Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:91-120|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Justification for Large Military

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Excluding the years which encompassed WW1 and WW2, The Napoleonic Wars, et al (I'll list them all out...basically the outlier times of mass death in the last 600 years), there has been more death and destruction, on average, every year for the last 100 years, than any other 100 year period in the 5 centuries which proceeded it.

How you like me now? You want in?

So, what exactly is your point? That war kills people? Of course it does.

My point is that hegemony lessens the death. Therefore, you have to link these wars to a state of hegemony, and prove that hegemony actually increased body count. Did Napoleon have a state of hegemony? I would say no.

Did Hitler? No.

Did Stalin? No.

Did Mao? No.

Did England? Not really, it couldn't even get its own backyard under control (American revolution, no influence over continental Europe)

Does America? I would say yes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Excluding the years which encompassed WW1 and WW2, The Napoleonic Wars, et al (I'll list them all out...basically the outlier times of mass death in the last 600 years), there has been more death and destruction, on average, every year for the last 100 years, than any other 100 year period in the 5 centuries which proceeded it.

How you like me now? You want in?

So, what exactly is your point? That war kills people? Of course it does.

My point is that hegemony lessens the death. Therefore, you have to link these wars to a state of hegemony, and prove that hegemony actually increased body count. Did Napoleon have a state of hegemony? I would say no.

Did Hitler? No.

Did Stalin? No.

Did Mao? No.

Did England? Not really, it couldn't even get its own backyard under control (American revolution, no influence over continental Europe)

Does America? I would say yes.

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:24:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Excluding the years which encompassed WW1 and WW2, The Napoleonic Wars, et al (I'll list them all out...basically the outlier times of mass death in the last 600 years), there has been more death and destruction, on average, every year for the last 100 years, than any other 100 year period in the 5 centuries which proceeded it.

How you like me now? You want in?

So, what exactly is your point? That war kills people? Of course it does.

My point is that hegemony lessens the death. Therefore, you have to link these wars to a state of hegemony, and prove that hegemony actually increased body count. Did Napoleon have a state of hegemony? I would say no.

Did Hitler? No.

Did Stalin? No.

Did Mao? No.

Did England? Not really, it couldn't even get its own backyard under control (American revolution, no influence over continental Europe)

Does America? I would say yes.

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

All of this is irrelevant. The topic at hand is that hegemony promotes peace. None of what you said here has anything to do with that topic. Neither does your point about Napoleon.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:24:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Are you trying to troll bro? Because to me it really looks like you're trying to veer this way off topic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:28:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

The bolded here is some sort of non-sequitor.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

None of what you say here implies that Britain controlled continental Europe. That was what mattered most at the time...the other nations of the world were far behind economically, politically, and militarily when compared to Europe. Britain had little to no control over the affairs on continental Europe. They did NOT have hegemony.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:33:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:24:14 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Excluding the years which encompassed WW1 and WW2, The Napoleonic Wars, et al (I'll list them all out...basically the outlier times of mass death in the last 600 years), there has been more death and destruction, on average, every year for the last 100 years, than any other 100 year period in the 5 centuries which proceeded it.

How you like me now? You want in?

So, what exactly is your point? That war kills people? Of course it does.

My point is that hegemony lessens the death. Therefore, you have to link these wars to a state of hegemony, and prove that hegemony actually increased body count. Did Napoleon have a state of hegemony? I would say no.

Did Hitler? No.

Did Stalin? No.

Did Mao? No.

Did England? Not really, it couldn't even get its own backyard under control (American revolution, no influence over continental Europe)

Does America? I would say yes.

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

All of this is irrelevant. The topic at hand is that hegemony promotes peace. None of what you said here has anything to do with that topic. Neither does your point about Napoleon.

Um, look at your last comment. You stated that England didn't have the kind of hegemony that America does. I disagree, and believe they had more.

Hegemony has nothing to do with promoting peace. It does promote obedience, which can lead to peace for a certain time, but it always falls apart...HARD.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 12:39:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:28:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

The bolded here is some sort of non-sequitor.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

None of what you say here implies that Britain controlled continental Europe. That was what mattered most at the time...the other nations of the world were far behind economically, politically, and militarily when compared to Europe. Britain had little to no control over the affairs on continental Europe. They did NOT have hegemony.

