The US military
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules:
1: The BoP is shared.
2: I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point.
3: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.
Even without the forfeit by Con, Pro has already won this debate concerning an increase in the military budget. Con spends his entire case focused on the problems with the military. The issue with this is that it does not fulfill his BOP. If he proved how a strong military would necessarily lead to a more dangerous world, then perhaps he would stand a chance. Unfortunately, Con never gives me a source to substantiate his claims, never draws a link between military prowess and more global destruction/violence, and never tells me how any of his points really connect to the resolution.
Con sort of (and I am being exceptionally generous here,) offers a counter-plan which focuses on:
"...why not invest and manifest competitions for innovative living and wellness?"
I am not given any path forward to achieve this plan. Also, I do not know why keeping a strong military and investment in competitions for living and wellness could no both happen simultaneously. Pro mentions that the goal posts are moved by advocating for this plan. I disagree. I think Con is proposing ideas that are non-topical. As in, they do not pertain to the resolution at all. If Con laid out a detailed plan and linked it somewhat to the resolution, (i.e. using more funds from the military budget to fund healthcare coverage of poor people,) then perhaps he would have an interesting plan. Sans any details as to what he wants in R1, I can assume that he has no plan for implementation.
In this case, I buy Pro's arguments on face, even if they could be substantiated a bit better. For instance, proving that communist nations have an interest in conquering the US would have been a good start. I do have lingering questions about whether the current US military is strong as well. Regardless, at least Pro demonstrated the importance of having a strong military. He talked about protecting our allies, which is far more that what Con is doing.
Final forfeit is considered a total loss as per rules.
Even so: conduct to pro for forfeit: S&G to pro as con was incomprehensible, frequent use of capitalization, incessant use of ???? And elipses ... prevent. Sources as pro added to his warrant with his link concerning military weaponry - and lack of any warrant for claims con presented was harmful.
Arguments to pro as con was not comprehensible, was engaged in a largely true nonsensical rant and clearly neither engaging in good faith or clearly elaborating on any of the points raised. I must award pro arguments as a result of this as only pro is providing any form of debate argument that can be considered as such.
This is obviously not an attempt by con to engage in good faith, either by design or by capacity, to any degree - and as such as a voter I am not going to treat it as such for the sake of pro and for the sake of legitimate debate.
For reference, when I said that the debate was about an increase in the military budget in my RFD, I was simply confused. I meant to say that the debate was about keeping a strong military.
Seems as though this debate was improperly set up....TRY AGAIN ...keep it simple to start and end
Sorry, but I forgot to put the, "I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round" rule in the debate challenge that I sent to you. Which one of us should argue first?
Fair enough, you did send a challenge. I will accept it shortly.
I think I sent you a challenge but I want to make sure before I try again. I would prefer you going first so I get the last word.
I do think that Pro should set up their case first, though. It makes more sense for the affirmative position to explain exactly what they are affirming before hearing the opposite side. Nevertheless, if you feel strongly about it, I do not mind going first.
If you are trying to argue that we need to spend more on the military, then specify that in your round one. The problem is that a "strong" military could mean a bunch of things. It could mean more hired personnel, more weapons contract etc. If you want to have a military funding debate though, then challenge me and I will take the side that we don't need more funding.
People have said that the US spends as much on their military as the next 17 countries put together. Should we have a military this big or bigger?
"Above all else: be armed."
By stronger military, do you mean increased spending?
I would love to debate you, but you need to be a little more specific.