Instigator / Pro
Points: 11

The US should increase military spending.

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 3 votes the winner is ...
blamonkey
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
Points: 21
Description
1: The BoP is shared.
2: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.
Round 1
Published:
I'll simply publish an argument because the current rules of the debate doesn't state that my opponent goes first.


I'll lay some basic points here:

1: The US military defends economic freedom/capitalism internationally.  Just ask South Korea and Japan.  Without the US military defending them, they would be invaded by North Korea(NK) and China.  From this, tens of millions of innocent civilians would lose their lives from the invasion from major cities and other areas getting nuked by China and NK.  The US military saves more lives then it takes, contrary to popular belief.

2: There are many other nations in the world ruled by tyrannical governments.  2 examples of this are Cuba and Iran(1).  These governments oppress their people and human rights in these nations are low.  A US government using military intervention would not only benefit the locals by liberating them from their governments, but it would also benefit the US economically by allowing more trading partners in the world so we can get more resources.  For example, if Iran got liberated, now we can trade for oil.  

3: Politicians that are both left and right of center support a strong military.

Hillary Clinton on the military:  Under the Military and Defense label, she wants the US to maintain the best trained and best equipped military the world has ever seen.


Donald Trump on the military:

Mr. Trump has, "worked with Congress to increase defense spending, reverse the defense sequester, expand our military capacity, and modernize its capabilities."

4: The US military creates technology that the world enjoys after the war.

Military spending goes towards technology that was used for the war.  This includes things like the internet(4).  Of course, this form of internet was primitive, but it laid the foundation for the internet that we know today.  If it wasn't for the military, we would have no internet and this debate would not be possible.  More military spending means more technological progress as history has confirmed.

More military spending means more positive things in general would come.  This includes more freedom for oppressed people, more lives saved, has some common ground between 2 politicians that generally hate each other and creates technology that in the future would be used for other human uses as history has confirmed.  

Sources:

Published:
C1: Bureaucracy, Waste and Insolvency (oh my)

Most of the military budget funds useless projects. Consider our military bases and associated infrastructure. The DoD’s own report illustrates the issue at hand. The report estimates that the US military is currently operating with 22% excess base-capacity that serve no strategic purpose (1). These bases are not posturing America to be a militaristic superpower, and they are not needed. Yet, when we increase the budget, more money will flow to these strategically defunct bases. Moreover, the currently gridlocked congress is unlikely to decrease military bases as well. Recently,

“The House on Thursday voted down a defense policy bill provision that would have taken out language preventing a new round of base closures… (2)”
Additionally, military spending on a bloated workforce has created a black hole that will evaporate the military budget. Administrative costs, and the cost of hiring too many will hamper our budgetary efficiency. Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates that by 2024, both categories of spending will “consume the entire defense budget by 2024. You’d have no money left for procurement, for research and development, military construction, for family housing, nothing (3).”

Also, the cost of having people on the DoD payroll has increased. This is in part because the civilian workforce of the DoD equals the number of troops we currently have (which is in the ballpark of 1.3 million people) (4).
Also, cost overruns for military tech is a problem as well. The CATO Institute in September of 2015 summarizes a tiny sample of military-cost overruns that have occurred in constant 2015 dollars:

Littoral Combat Ship

Estimated Price: $360 million (2004)
Actual Price: $667 million (2014)

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

Estimated Price: $102 million (1992)
Actual Price: $376 million (2013)

Joint Strike Fighter

Estimated Price: $79 million (2001)
Actual Price: $138 million (2013) (5).

This is not to suggest that the US DoD needs to downsize, but this does illustrate the problems with if an increase in the military budget will necessarily mean that the US is any more protected. Instead, American taxpayer dollars are wasted, preventing the government from fulfilling its obligation to the people by giving them a safe, secure nation.  

C2: Dream of Californication…- I mean Radicalization

Even if you do not buy the previous analysis, a negation ballot is preferable because of how military funding is used counter-productively. Bradley Bowman of the Council of Foreign Relations explains how current US influence in the middle east has led to more terror. Remember the strategically useless military bases? As it turns out, even some of the useful bases in the middle east have led to increases in anti-American sentiment. The controversial “Abu Gharib” incident, in which American soldiers and the CIA at the titular detention center abused inmates. Unauthorized and egregious torture was used to reap information. This abuse went unnoticed for 2 years, according to Human Rights Watch (6). Incidents such as these tend to make people in countries that we are occupying resent us, and feel forced to act to defend their perceived territorial rights. Robert Pape of the University of Chicago writes for the Columbia Law Review, explaining that:
“From Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, every suicide terrorist campaign from 1980 to 2001 has been waged by terrorist groups whose main goal has been to establish or maintain self-determination for their community’s homeland…” (7).
Pape, in his University newspaper also mentioned that “95 percent of all suicide attacks since 1980 have had in common is not religion but a specific strategic objective: to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists consider their homeland or prize greatly…” (8).
More recent evidence from an FBI report that looked at over 200 cases of homegrown terrorism and found that 18% of these attacks were at least partly caused by anger over US military intervention, with 10 out of 16 successful or attempted attacks in the US targeting military personnel or facilities. Not only is there now danger abroad, but also significant unease back home as well (9).  