Wanna debate that?

Resolved - England controlled more of the world in the 18th century than America controls of it today.

That's a slam dunk for me. I'll make it 5 rounds, and I'll skip rounds 3 and 4 and let you do whatever you want with those rounds.

That
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:06:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 12:39:09 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:28:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

The bolded here is some sort of non-sequitor.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

None of what you say here implies that Britain controlled continental Europe. That was what mattered most at the time...the other nations of the world were far behind economically, politically, and militarily when compared to Europe. Britain had little to no control over the affairs on continental Europe. They did NOT have hegemony.

Wanna debate that?

Resolved - England controlled more of the world in the 18th century than America controls of it today.

That's a slam dunk for me. I'll make it 5 rounds, and I'll skip rounds 3 and 4 and let you do whatever you want with those rounds.

That

It would depend upon how you defined "controlled". I wouldn't mind debating this specific resolution, depending on how you set it up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 1:55:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 1:06:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:39:09 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:28:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

The bolded here is some sort of non-sequitor.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

None of what you say here implies that Britain controlled continental Europe. That was what mattered most at the time...the other nations of the world were far behind economically, politically, and militarily when compared to Europe. Britain had little to no control over the affairs on continental Europe. They did NOT have hegemony.

Wanna debate that?

Resolved - England controlled more of the world in the 18th century than America controls of it today.

That's a slam dunk for me. I'll make it 5 rounds, and I'll skip rounds 3 and 4 and let you do whatever you want with those rounds.

That

It would depend upon how you defined "controlled". I wouldn't mind debating this specific resolution, depending on how you set it up.

You propose the resolution and I'll set it up.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:12:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 1:55:22 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 1:06:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:39:09 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:28:19 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:15:05 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 12:10:53 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 11:59:45 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

England won the world war in which America gained its independence. They had bigger fish to fry, and plus, France concentrated as much of its force here as it could in order to get out of the war with at least one victory.

The bolded here is some sort of non-sequitor.

America was a battleground, and the only one which England lost.

They won that war, and they dominated the world at the time...more so than America does today, that's for sure.

None of what you say here implies that Britain controlled continental Europe. That was what mattered most at the time...the other nations of the world were far behind economically, politically, and militarily when compared to Europe. Britain had little to no control over the affairs on continental Europe. They did NOT have hegemony.

Wanna debate that?

Resolved - England controlled more of the world in the 18th century than America controls of it today.

That's a slam dunk for me. I'll make it 5 rounds, and I'll skip rounds 3 and 4 and let you do whatever you want with those rounds.

That

It would depend upon how you defined "controlled". I wouldn't mind debating this specific resolution, depending on how you set it up.

You propose the resolution and I'll set it up.

??? YOU just proposed the resolution. I asked you how you were going to set it up.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:25:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:12:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

??? YOU just proposed the resolution. I asked you how you were going to set it up.

You were unsure of how I was going to define this term or that...

REFINE the resolution to your liking and then I'll use it in the debate I set up.

There...that better?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 3:15:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

LOL, that's the status quo, bro. That's MY argument. :)

That's not the status quo, 600 billion would be a 10%+ cut in defense spending. 70 billion or so in savings. I'll even argue wed still be safe with a 25% reduction, 170 billion.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 7:27:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 3:15:06 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

LOL, that's the status quo, bro. That's MY argument. :)

That's not the status quo, 600 billion would be a 10%+ cut in defense spending. 70 billion or so in savings. I'll even argue wed still be safe with a 25% reduction, 170 billion.

Once again you fail to be receptive to the point of hegemony, you would rather go on about how we only need to be safe within our own borders. Do you get that we are arguing for global hegemony and how it would be beneficial, not our own personal safety within our own borders.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:29:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 7:27:55 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:06 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

LOL, that's the status quo, bro. That's MY argument. :)

That's not the status quo, 600 billion would be a 10%+ cut in defense spending. 70 billion or so in savings. I'll even argue wed still be safe with a 25% reduction, 170 billion.

