The U.S.A should cut miliary spending - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The U.S.A should cut miliary spending
in Military

By Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 452 Pts edited July 2018
I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise 
joecavalrypiloteercheesycheeseCYDdhartaAlecWordsMatter[Deleted User]



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • The military is vital to the United States continuing to be a world power and competing against other countries’ large militaries such as China and Russia.
    DrCerealZombieguy1987CYDdhartacheesycheeseNathaniel_Bpiloteer
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • @joecavalry ok, but the U.S cutting a small about of spending won't be a major problem. Their spending is larger than the next 10 nations COMBINED! I'm sure cutting back 25% won't make he U.S lose word power status 
    DrCerealCYDdhartabeckysmithcheesycheese
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1225 Pts
    @joecavalry ok, but the U.S cutting a small about of spending won't be a major problem. Their spending is larger than the next 10 nations COMBINED! I'm sure cutting back 25% won't make he U.S lose word power status 
    How is $150 billion a small amount?

    That other countries that don't spend enough on defense doesn't illustrate your point.  In 2011, a NATO-led coalition launched Operation Unified Provider (the no-fly zone over Libya).  The US was going to stay out of it and let the coalition air forces handle it.  Within week, the combined air force assets of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, and UK were stretched to the breaking point and the no-fly zone would have faltered had the coalition not begged and the US not acquiesced and provided air assets to the mission. The combined forces of 9 nations (including 2 of the top 10) couldn't carry out their assigned mission over a 3rd world country with very limited capabilities. 
    Zombieguy1987cheesycheeseNathaniel_B
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 452 Pts
    edited July 2018
    No, my point is that the U.S spends way to much money on defense even though A. The best military tacticians agree that the U.S is practically impossible to invade, and ironically, you'd think with such a huge army, the U.S would easily win in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, but they care about quantity or quality, and are willing to dig the already huge debt even further just show "Hey, we're a superpower, you need to remember that!"
    Polaris95CYDdhartacheesycheesepiloteer
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1225 Pts
    No, my point is that the U.S spends way to much money on defense even though A. The best military tacticians agree that the U.S is practically impossible to invade, and ironically, you'd think with suck aa huge army, the U.S would easily win in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, but they care a quantity or quality, and are willing to dig the already huge debt even further just show "Hey, we're a superpower, you need to remember that!"
    Militarily, the US won in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.  The losses, if there were any, were political.

    So the US should follow the lead of other countries that can't even carry out as basic a mission as imposing a no-fly zone over a relatively defenseless 3rd world country? 

    Zombieguy1987WordsMattercheesycheeseNathaniel_Bpiloteer
  • @CYDdharta Just because you militarily doesn't mean crap if your goals aren't meant. All the countries mentioned are the opposite of the U.S wanted, because guess what? they failed to meet their goals!


    Also, you said that should the U.S follow the lead of the nations who failed to impose a no fly zone over Libya, which isn't the best comparison when you consider that some of the nations involved are known be neutral *cough Sweden cough* so, of course they're not exactly the nation to rely on to handle a no fly zone.


    Even then, like I said, just because you got a big army, doesn't mean you win. Look at the Soviet-Afghan War. The U.S.S.R has huge army compared to Afghanistan, and guess what? The Soviets didn't just lose, oh no, they got smoked! History has shown that just because you got a huge army, doesn't mean if A. you overspend on it, and B. you're actually good at running *cough Italy cough*
    CYDdhartacheesycheese
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1225 Pts
    @CYDdharta Just because you militarily doesn't mean crap if your goals aren't meant. All the countries mentioned are the opposite of the U.S wanted, because guess what? they failed to meet their goals!


    Also, you said that should the U.S follow the lead of the nations who failed to impose a no fly zone over Libya, which isn't the best comparison when you consider that some of the nations involved are known be neutral *cough Sweden cough* so, of course they're not exactly the nation to rely on to handle a no fly zone.