If the US is going to spend more money on the military, then we need to ask ourselves where the funds are going. Even if an iota of the money is spent on increased military intervention, (which is likely given the 33% rise in DoD employees in only four months, (10)) then we need to consider the repercussions. Yes, it is important for the US to protect its interests, but not at the expense of the people.
 
Sources




 
 
 

Round 2
Published:
“Most of the military budget funds useless projects.”  

“Most of the military budget funds useless projects. Consider our military bases and associated infrastructure. The DoD’s own report illustrates the issue at hand. The report estimates that the US military is currently operating with 22% excess base-capacity that serve no strategic purpose (1).”

22% is not most.  Besides, our military bases are needed in order to prevent certain nations from becoming a military threat.  For example, we have plenty of military bases in South Korea and Japan and without these military bases, communism would take over these bases and we lose a capitalist trading partner in exchange for a communist one, which tend to produce inferior products.  This is why China stuff tends to have poor quality; impart because they are a communist nation. This affects America down the line because a lot of trading is done with capitalist countries in some industries and if thy were communist, we would not get stuff as good.

“The report estimates that the US military is currently operating with 22% excess base-capacity that serve no strategic purpose (1).”  I have an idea for the spending. You know how the US used to contain the spread of communism? Well, we can use our military to eliminate communism in areas where it exists.  This won’t apply to China and North Korea, but would apply to places like Cuba, where communism is prevalent and not a Chinese buffer. The belief of communism is that anyone who isn't communist in a communist country and openly acclaims to not be communist gets killed.  Because of that, the US military can increase its spending to do things like liberate Cuba from Communism.

“an increase in the military budget will necessarily mean that the US is any more protected.”  This is true however other regions of the world and American interests would be more protected.  From eliminating terrorism to what I also think should happen of eliminating communist rule in places where we can, we need military spending to free the world from tyranny.

“Instead, American taxpayer dollars are wasted, preventing the government from fulfilling its obligation to the people by giving them a safe, secure nation.”  Our nation is already safe and secure. If America pulls out of its military bases, then the areas where we pull out our military could go tyrannical. It happened in the middle east when Obama pulled troops out.  Obama pulled troops out of Iraq once it was perceived that they were no longer needed and when that happened, a power vacuum existed, and that vacuum was filled by ISIS.

Your 6th link didn’t work.  You basically say that when American influence is involved, that that causes the terrorism.  However, if this were true, then the following would be true:

-There would be no sharia law in Iran.  They have a slogan, “Neither west nor east” which basically means that they reject intervention from both US and USSR influence. They have among the most amount of tyranny in the arab world because of their extreme sharia law.  Here are some links that show what it’s like:

1
2

Lebanon and Israel, which has had a high amount of western influence and former occupation by the U.K and France would be under sharia law in rebellion.  However, they are not, at least not historically. They are historically democracies. Due to the Arab spring, which came right after decolonization by the west, human rights plummeted in most muslim influenced countries for women and homosexuals.

In short, US influence-> Secular law.  Without US influence-> Tyrannical law. The US defends reasonable freedom worldwide.

“Pape, in his University newspaper also mentioned that “95 percent of all suicide attacks since 1980 have had in common is not religion but a specific strategic objective: to compel a democratic state to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists consider their homeland or prize greatly…” (8).”  If this were true, then explain why there is a bunch of terrorism/rape in Europe when the muslim population in Europe skyrocketed. If you blame historical colonization, the US and Australia were once colonies. There are many areas that are still colonies to this day. Does this mean that terrorists come from these areas?  No.

If the US is going to spend more money on the military, then we need to ask ourselves where the funds are going.

“Even if an iota of the money is spent on increased military intervention”  This is poor spelling. Just wanting to put that out there for the voters so I get the spelling point.

But anyway, you said that we need to ask where these funds will be going too?  I’m suggesting that the funds could go to implementing more bases in places like Iran and Cuba to expand freedom and to save the lives of gays and women killed in Iran as well as anti-communist people in Cuba.  Then, the world will be a better place.