Once again you fail to be receptive to the point of hegemony, you would rather go on about how we only need to be safe within our own borders. Do you get that we are arguing for global hegemony and how it would be beneficial, not our own personal safety within our own borders.

hegemony? What's that?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 8:35:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

Worldwide infrastructure.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:06:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:29:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:27:55 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:06 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

LOL, that's the status quo, bro. That's MY argument. :)

That's not the status quo, 600 billion would be a 10%+ cut in defense spending. 70 billion or so in savings. I'll even argue wed still be safe with a 25% reduction, 170 billion.

Once again you fail to be receptive to the point of hegemony, you would rather go on about how we only need to be safe within our own borders. Do you get that we are arguing for global hegemony and how it would be beneficial, not our own personal safety within our own borders.

hegemony? What's that?

... Interesting how you blow off my point. I can easily argue that you could spend over 2 trillion in defense (2.5 times what we are spending now) to maintain a global hegemony. I can then go on to explain why that hegemony is beneficial to world peace and should be existent. Just in case you were serious about not knowing what hegemony is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:33:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% Per Year.

Give me a couple days...maybe send me a reminder. I have a lot of debates pending at the moment.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:34:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:06:59 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:29:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:27:55 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:06 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

hegemony? What's that?

... Interesting how you blow off my point. I can easily argue that you could spend over 2 trillion in defense (2.5 times what we are spending now) to maintain a global hegemony. I can then go on to explain why that hegemony is beneficial to world peace and should be existent. Just in case you were serious about not knowing what hegemony is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I don't think he's blowing off your point...I think he honestly does not know.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 10:46:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:25:50 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/28/2013 2:12:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

??? YOU just proposed the resolution. I asked you how you were going to set it up.

You were unsure of how I was going to define this term or that...

REFINE the resolution to your liking and then I'll use it in the debate I set up.

There...that better?

Like I said, define "control". I have no idea what you're talking about with that word.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:09:18 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:06:59 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:29:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 7:27:55 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 3:15:06 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 10:02:25 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:35:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/27/2013 6:30:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Whatever beef you have with the status quo.

Alright, 600 billion a year is more than enough money to keep the US safe.

LOL, that's the status quo, bro. That's MY argument. :)

That's not the status quo, 600 billion would be a 10%+ cut in defense spending. 70 billion or so in savings. I'll even argue wed still be safe with a 25% reduction, 170 billion.

Once again you fail to be receptive to the point of hegemony, you would rather go on about how we only need to be safe within our own borders. Do you get that we are arguing for global hegemony and how it would be beneficial, not our own personal safety within our own borders.

hegemony? What's that?

... Interesting how you blow off my point. I can easily argue that you could spend over 2 trillion in defense (2.5 times what we are spending now) to maintain a global hegemony. I can then go on to explain why that hegemony is beneficial to world peace and should be existent. Just in case you were serious about not knowing what hegemony is:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Alright, write it up, the US should spend 2 trillion dollars on defense.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:14:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You're separating some abstract benevolent non-existent US hegemony, which on balance is beneficial to the world, while in reality the 700 billion we spend has few, if any, of the global benefits your hegemonic stability theory supposes. You might justify it in theory, but in reality what the US is doing with it's massive defense budget isn't justified on any front and is draining the treasury in a time we can't afford it.
Write the resolution however you want.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:26:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 9:33:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% Per Year.

Give me a couple days...maybe send me a reminder. I have a lot of debates pending at the moment.

That's absurd, I'm not advocating exponential decay in military spending.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 11:28:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:26:45 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:33:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% Per Year.

Give me a couple days...maybe send me a reminder. I have a lot of debates pending at the moment.

That's absurd, I'm not advocating exponential decay in military spending.

Guess I'm forced to make that explicit, the resolution should be within the realm of discussion.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:13:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:14:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
You're separating some abstract benevolent non-existent US hegemony, which on balance is beneficial to the world, while in reality the 700 billion we spend has few, if any, of the global benefits your hegemonic stability theory supposes. You might justify it in theory, but in reality what the US is doing with it's massive defense budget isn't justified on any front and is draining the treasury in a time we can't afford it.
Write the resolution however you want.

I will gladly debate this topic with you in a more broad sense.

"Should we be making more cuts to social programs or the military?"

Reply if you think this is a fair topic, give me a few days to gather some facts and research evidence, and I will start it up.

