONATOR

Con

It is in our best interest and the country's being occupied for the U.S. to not pull out for their protection and ours. These bases may also help us deploy troops to areas hit by disasters and potential war zones in the future. These bases de[ending on location would be closer than deploying from the U.S. It is also in our best interest to keep weapons stockpiled so that in events of a major world war production would cost as much money and can be used for other things. Vote Con because it is better for us and the occupied country's if we stay put.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by waterbird 6 years ago
waterbird
im with j.kenyon. that has got to be the worst debate i have ever seen. dont mean to be too harsh but its true.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
ehhh i had a good run :P
Posted by Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
Sorry for even making this debate, I did not make this, my CX partner did D:< Go yell at her her name is Ainsley Cocks ;D
Posted by truththroughlogic 6 years ago
truththroughlogic
i mean basically, the way the government sees it, is that they will eventually have to intervene, so why not do it early, when its still cheap?

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
Posted by truththroughlogic 6 years ago
truththroughlogic
i feel i should point out that the REASON the US government maintains a strong military presence in most countries is because they tried the "lets leave everyone alone" approach, the result was the great depression and nazi germany

the logic that the world will collapse without U.S military protection is time tested

you think that a reduction in U.S military operations wont cause a massive decrease in global political stability (since you cant honestly want an increase in the amounts of civil wars), i say why do you think that, when the last 100 years of world history says otherwise
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
I would like to apologize for my spelling mistake I was careless and in a hurry, I would like to thank the voters for pointing out these mistakes and they will not happen in future debates.
Posted by DrStrangeLuv 6 years ago
DrStrangeLuv
@J.Kenyon

lol, well said sir. high five.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
If there as a way to vote against both of you, I would do it.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro has the burden of proof and needed to show why US withdrawal from South Korea, Afghanistan, and other places would be beneficial. Why would it be be good for the U.S. or the world to have North Korea, China, al Qaeda, and others unopposed? Pro made no logical case, only asserting it would be good.

Spelling was poor on both sides, but I think Pro was worse. There is a link to check spelling at the bottom of the page used to submit arguments, so there is no excuse for blatant errors.
Posted by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
says the challenger who has misspelings in her first and second round argument.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
Vania.RuizTHE_OPINIONATORTied
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 
Vote Placed by angela.siebrecht 6 years ago
angela.siebrecht
Vania.RuizTHE_OPINIONATORTied
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 
Vote Placed by wsu4ever 6 years ago
wsu4ever
Vania.RuizTHE_OPINIONATORTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Vania.RuizTHE_OPINIONATORTied
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 
Vote Placed by THE_OPINIONATOR 6 years ago
THE_OPINIONATOR
Vania.RuizTHE_OPINIONATORTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04