Published:
How we spend the money

It is fine to have a plan for how the funds are spent, but it should have been included in round 1. I should not have to wait till round 2 for some semblance of a plan. Changing your advocacy by stating that the US should use the funds to liberate Cuba and Iran is shifting the goal posts, which is defined as demanding from an opponent that they address more points after answering the initial argument (1). This is bad because it creates an unfair advantage in which my opponent and keep on changing his advocacy and force me to answer it. Reject his plan because it gives an unneeded skew in favor of Pro.

Waste

If 22% of our money goes to defunct bases, and all funds will evaporate by 2024 anyway due to administrative costs, then obviously there is no long-term basis for suggesting that our security is bolstered.

Communism?

Even if you reject my analysis as to why my opponent cannot use his plan, the plan itself is bad. The plan seems to be to invade Iran and Cuba at the same time. The US would likely be able to destroy both nations. The question is, do we want to? Iran’s military includes over 1 million active and reserve troops, 261 navy ships, and over 1,000 tanks (3). Also, consider Iran’s ally, China, which helped modernize Iran’s military by giving them anti-ship missiles and developing their nuclear program (4). If we were to attack Iran, we would risk having China step in or assist Iran indirectly. Cuba’s communist newspaper recounts their ages old alliance with China as well (5). China can damage us significantly. The Task and Purpose summarizes a government report that conclude that due to climbing Chinese military spending, they have dominance in anti-satellite weaponry, air defenses, and ballistic missiles. The report concludes that if we went to war with China right now, we would lose (2).

Even if we won the war, the wasted funds would not justify the lives lost. Are we withdrawing troops from other bases to attack? How could we divide up our military and go to war with Cuba and Iran at the same time? If China were to aid Iran, then it would take a lot more troops and hardware to defeat them, expending our resources as we face a two-front war against Iran and Cuba.

Intervention = Bad

US intervention begets terrorism. Even if you do not buy my statistics proving this, consider recruitment. The Brookings Institute suggests that nearly 20,000 people were recruited to ISIS due to its “deft use of propaganda (6).” US influence increases recruitment by victimizing the people we are supposed to help. Look toward my Abu Gharib evidence and other stats that remain un-refuted.
My opponent brings up Lebanon and Israel as two countries that the US influenced and subsequently bettered their human rights record. Where is the evidence that French occupation bettered Lebanon’s human rights record? Also, it is not fair to compare aid to Israel with military intervention into countries that don’t want us there.

Also, it was the Arab Spring which caused sectarian bloodshed in Syria and allowing for ISIS to form out of the ensuing conflict, which is ripe for caliphate-forming as it can use the violence to illustrate that the US and Western forces are victimizing Muslims. The Guardian shows that 80% of Syria is in poverty, and life expectancy is cut by 20 years (7).

Grammar

What is wrong with my spelling there? In any case, if judges can still read my case, I don’t see any reason to dock me a point. That said, Pro uses an incorrect apostrophe in his case:
“I'll simply publish an argument because the current rules of the debate doesn't state that my opponent goes first.”

The US Military Defends Freedom

My opponent needs to tell me how an increase in the military will necessarily result in a more protected world. By just increasing our military spending, a lot of it is wasted on cost overruns, defunct bases, and out of control administrative costs that will evaporate the budget by 2024 (8). Even if we see some security benefit, it will only last till 2024 when the budget combusts.

Arguments with No Impact

Both sides support it.
This does not matter. Regardless of support, it is still bad.

Technology.
This is a non-unique argument. Technological innovation can occur in any other sector or firm.

Europe & Rape?

First off, you lack a source. Second, these incidents could easily be because of their frustration due to US intervention.

Extend

Extend my evidence showing that by 2024, administrative costs will evaporate the military budget.
Extend my copious studies showing a connection between US intervention and terror.
 

Sources

NOTE: Sorry, here is my sixth source from last round: https://tinyurl.com/ya3t78au


Round 3
Published:
“Changing your advocacy by stating that the US should use the funds to liberate Cuba and Iran is shifting the goalposts”  You asked where would these funds go. Those areas are a few examples of where US military would be needed.

A quote from the source says, “the DoD has 22 percent excess infrastructure capacity compared to projected FY 2019 force levels.”  I apologize for not saying this in R2, but this means that we currently have more money than needed in the defense budget. If we expand the agenda from not just defending this nation, but defending other nations (which the US does, but I’m wanting to enforce anti communism across places where it exists), then we will no longer have a “waste” of a military budget.

