Instigator / Pro
14
1596
rating
42
debates
63.1%
won
Topic
#462

The US military

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
2
Better legibility
2
1
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 10 points ahead, the winner is...

Alec
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
4
1460
rating
5
debates
10.0%
won
Description

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.

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.

-->
@Alec

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?

-->
@Alec

Fair enough, you did send a challenge. I will accept it shortly.

-->
@blamonkey

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.

-->
@Alec

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.

-->
@Alec

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."

-->
@Alec

By stronger military, do you mean increased spending?

I would love to debate you, but you need to be a little more specific.