You are once again failing to realize that this is all theory, if the US did practice hegemony in a relatively pure form, the large military budget would be justified AND would contribute to world peace.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:13:08 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:14:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
You're separating some abstract benevolent non-existent US hegemony, which on balance is beneficial to the world, while in reality the 700 billion we spend has few, if any, of the global benefits your hegemonic stability theory supposes. You might justify it in theory, but in reality what the US is doing with it's massive defense budget isn't justified on any front and is draining the treasury in a time we can't afford it.
Write the resolution however you want.

I will gladly debate this topic with you in a more broad sense.

"Should we be making more cuts to social programs or the military?"

Reply if you think this is a fair topic, give me a few days to gather some facts and research evidence, and I will start it up.

What's with the false dichotomy I'm not going to defend social programs as those are too expansive as well. Both military and social spending need curtailed.

You are once again failing to realize that this is all theory, if the US did practice hegemony in a relatively pure form, the large military budget would be justified AND would contribute to world peace.

Right, but we are talking about the U.S. military and it's budget as it stands now and how it will stand in the near future.
The military budget, as it stands now, needs to be cut. Not the military budget, as in an ideal world, needs expanded.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 2:35:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 2:13:08 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:14:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
You're separating some abstract benevolent non-existent US hegemony, which on balance is beneficial to the world, while in reality the 700 billion we spend has few, if any, of the global benefits your hegemonic stability theory supposes. You might justify it in theory, but in reality what the US is doing with it's massive defense budget isn't justified on any front and is draining the treasury in a time we can't afford it.
Write the resolution however you want.

I will gladly debate this topic with you in a more broad sense.

"Should we be making more cuts to social programs or the military?"

Reply if you think this is a fair topic, give me a few days to gather some facts and research evidence, and I will start it up.

What's with the false dichotomy I'm not going to defend social programs as those are too expansive as well. Both military and social spending need curtailed.

You are once again failing to realize that this is all theory, if the US did practice hegemony in a relatively pure form, the large military budget would be justified AND would contribute to world peace.

Right, but we are talking about the U.S. military and it's budget as it stands now and how it will stand in the near future.
The military budget, as it stands now, needs to be cut. Not the military budget, as in an ideal world, needs expanded.

But with possible leaders like Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton in the near future (both relatively supportive of hegemony), we could start to steer more in the direction of becoming the super hegemon we were before again. Even Clinton, a liberal democrat, has been seen to support hegemony, or at least economic hegemony.

So if I could argue that hegemony is possible in the near future, the large military budget would then be justified.

Also, sorry for my assumption about the social programs, I thought you were an extreme leftist/liberal until I checked out your profile, lol
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:17:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:28:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:26:45 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:33:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% Per Year.

Give me a couple days...maybe send me a reminder. I have a lot of debates pending at the moment.

That's absurd, I'm not advocating exponential decay in military spending.

Guess I'm forced to make that explicit, the resolution should be within the realm of discussion.

That was not my intent. How about this:

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% in FY 2013
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 4:20:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 11:14:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
You're separating some abstract benevolent non-existent US hegemony, which on balance is beneficial to the world, while in reality the 700 billion we spend has few, if any, of the global benefits your hegemonic stability theory supposes. You might justify it in theory, but in reality what the US is doing with it's massive defense budget isn't justified on any front and is draining the treasury in a time we can't afford it.
Write the resolution however you want.

You're correct that military spending does not incur benefits. What it does is that it reduces costs associated with non-hegemonic military build up, costs such as restrictions to trade, and inflated military budgets around the world.

Military spending by its nature is non-productive. The key is to figure out how to minimize the cost. The 600 billion number looks excessive, but historically is actually a small cost in comparison to GDP. Globally, the costs are even smaller.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 5:46:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 2/28/2013 4:17:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:28:53 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 11:26:45 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/28/2013 9:33:44 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/28/2013 8:30:52 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Pick any resolution and I'll argue 500 billion in spending is sufficient.

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% Per Year.

Give me a couple days...maybe send me a reminder. I have a lot of debates pending at the moment.

That's absurd, I'm not advocating exponential decay in military spending.

Guess I'm forced to make that explicit, the resolution should be within the realm of discussion.

That was not my intent. How about this:

The US Military Budget Should Be Cut by Over 25% in FY 2013

Works for me.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler

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