“The US would likely be able to destroy both nations.”  Total and complete destruction of a nation would only be achieved through nuclear warfare, which I don’t support.  Neither Iran nor Cuba would be destroyed under US interventionism. They instead would have their theocratic and communist leaders respectively overthrown and replaced with a model that guarantees human rights to people that were oppressed under their regimes (for example, Iran would give more rights to homosexualls and women, Cuba would give more rights to right wingers who get jailed under communism).

“Iran’s military includes over 1 million active and reserve troops, 261 navy ships, and over 1,000 tanks (3).”  The US military has over 2 million active and reserve military personnel(1) 430 ships(2)  and around 14,500 tanks(3). .Also, consider America’s allies, the entirety of NATO for example.  If we were to attack Iran or Cuba to bring human rights into these areas, we would have NATO help us in the endeavor.  There is no guarantee that China would help Iran in it’s endeavor (https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/what-does-iran-really-think-of-china/)

My opponent mentions the Cuba-China alliance.  However, we spend more on our military then China and Cuba put together.  If the Chinese army was stronger than ours, then they would have kicked us out of South Korea and Japan especially since China is closer and therefore would have an easier time.  If they can barely beat us while having almost home field advantage, how could China beat us on the other side of the world? My opponent sites a Chinese video that states that China would win, however this is basically speculation.  If they could win, they would have already kicked us out of Korea.

“The wasted funds would not justify the lives lost.”  As many soldiers that would die in the conflict, I doubt it could top the number of people that die for political opposition.  Both Iran and Cuba lack the first amendment right or a substitute, the right to free speech. Many get jailed for expressing what they believe.  Some examples are in link 3 and 4.  5 puts a number on it.  They are biased, but I didn’t find a left wing counterpart site that quantifies it.

“Are we withdrawing troops from other bases to attack? How could we divide up our military and go to war with Cuba and Iran at the same time?”  Since the US military is 2.1x the size of Iran as was stated earlier, my rough sketch for this is to send maybe 650K troops to Iran, 650K troops to Cuba, we still have our reserve troops to defend the US homeland.  I also support using more military spending to try to develop robot soldiers because they are cheaper then soldiers to maintain, they are tougher soldiers, they are harder to destroy and in the event that they do get destroyed, we destroyed a robot rather than a human being.  I apologize if this is shifting the goalposts but it’s what military spending can go towards. I should have mentioned this earlier.

“US intervention begets terrorism.”  Iran has a history of rejecting western influence and they have sharia law today.  This remains uncontested.

“Even if you do not buy my statistics proving this, consider recruitment. The Brooking Institute suggests that nearly 20,000 people were recruited to ISIS due to its “deft use of propaganda (6).””  This is ISIS using propaganda. NK uses propaganda to indoctrinate people into hating the US. This is out of western control. Regardless of ISIS’s source of motivation, they commit terrorism and the US needs to exert their military muscle to subdue ISIS.

“US influence increases recruitment by victimizing the people we are supposed to help. Look toward my Abu Gharib evidence and other stats that remain un-refuted.”  You didn’t post that source.

“Where is the evidence that French occupation bettered Lebanon’s human rights record?”  Because Lebanon isn't as messed up as Iran.

The Arab spring did cause this and it is up to the US to subdue the arab spring.  Europe won’t do it by themselves; they are too divided. Canada doesn’t have the military for it.  It’s up to America.

I’m out of characters so I can't argue more.

Published:
Goal Posts

My opponent wants to fund the creation of robot soldiers, perpetrate military coups of communist nations, (of which there are 6, including China according to PRI, (1)) call on our NATO allies for help, and use the money we are spending on useless bases to do all of this. These are all new planks to the plan that my opponent is using. This is a clear case of shifting the goal posts once again. This mitigates my ability to respond to the arguments and should be considered when judging the debate.

Moving $

My opponent is not justifying an increase in military spending by using allocated funds elsewhere. Moreover, with NATO at our beck and call, as my opponent brings up, and no real justification as to why we should increase military spending, it seems that my opponent’s plan does not require new funds. If my opponent is not allocating new funds, then he ultimately fails to meet his burden in the debate.