    Even then, like I said, just because you got a big army, doesn't mean you win. Look at the Soviet-Afghan War. The U.S.S.R has huge army compared to Afghanistan, and guess what? The Soviets didn't just lose, oh no, they got smoked! History has shown that just because you got a huge army, doesn't mean if A. you overspend on it, and B. you're actually good at running *cough Italy cough*

    I have to admit I'm having a hard time understanding your post as your grammar is atrocious.  If I understand the gist of it, your point is that a large military doesn't guarantee success.  That is true, but a small military does guarantee failure. 
    Zombieguy1987cheesycheese
  • I agree. We would be better off if we could spend the money on Medicare for all citizens.
    Zombieguy1987beckysmithcheesycheese
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 452 Pts
    edited July 2018
    @CYDdharta You see, you're just assuming that I think the U.S should shrink it's army, which is what I'm not saying AT ALL! I'm fine with the size of the army, but the U.S government spends too much money, just because they think that they need to continue to make even bigger! That's the issue I have, is they don't know where the limit is
    cheesycheese
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1225 Pts
    @CYDdharta You see, you're just assuming that I think the U.S should shrink it's army, which is what I'm saying AT ALL! I'm fine with the size of the army, but the U.S government spends too much money, just because they think that they need to continue to make even bigger! That's the issue I have, is they don't know where the limit is

    The military has been shrinking.  Weapons and logistics systems have been getting more expensive.


    Nathaniel_BZombieguy1987
  • @CYDdharta Ok, but there's a reason for that. There are currently no real threats. During the Cold War, the U.S.S.R was the main threat for the U.S, and so a it made sense for the huge army, and I would be fine with the huge spending. But today? Russia and China aren't real threats because of MAD. So, even if infantry is decreasing, they're being replaced with drones, and in near future actual robots, which are going to be even more expensive!  
    cheesycheese
  • Yes, US government should cut off the budget of the military but one thing you keep in mind, your military is battling in different countries away from families. It is basically against morality. First of all, we should call our military back to countries especially from Afghanistan. I know how families are suffering due to the absence of their loved ones. So, first of all, we should cut off the budget reasons. 
  • You are clearly blindly nationalist because your country relies on blind faith that america is amazing and to dismiss anything that means your country is bad as a lie so you claim that in order for america to be great it needs an unnecessary amount of money and if you say russia china or north korea is a threat they are bluffing about attacking america
    Zombieguy1987
  • It is hard to make such statements without reviewing in depth what the current spending portfolio is. That said, the US military performs extremely well in real life conditions, as the recent operations showed, and provides security for dozens allies all over the world, plus it is experimenting with new technology at the edge of science, on the level many top national labs would envy - so it seems to be money well spent.

    I do agree with Trump, however, on the idea that, rather than the US policing the world with its army, the decentralization of the military spending should occur, meaning the UK, the EU countries, Japan, Canada and other close allies should have sizable armies and military spending on their own, so they do not depend on the US so much and the US does not have to spend disproportionally more funds on the military sector, than the allies.

    In this regard, perhaps sharp decrease of military spending in the US would urge those countries to make up for it by increasing their own spending. While the wide US presence and/or providing heavy funding in/for such hot spots as South Korea, Taiwan or Israel is essential, the US could spend much less on maintaining countless bases in Western/Central Europe and in Japan, where no danger from the outside is present.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @MayCaesar you say that but military spending under trump rose dramatically. He was more concerned with getting spending for his wall than he was leveraging a lower spending on our military to get allies to pay up more.

    This rest is not at you @MayCaesar it's separate.

    There are villages in Afghanistan that don't even know what's going on in that country! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3829425/War-war-Afghan-tribe-remote-didn-t-know-Taliban-overthrown-captured-stunning-images.html Which btw this is a heavily conservative biased source.

    How long did it take us to find Osama housin out in a somewhat friendly country? Would another super carrier or new jet fighter make it easier to find him?

    Do you really think ww3 would even be fought with conventional weapons? Personally I think it will be a war in cyberspace, which America is already getting it's kicked in. How about instead of developing a new tank we put that money into cyber warfare? Note an Abram tank has never been destroyed by an enemy combatant. Look what happened in the Cuban embassy, look at the Sony hack, look at how the electrical grid in Vermont got shut down in a shockingly similar way to how Russia shut down Ukraine's electrical grid. 

