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

The United States Defense budget should be decreased by at least $200 billion

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
smithn421 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 522 times Debate No: 101651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing in favor of the above proposition. My opponent may take any of the following positions:
1) That the current defense budget should be decreased by a smaller amount than I propose
2) That the current defense budget should remain the same
3) That the current defense budget should be increased.

I believe we should both share the burden of proof, but I am willing to settle for something else if my opponent convinces me I should have the burden of proof. What I believe my opponent should prove is that the United States currently needs to spend the amount they propose. What I will try to prove is that we don't need as much of a defense budget that my opponent proposes, and that we should at least decrease it by $200 billion and that we can afford to do that in terms of not being too weak if we had it lowered by that much.

Current facts:
The current US defense budget for fiscal year 2017, is $582.7 billion[1]

Rules of this debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults
2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus 1. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument between us even, since I am not using round 1 for argument. My opponent may begin their arguments in round 1 if they choose, but should waive round 4 if they do that. They may do the opposite if they wish though.
3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this round. New facts and statistics can be shown, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.
4) The first round of argument should just be main arguments, no rebuttals this round. So, if you are second to post, you should not rebut what your opponent said directly.

Violation of the above rules is justification for voters to give the person who did not violate these rules the point in conduct.



I will be taking the stance that the United States military budget should remain the same.

Since I am not arguing for change, I believe that my opponent will have the burden of proof, while I simply must support my point.

I accept my opponent's rules and will follow them to the best of my ability. In accordance with the rules, I waive this round.

Good luck to my opponent, and may the best argument win.
Debate Round No. 1


I honestly think the burden of proof would be on both of us, because it doesn't seem obvious why we should be spending the amount we currently do, especially given the fact we spend more than $350 billion a year than any other nation and more than the next ten countries combined. If my opponent still thinks I should have sole burden of proof, I suppose I can still argue with such conditions since it seems blatantly obvious, given the points I am going to bring up, that we should spend less on military.

The military is wasteful with its allocated funds

First, I wish to point out that there is massive waste that goes on in the military. Trillions of dollars per decade are wasted in the military for bureaucratic nonsense from the pentagon[1], to useless projects[2][3], to the military having to spend everything that is given to them or else they won't be approved for more money. Seriously, I've heard stories where soldiers have to fire all of their bullets before the end of the fiscal year so that they can be approved for new ones, if they instead were able to save those bullets, that would save some money. So, already nearly a hundred billion in military spending can be saved every year if we cut back on wasteful spending. There is easily 100 billion a year that is wasted by the military. If we cut back on this waste, we could cut the military budget by 100 billion. I'll point out where the other 100 billion will come from.

Do we even need a majority of our military bases overseas?
Next, I'll point out the the US military has bases all over the world that require maintenance. There is no good reason for us to be in those other countries for the most part. Let those countries defend themselves. The US spends over $150 billion a year on over-seas bases [4], and when was the last time we've had a war in Europe, for example? World war 2? We only need bases in the middle east at this point since that's all where we have enemies, so we can get rid of a vast majority of the bases we have, I'd say at least 2/3 of them, which is where the other 100 billion will come from(since 2/3 of 150 billion is 100 billion). There is really no good reason to keep these bases, for they are not necessary for us to protect ourselves which is all we should be worried about. If a war were ever to happen where our ally is declared war upon, we can simply ship our troops over there, and we don't need the bases to be there to be maintained every year. It is far cheaper to ship our troops when the time comes that we need troops in Europe, than to keep a reserve of troops there.

Even with this decrease of $200 billion, we would still be the country which spends the most on its military
The very next country below us who spends the second most amount on their military, is China. They spend only $215 billion a year on their military[5]. If we decreased our military budget by the proposed $200 billion, we would still be spending $382 Billion, more than $150 billion than China spends.

The money we are over-spending on our military, could be used for better causes
This money could be used for other more important things... such as paying off our debt or at least balancing our budget. It's insane how much debt the US has piled up, and everyone should be worried about our debt. We need to cut spending, or else increase taxes. I suggest cutting spending so that people don't have even more money stolen from them by the government.

I've basically argued all of my points and I turn this over to my opponent.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
smithn421: No problem. I just thought you weren't going to post since the first round could literally just be acceptance. To me it would seem like it would be easy to just say "I accept" and you could have said that right when you accepted the debate.

Maybe you were hoping to start your argument in round 1, I don't know.
Posted by smithn421 3 years ago
I apologize for my slow post. I have been busy with testing over this past week, and I only just remembered this debate. I will attempt to be more timely in future posts.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Are you going to post soon? The first round shouldn't be that hard, unless you're using it for argument, in which case, excuse this comment. I just have had several debates people accept and then they never post, which is annoying. Please post soon, especially if you're just going to use round 1 as acceptance.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Why not decrease it down to 0,0 ?..Worst case scenario is nothing will happen ?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.