War

My opponent wants to eliminate communist governments and replace them. It should be noted that of the 5 communist nations on Earth, Iran is not one of them. The US would be warring against 6 nations under my opponent’s plan.
One of the communist nations that we would be going to war with would be North Korea (NK), which has over 1k artillery pieces aimed at South Korea (SK) according to the South China Morning Post (2). In the event of a conventional war, NK would not even need to utilize their burgeoning nuclear program to be a credible threat. Rob Givens, who spent four years stationed in SK estimates that if a war broke out between the US and NK, up to 20k people would die a day (3).
Extend my evidence, which, unlike what my opponent claims, does not just show a video, but also summarizes a DoD report that concluded that the US would lose if it got into a war with China because of China’s increasing military investment (4). Remember, we are not just toppling China’s government, but all communist nations as well as Iran. My opponent estimates that only 650k troops would be necessary to win. China has over 2 million troops alone (5).
The RAND Corp. estimates that 90% of bilateral trade between the US and China would cease in the event of a year-long military conflict as shipments are forced to traverse a war-zone (14). As a major destination of Chinese goods, (China ships 18% of their exports to the US (6)) and as a major seller to China, (China was the United States' 3rd largest goods export market in 2017 (13), it should be no surprise that economic destruction would likely occur in a war between the US and China. In a Yearlong war, RAND estimates that the US GDP would decrease by 5-10%, while China’s would decrease by 25%. (14). Jobs relating to exports, and companies that depend on the Chinese marketplace would immediately suffer, causing lay-offs, and the dissolution of businesses.
My opponent’s solution is to invest in robot soldiers. Even if the robots were cheaper when factoring in inevitable cost overruns, my opponent is not considering the piece of evidence which states that by 2024, admin. costs would account for the entire military budget.

NATO

It’s unlikely that many would support our endeavor to eliminate the government of China. China is a major trade partner of practically every nation on Earth. They are the largest exporter according to the Balance (6). Why would our allies want to risk getting rid of a cheap supply of goods?
Propaganda
My opponent asserts that propaganda is something that we cannot control. This is not true. The Saudi-and-US-backed war in Yemen aimed at destroying the Houthis hurt the region. According to the World Bank, only half of all health facilities in Yemen are functioning, while even those that due face shortages in medicine and equipment (7). Our actions in the region have caused part of the issue due to frequent mishaps in which our bombs destroyed hospitals (8), school-buses (9), and even houses (10).
 
AQAP has used the conditions to their advantage by pursuing populism. They overtook the port city of Mukalla and lessened taxes, supplied medicine, and created propaganda showcasing how they treat the people in the city. One 47-year old resident summed up the sentiment of Mukalla:
“I prefer that al Qaeda stay here, not for Al Mukalla to be liberated… The situation is stable, more than any ‘free’ part of Yemen. The alternative to al Qaeda is much worse (11).”
Cross-apply my evidence regarding US interventionism being a key reason as to why many suicide bombings happen.
Our actions which destabilized the region allowed more support for the group. We can and should control this with no more new intervention.

Lebanon

While it is contested that French involvement was the reason for Lebanon being less “messed up,” there is no causal principle established. How exactly did French occupation change them?
Lebanon is not a Western-style democracy and is very corrupt. Transparency International ranks it 143/180, landing it in the top 40 most corrupt nations on Earth (12).

Round 4
Published:
“My opponent wants to … perpetrate military coups of communist nations, (of which there are 6, including China”  I want to invade the communist nations that are feisibly defeatable.  China is not feisibly defeatable.  Cuba is.

“call on our NATO allies for help”  NATO is willing to help out.  NATO hates communism too.

“This is a clear case of shifting the goal posts once again.”  It is not shifting the goalposts.  It is stating where this military spending would go towards.

“Moreover, with NATO at our beck and call, as my opponent brings up, and no real justification as to why we should increase military spending,”  We need to influence nations we currently aren’t influencing.  The 2 nations I want to liberate are Cuba and Iran for seperate reasons.  This requires more military funding.

“It should be noted that of the 5 communist nations on Earth, Iran is not one of them. The US would be warring against 6 nations under my opponent’s plan.”  Given that we spend more on our military then these 6 nations put together, it means we are better prepared to win the war.  I don’t advocate for war against NK because of China.  I don’t advocate for war on CHina or any country bordering China.  I advocate for war against Cuba because it is feasible and they are a communist country that lacks human rights.  China won’t be strong enough to conduct a war on the other side of the world since their military is not the most funded and not the most updated.  Sure, they can increase military spending, but any new troops that they hire would be too untrained to effectively fight.  By the time they are trained enough to fight, Cuba wouldn’t be communist anymore.

“One of the communist nations that we would be going to war with would be North Korea (NK), which has over 1k artillery pieces aimed at South Korea (SK) according to the South China Morning Post (2). In the event of a conventional war, NK would not even need to utilize their burgeoning nuclear program to be a credible threat. Rob Givens, who spent four years stationed in SK estimates that if a war broke out between the US and NK, up to 20k people would die a day (3).”  I don’t advocate for going to war against NK.  I advocate for going to war against Cuba and Iran.