    America has pathetic cyber security. Could you imagine what would happen if China, NK, or Russia shut the stock exchange down for just two days? 

    It is always easier to be a hacker than to design security, but we don't need to be making it easier. Teenagers were able to hack our voting system in a contest. Of course that doesn't help out Betsy Devos brother's attempts to convince us to privatize the military, or help chaney get money through halliburton, or how the obama administration became the biggest arms dealer in the world. It wasnt that long ago that the right called out hillary for being a war hawk, inevitably supporting the military industrial complex.

    This issue isn't left or right at all, it's a matter of class systems. If you want real defensive and offensive capabilities you need to invest in cyber warfare, but that makes a lot less money for the people at the top because you need significantly less employees and need little to no physical products to create an effective force.

    It's completely fair to say I'm wrong in this next statement. I think ww III has already started via cyber warfare, but the majority of the US hasn't woken up to that. Especially since our politicians fall for simple phishing scams so easily.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I think we should increase our military spending by 50% in order to be able to defend freedom worldwide to a greater extent.

    The US needs a big military budget to defend South Korea and Japan from communist influence.  While the US spends way more then China, China has a geographical advantage due to it's proximity to Korea, so the US has to maintain and even expand it's military in order to invade places like Africa, which would help out the Americans and the Africans out a lot in the long term.  I could get into why we should do that later if you respond asking me about it.
    Zombieguy1987cheesycheeseCYDdharta
  • P.S. What are points based off of?
  • Alec said:
    I think we should increase our military spending by 50% in order to be able to defend freedom worldwide to a greater extent.

    The US needs a big military budget to defend South Korea and Japan from communist influence.  While the US spends way more then China, China has a geographical advantage due to it's proximity to Korea, so the US has to maintain and even expand it's military in order to invade places like Africa, which would help out the Americans and the Africans out a lot in the long term.  I could get into why we should do that later if you respond asking me about it.
    What do you have to go on the only word you have to go on was the word of the government I don't expect you to believe me propaganda is a powerful tool however the truth is that most Americans have this misguided sense of pride because they think that America is perfect with no evidence of this baseless claim.
  • Alec said:
    P.S. What are points based off of?
    Zombieguy1987
  • Alec said:
    P.S. What are points based off of?

    So, in other words, you have nothing relevant.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Alec said:
    I think we should increase our military spending by 50% in order to be able to defend freedom worldwide to a greater extent.

    "Defend" freedom.

    Ever since World War 2 the U.S couldn't defeat North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The US needs a big military budget to defend South Korea and Japan from communist influence. 

    Ok, but it's unlikely either of those countries will fall to communism because North Korea will collapse from the inside, and Chinas economy would fall if they tried to mess with S.Korea and Japan due to embargos.

     While the US spends way more then China, China has a geographical advantage due to it's proximity to Korea, so the US has to maintain and even expand it's military in order to invade places like Africa, which would help out the Americans and the Africans out a lot in the long term. 

    No. It would make America look like a bully.

    I could get into why we should do that later if you respond asking me about it.

    Please do. Because you've not convinced at all.

  • "The U.S.A should cut miliary spending"


    And cut military spending for what fiscal purpose?

    Money talk usually has an agenda being behind.

    Because in the bigger picture, North Korea, Iran, and Russia if I'm not mistaken, has been a continuing issue, for how many years now?

    Does anyone think that maybe, the other countries, are going to sit back, and not continuing to work and upgrade their weapons systems?

    They are, so the small picture talk, of the USA should cut military spending forthe military, is just that, small picture thinking, in a day and age that still has long range missiles in the news.


    Zombieguy1987
  • Trump renegotiated the purchase of some airplanes.  So how about when the government becomes more fiscally responsible with our money by negotiating better deals and cutting waste, then we can see if cuts need to be made.  There's so much waste, palm greasing and kickbacks what good would cuts really do?  Imo cuts don't make sense when there's already so many savings opportunities.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce he also increased spending by 50 bullion, so his "deal" is pointless. Imagine the tax cuts that could be given to citizens and businesses if we took 100 billion off.

