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

The US government should cut military spending

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/23/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 100200
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




I, pro, will be arguing that we should make slight cuts to military spending and put the money towards NASA. Con will be arguing that we should either fund the military more or keep the spending the same.
1. Don't troll
2. If you need extra time, message me or mention it in your final argument.
3. Round 1 will be for accepting the debate and your opening statements
4. Try not to use logical fallacies
5. Max of 8,000 characters. If you need more, put your argument in a Google document.


The US should not cut military spending because we are at war with the Muslims. Infact we need to tripple military spending because if we don't, we are ALL gonna die.
Debate Round No. 1


Claiming that we will all die is a huge exaggeration. In 2015 we had a military budget of 598.5 million dollars. China, the second biggest military is 5x smaller. Saudi Arabia is about 10x smaller. Regarding nuclear power, we have thousands more than China. I assure you with over 2,000 nuclear bombs we won't be killed by Muslims. But let's say, for the sake of the argument, we did triple the military budget as you proposed. Well that would be roughly 1,795,500,000 dollars, so nearly 1.8 trillion. With a t (that's nearly triple from what we had in WW2.) That would be 10T53; of the US GDP. Now let"s compare that to NASA. NASA has a budget of 18.4 billion; .5T53; of the national budget. Let's say we quadrupled it"s budget (it's really low, so it doesn't have as much as an effect if we triple it), we would have a budget of around 70 billion. We would be able to:

Make 38 Curiosity rover in 1 year,

1 new ISS in next 6 years,

Have new space shuttle programs in the next 2 years of a cost of $196 billion,

Make 31 Hubble Space Telescopes in 1 year

Or have a Manned mission to Mars in just a few years.

Now what would the military do? Well according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon hid 125 billion dollars in administrative waste. According to Time magazine, Pentagon workers wasted 1K on strip clubs. One security journalist wrote that budget day was "his Christmas."

Of course this is all ignoring the enormous amount of money tripling the military budget would add to the debt, but that's a story for another time.



Launching 2,000 nuclear weapons would destroy the planet- we can only fight these maniacs with conventional weaponry- tanks, guns, carpet bombing, etc. These guys have made it abundantly clear that they want war, so wew need to make it abundanbtly clear to them that we are gfoing to DESTROY them.
Debate Round No. 2


Yes, we do need to make a point. But we have a different threat at hand. They are a new threat, one that we haven't seen before. Our military is equipped to fight organized militaries. They are not organized, so we do bombings which are ineffective. On top of that, if we do kill them, then ISIS will call them martyrs. If we go down onto the ground with our troops then they will say it's a war against Christianity and the west.

What we need to do is:
1. Work with other countries in an international coalition
2. Focus on stabilizing territories
3. Help educate people in stabilized countries about ISIS
4. Resettle people in stabilized countries
5. Take out the grunts
6. Stay vigilant

Yes, we should take out ISIS. No, we shouldn't go in guns a' blazing. And no, we don't need more military funds to do so. We just need a new strategy. And there are other issues at hand, and if we work with other people the burden of defeating ISIS/ISIL will be less of a burden for each country, and such a large military is not as necessary. Thus we can make small cuts (which honestly won't effect much. It can be with the nukes. We don't need 2,000 and a lot of money goes towards it.), and put some of the money towards NASA or other organizations which are greatly under funded.

Now it's time for me to prove why you should vote pro.

[1] Con has made several exaggerations in his arguments (ie "we are ALL going to die")

[2] Con has shown little sources on how his strategy could be useful

[3] Con has made several spelling mistakes ("abundanbtly," "wew," etc.)

[4] Con has not made arguments against all oft he claims I have made. He said nothing about NASA and when I talked about corruption and the ineffectiveness of the Pentagon and the military in general, con only spoke about how 2,000 nukes would destroy the world, yet I made no statement saying that we should use our nuclear arsenal.

For these reasons I ask you to please vote pro.


People- there are 1.6 billion people in this world who want to murder us, burn out towns, poison our wells, destroy our crops, eat out cats and rape our goats. These gus are insane, deranged, and sadistic sick little monkeys- and if we don't do something about our Muslim problem we are ALL gonna die!
Chris Christie knows what I'm talking about:

Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sinque 2 years ago
NASA is one of the most important organizations in the country. It's our progression scientifically.
Posted by Xenoth 2 years ago
We don't need NASA to be useful, but having it is good for advancing the sciences.
Posted by Iacov 2 years ago
But why do we need NASA to be useful?
Posted by Xenoth 2 years ago
Sorry for my terrible grammar. I was in a hurry. I chose NASA because it has so little funding and I find it ridiculous. If NASA had more funding it would much more useful.
Posted by Xenoth 2 years ago
I chose NASA because it has so little funding it's honestly ridiculous in my opinion and if we had more funding NASA would much more useful.
Posted by Vapid_Darkness 2 years ago
Im looking forward to see this unfold.
Posted by Iacov 2 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.