“According to the World Bank, only half of all health facilities in Yemen are functioning, while even those that due face shortages in medicine and equipment (7).”  The site stated that it was because of Yemen’s “escalating conflict”.

“Our actions in the region have caused part of the issue due to frequent mishaps in which our bombs destroyed hospitals (8), school-buses (9), and even houses (10).”  I’ll try to address these one at a time:

#8 was an attack to keep the internationally recognized government into power.  He was pro democracy and he wanted Arabs to unite(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdrabbuh_Mansur_Hadi).  

#9 was when the US sold Saudi Arabia a bomb.  This I would blame Saudi Arabia for since they decided to bomb Yemen.

#10 was a mistake by Saudi Arabia.  I advocate that we should no longer be allies with Saudi Arabia because of their actions, but this is a tangent.  

If the US has allies that fund Alquida, then I think the US should change their goals and fight terrorism.



Published:
As this debate winds down, let us focus on the most important issues in the round and see why the negation clearly wins the debate.

Shifting the Goal Posts

Throughout the debate, my opponent has changed his advocacy too many times. His R1 post did not mention where the money would be going or if we were investing in robot soldiers. However, since his R1 he has advocated for NATO allies to get involved, using all our active troops to attack Cuba and Iran, the investment in robot soldiers, and using the funds from the strategically defunct bases to fund this as well. Clearly, this needed to be mentioned in R1 instead of adding multiple parts to the plan throughout the debate because it moves the goal posts. I understand if my opponent did not mean this:
“…but I’m wanting to enforce anti communism across places where it exists,”
to indicate that he wanted to invade NK or China. However, my opponent still unfairly skews the debate by adding to his advocacy while half-way into the debate.

China Alliance

I mention all the way earlier in the debate that the alliance between the 2 countries being targeted by my opponent, (Iran and Cuba,) and China would likely manifest itself in some sort of intervention on behalf of China. My opponent posted a link from The Diplomat which indicated that there were limits to the relationship between Iran and China. Regarding Cuba, my opponent stated that China was not as strong as our military, and we could easily beat them. I offered evidence suggesting why, even if we could beat them, we would suffer economically. My opponent mentions that China is too weak to fight with us on the other side of the world against us with Cuba. Given the increase in military investment that has led China to be considered a military threat according to various, already mentioned sources, I do not see why locating their ships and guns elsewhere is going to be an issue. My opponent also discusses that China would need new troops, and that they would be untrained. My own source from previous rounds suggest that China has roughly 2 million troops.
Moreover, the article published by The Diplomat suggesting that the Iran-China relationship is not as great as first perceived does mention that the countries do not always see each other as allies. Yet, the same article characterizes both regimes as remaining cordial in the past, with arms and crude being sold between both countries. The possibility of war with China, even indirectly, would limit our bilateral trade, destroy our economy, and cause needless casualties.

Waste

My evidence suggesting that by 2024, administrative costs and the cost of hiring too many people will consume the entire budget has not been mentioned by my opponent at all. Ergo, even if there was an increase in military defense, it would not last for long. All those wars that my opponent wants to start would be seriously constrained by the budget crunch, limiting our ability to procure new weapons, hire new troops, or hire PMCs.

Also, American taxpayer dollars would be wasted with flagrant cost overruns, worthless bases, and a bloated workforce.

Radicalization

My opponent basically cedes this point. I show how Western influence has not benefitted Lebanon, Israel, or any other country that it was supposed to help. Moreover, my evidence of human rights abuses leading to recruitment or radicalization suggests that Western influence has worsened conditions where terror is occurring, causing more problems in the future. I even give a case study from Yemen which shows that outside influence from the US and Saudi Arabia indirectly allowed AQAP to flourish and grow bigger through their propaganda.

Defending Freedom

If we are taking all our active troops and using them to invade Iran and Cuba, then what happens to our allies? My opponent specifies that reserve troops would be used to defend the US at home. If every single active troop is removed from SK as well as our other bases, then my opponent’s claims about the needed bases to protect our allies completely falls as his own plan requires the active troops who are lodged in bases. Without a buffer zone between NK and SK, NK is more likely to strike SK. China could expand our influence if we withdraw from the bases surrounding them. Overall, my opponent’s plan runs contrary to US military objectives.

NATO

My opponent suggests that because NATO hates communism, they would be perfectly fine toppling 2 governments. Do not oversimplify the issue. Remember that China is a key ally to both Cuba and Iran. NATO wants cheap goods from China and does not want to be punished because they attack 2 countries that are close to China. China isn’t new to using their economic prowess to strongarm countries into doing what they want. The current trade war between the US and China showcases this perfectly. Would NATO nations want to risk this? I don’t know, but NATO’s help is not guaranteed.  
 