     Republicans love to scream about the deficit when they aren't in power, and now that they had two years to do anything they wanted, they did literally nothing to lower the deficit AND increased spending. When they do give their hollow talk about reducing the deficit they like to aim at things like PBS, 445 million. But then turn right around and increase military spending by tens of billions for a total of 639 billion. 20% of all government spending is on the military, let's cut that back to at least 600 billion.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Applesauce he also increased spending by 50 bullion, so his "deal" is pointless. Imagine the tax cuts that could be given to citizens and businesses if we took 100 billion off.

     Republicans love to scream about the deficit when they aren't in power, and now that they had two years to do anything they wanted, they did literally nothing to lower the deficit AND increased spending. When they do give their hollow talk about reducing the deficit they like to aim at things like PBS, 445 million. But then turn right around and increase military spending by tens of billions for a total of 639 billion. 20% of all government spending is on the military, let's cut that back to at least 600 billion.
    irrelevant, all presidents should do and have done a better job of negotiating when spend our tax money.

    so you'd rather have the government continue to over pay, waste money and not be as efficient as they should be, and you just want them to lower the amount they waste, over spend etc, I couldn't imagine running my financial life like that, doesn't seem very financially sound.

    what % of the budget do you think is due to all the things I listed?
    maybe you don't know about the hammers and toilet seats (that's just a couple of military items, we don't need to talk about studying how shrimp walk etc)
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • @Applesauce difference is your finances is from the money you earned. Government finances is from the money everyone else earned. It's capitalism that says the government is incapable of spending money in a responsible way
  • @WordsMatter
    what they paid for hammers and toilet seats is responsible to you?  Imagine what we DON'T know about.  Capitalism says nothing, events and facts do.
    "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
    Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
    The Animals
  • We should decrease the military budget as soon America forces are leaving Afghanistan so expensive will automatically drop. Similarly, if we make US military fund comparison with Russian army then do to bad economy Russia has cut off its budget, and now their annual military expenditures are under $60 billion. China is spending $175 billion In my opinion, nowadays, we are being defeated by China not in military competition but in economic completion but America is again trying to beat the rivals on military grounds and according to Congress, military budget of 2019 will near about $716 billion. On the contrary, if the USA thinks that cut off in military budget will affect the arms industry, then it should try to sell out its  Artillery Unit, light-armed tools and well-designed body armours to foreign countries to earn handsome foreign exchange. I think now battle will be fought on economic grounds not only on military powers. 
  • @Zombieguy1987

    "I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise."

    Do you know anything about military spending?

    Do you know anything about the infrastructure involved with the military?

    Do you know how much funding it takes to feed the United States military abroud? 

    Do you know how much it takes to clothe, provide medical care, for the active military, and the veterans who have already severved in the US military? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

    "Military budget of the United States"


    The military budget is the portion of the discretionary United States federal budget allocated to the Department of Defense, or more broadly, the portion of the budget that goes to any military-related expenditures. The military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new items. The budget funds four branches of the U.S. military: the ArmyMarine CorpsNavy, and Air Force. In FY 2017, the Congressional Budget Office reported spending of $590 billion for defense, about 15% of the federal budget.[1] For the FY 2019 President Donald Trump proposed an increase to the military to $686.1 billion. [2] 


    Budget by yearEdit

    Defense Spending as a Percent of GDP 1792-2017
    Historical defense spending

    The following is historical spending on defense from 1996-2015, spending for 2014-15 is estimated.[3] The Defense Budget is shown in billions of dollars and total budget in trillions of dollars. The percentage of the total U.S. federal budget spent on defense is indicated in the third row, and change in defense spending from the previous year in the final row.