Added:
Gah, I wish I explained my data a bit better.
Contender
#3
Added:
--> @Alec
It was agreed over PM that I could put my evidence here.
1. https://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-10/can-you-name-five-remaining-communist-countries-world
2. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/2152322/removal-north-korean-border-artillery-can-destroy-seoul-under
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-north-korea-war-south-koreans-die-killed-day-pentagon-analysts-rob-givens-james-stavridis-h-r-a7970356.html
4. https://taskandpurpose.com/us-military-defeat-war-china-russia
5. https://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-us-military-comparison-2016-8
6. https://www.thebalance.com/china-economy-facts-effect-on-us-economy-3306345
7. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/yemen/overview
8. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/08/03/Airstrikes-on-Yemeni-hospital-and-market-kill-at-least-55/1581533299688/
9. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bomb-that-killed-40-children-school-bus-yemen
10. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/09/yemen-us-made-bomb-kills-and-maims-children-in-deadly-strike-on-residential-homes
11. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/yemen-aqap/
12. https://www.transparency.org/country/LBN
13. https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/china-mongolia-taiwan/peoples-republic-china
14. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html
Contender
#2
Added:
--> @Alec
https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/22/us-soldiers-tell-detainee-abuse-iraq
This is my 6th source. Sorry about that.
Contender
#1
#3
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
R1. Note: This RfD has been written whilst reading the debate.
Pros position is arguing the benefits of having a military. While I accept the inherent premise that more money means more of these positives intuitively, this is inherently a weak argument without fundamentally establishing the necessity of more money, to enact all beneficial plans - or even what necessary plans cannot be funded now.
Cons defense of the SQ is effectively explaining how bad one aspect of the SQ is with waste and with the issues caused by the military with radicalization. While this is okay, this position is necessarily weaker than either defending the SQ or presenting the counter plan.
R2. Pro provides a plan for usage of wasted capacity, though I felt that pro did not give sufficient warrant for this position.
Pro only refutes issues on base capacity, with most of the other issues of wastage not addressed.
Pro later massively undermined his position by conceding the US is already safe and secure - strongly supporting the SQ which he is arguing against.
Pros primary remaining points, charitably, is that the SQ of military presence should be maintained - as removing them was not part of cons argument - I feel this argument was irrelevant.
I reject cons statement that pro is changing his advocacy - R1 set up his advocacy as a broad argument that the military can better protect and intervene - I do not feel that concrete examples are outside this advocacy.
Moving on, I feel con undermines the SQ here - by arguing that extra funding will evaporate due to administrative costs intuitively implies that the SQ is insufficient, in the absence of a counter plan, to me, in this argument con somewhat conceded that the military needs more funds or it won’t be able to protect the country.
Cons counter to military intervention suggested by pro is valid, and for me spells out that the proposed plan for additional funding pro spelt out is not beneficial.
Con continues his arguments that intervention causes terrorism - this necessarily shows the negative impact of the harms caused by pros plans
R3:
Pro appears to again concede the SQ is sufficient - by accepting the us has more money than needed for the current state of military activity.
Pros advocacy of enhanced spending in this regard is effectively that the US needs to intervene with the countries stated. For this pro has to justify why the extended intervention is more beneficial than SQ. Pro doesn’t seem to offer any calculus for this, and his reasons for benefit (lives and security), are largely vague and non-specific.
Cons objection to pros new points are noted. But I don’t feel pros position advocacy is much more than building on what’s there - volume of points is another matter that I may consider
Cons arguments here are broad - but in my view are relevant - Con is clearly outlining the harms of pros plan.
This debate, was quite odd - as I found that both pro and con argued against their position.
However - I feel that while con somewhat argued against the SQ - it could be reconciled with the resolution where as pros concessions could not. Because of this, I felt the debate boils down to whether pros plans were beneficial in general and outweighed the harms com outlined - I felt pro clearly did not establish this, thus con wins on arguments.
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
S&G: Tied. Both were legible. Had there been a single spelling mistake, that would not warrant the point being assigned. The point is a penalty for severe problems. ... Related notes (presentation): Pro you should probably put your replies onto the next line from your quotes. Both of you should use bold or otherwise highlight opponent quotes.
Sources: Tied. Admittedly, I will not check tinyURL for what the sources really were. So my stylistic preference leans toward pro on this one (leaning doesn't get the point... both sides seemed to hold their own in this area).
Conduct: Tied. Both behaved in a civil manner. I do not consider mere faulty reasoning to affect this. Personal attacks or worse are required.
Arguments: Con. Talk of robots and the desire to start WWIII (attack allies of countries we don't want to fight...), were very unconvincing. Talk of 22% of our bases being useless, was alone enough reason to cast doubt toward a need to spend even more money (there's no way to assure that any increase would not go toward such bloat). The problems of our budget already radicalizing our enemies were wonderful additions.
Regarding the goalpost: Pro, take a sliver of the topic you want and start a debate on it. Your robot soldiers for example (I should note that in this one, the budget overages for known technologies pre-refuted you). Think of it this way:
P1, War against communism!
P2, Robots!
P3, whatever...
C, budget increase is the only way to attain all this.
The problem is that none of the premises are to be taken seriously without serious support. If none of them hold up, there's no reason within your argument to support the conclusion. However, if you make a debate just on the benefits to going to war with various countries (or even a debate that their allies would be unlikely to join in, I suppose WWI and WWII having not happened as a supporting example), you could then build up the skill needed to support this broader topic.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I feel like this debate went off the rails early and kept shifting further off the rails as it went, the reason largely being Pro’s case.
What does the resolution require of Pro? It requires that he support an increase in the funding for the US military. Granted, this also allows Pro to argue what the US military would do with THAT money. Notice the word in all caps.
What does Pro do with his argument? He states that it’s past time that the US acted to combat certain nations in the world. There’s much hay made over which nations this applies to (and this is why Pro should have stated his case very clearly up front, though I’d say this is only part of the problem). Pro also argues that these should be joint efforts with NATO, and that robot soldiers should be developed.
There’s a problem here: what the resolution requires and this spate of arguments do not line up. Remember the specific phrasing for what the resolution requires of Pro – he’s talking about increasing the amount of funds going to the military (not clear how much in the way of funds, but hey, no one seems to care… for some reason), not reallocating money currently available to the military. To my mind, that is extra-topical, i.e. it goes beyond the bounds of the resolution, and therefore shouldn’t be counted. So, when Pro talks about shifting hundreds of thousands of troops from one location to another, I’m honestly just perplexed. What does that have to do with increasing military spending? I suppose you could argue that that increase is necessary in order to make such an effort plausible, but even if it is, that still runs hard into extra topicality. You aren’t debating what the military should do with the extra money, you’re dictating what the military should do, period. You set this topic. Stick to what you set.
In fact, I think I’m being generous by characterizing this as a topicality issue. Pro spends absolutely no time in his argument explaining why it is that extra funds are required in order to carry out these gargantuan troop invasions (note that these far outstrip D-Day, which comprised fewer than 200,000 personnel from multiple countries). Setting aside the fact that many of those 2 million soldiers Pro’s case is entirely reliant upon are not just a homogeneous pack of trained, outfitted troops capable of carrying out such an operation (seriously, this sounds insane, and I’m shocked the basic logistics were never questioned), if all of those soldiers are currently available, what is stopping the US military from invading these countries? Literally the only inherency Pro’s case is removing is a lack of financial support, yet he doesn’t explain why suddenly being flush with cash will suddenly make these invasions feasible. Con could have spent the entirety of the debate arguing that everything Pro is trying to do is non-unique to a world with more funds for the military, and almost all of Pro’s case would have basically been nullified. Pro could potentially have argued that those funds would make an invasion better somehow (I suppose that’s the point of the robots), but he spends scant little time doing that.
And that leads us to the robots. This is such a blipped out argument that it hardly functions. Pro just says that robot soldiers can be made, including zero warrants or evidence for that claim (seriously, show me a damn picture of the Skynet-driven robot apocalypse in Terminator, at least), and that having them solves for loss of life. We get no concept of what these soldiers will look like, how they will function, what kinds of roles they will play in combat, how many soldiers they could potentially replace, how much they will cost to make, why only the US will have them, or… well, basically anything else about them. Pro mentions this once in R3, using all of one sentence to explain an argument that requires far more. Con spends more time here.
I had imagined that, upon reaching the end of Pro’s arguments, I would find something solid to support the resolution and then would have to spend at least some time on Con’s points. But I don’t. His argument ranges from extra topical to lacking any and all inherency to barely mentioned points he never supports. Con talks about moving the goalposts, but Pro seems incapable of deciding what a goal even looks like in this debate. I think Con could have pointed a lot of this out, rather than getting bogged down in the details of Pro’s case. The shifting ground of Pro’s argument is still reason enough to award conduct to Con, though, so I do include that. Pro’s failure to meet his burden automatically requires that I award the debate to Con.