    Decades1990s2000s2010s
    Years9697989900010203040506070809101112131415
    Defense Budget (Billions)266270271292304335362456491506556625696698721717681610614637
    Total Budget (Trillions)1.581.641.691.781.821.962.092.272.412.582.782.863.324.083.483.513.583.483.643.97
    Defense Budget %16.816.516.016.416.717.117.320.120.419.620.021.920.917.120.720.419.117.516.816.0
    Defense Spending % Change-0.1+1.6+0.2+7.8+4.0+10.1+8.2+26.0+7.6+3.1+10.0+12.5+11.3+0.2+3.4-0.6-5.0-10.5+0.6+3.8

    Budget for 2011Edit

    For the 2011 fiscal year, the president's base budget for the Department of Defense and spending on "overseas contingency operations" combine to bring the sum to US$664.84 billion.[4][5]

    When the budget was signed into law on 28 October 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[6] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[7][8]

    Emergency and supplemental spendingEdit

    The recent military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the federal budget, which are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[9] However, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were categorized as "overseas contingency operations" in the starting of the fiscal year 2010, and the budget is included in the federal budget.[citation needed]

    By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The government also incurred indirect costs, which include interests on additional debt and incremental costs, financed by the Veterans Administration, of caring for more than 33,000 wounded. Some experts estimate the indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[10] As of June 2011, the total cost of the wars was approximately $1.3 trillion.[11]

    By titleEdit

    USA 2010 Military Budget Spending

    The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 are as follows. While data is provided from the 2015 budget, data for 2014 and 2015 is estimated, and thus data is shown for the last year for which definite data exists (2013).[3]

    ComponentsFundingChange, 2012 to 2013
    Operations and maintenance$258.277 billion-9.9%
    Military Personnel$153.531 billion-3.0%
    Procurement$97.757 billion-17.4%
    Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation$63.347 billion-12.1%
    Military Construction$8.069 billion-29.0%
    Family Housing$1.483 billion-12.2%
    Other Miscellaneous Costs$2.775 billion-59.5%
    Atomic energy defense activities$17.424 billion-4.8%
    Defense-related activities$7.433 billion-3.8%
    Total Spending$610.096 billion-10.5%

    By entityEdit

    Entity2010 Budget request[12]Percentage of TotalNotes
    Army$244.8 billion31.8%
    Marine Corps$40.6 billion4%Total Budget taken allotted from Department of Navy
    Navy$142.2 billion23.4%excluding Marine Corps
    Air Force$170.6 billion22%
    Defense Intelligence$80.1 billion[13]3.3%Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure
    Defense Wide Joint Activities$118.7 billion15.5%

    Programs spending more than $1.5 billionEdit

    The Department of Defense's FY 2011 $137.5 billion procurement and $77.2 billion RDT&E budget requests included several programs worth more than $1.5 billion.

    Program2011 Budget request[14]Change, 2010 to 2011
    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter$11.4 billion+2.1%
    Missile Defense Agency(THAADAegisGMDPAC-3)$9.9 billion+7.3%
    Virginia class submarine$5.4 billion+28.0%
    Brigade Combat Team Modernization$3.2 billion+21.8%
    DDG 51 Burke-class Aegis Destroyer$3.0 billion+19.6%
    P–8A Poseidon$2.9 billion−1.6%
    V-22 Osprey$2.8 billion−6.5%
    Carrier Replacement Program$2.7 billion+95.8%
    F/A-18E/F Hornet$2.0 billion+17.4%
    Predator and ReaperUnmanned Aerial System$1.9 billion+57.8%
    Littoral combat ship$1.8 billion+12.5%
    CVN Refueling and Complex Overhaul$1.7 billion−6.0%
    Chemical Demilitarization$1.6 billion−7.0%
    RQ-4 Global Hawk$1.5 billion+6.7%
    Space-Based Infrared System$1.5 billion+54.0%

    Other military-related expendituresEdit

    Per-capita military spending 1962–2015 (inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars)
    Military spending 1962–2015 (inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars)[15][16]

    This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which are in the Atomic Energy Defense Activities section,[17] Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and intelligence-gathering spending by NSA

    Budget by Appropriation[25]
    ComponentsDollars In Billions
    Military Personnel138.6
    Operation and Maintenance244.4
    Procurement118.9
    RDT&E69.0
    Revolving and Management Funds1.3
    Military Construction6.9
    Family Housing1.3
    Total580.3
    Budget by Military Departments[25]
    DepartmentsDollars in Billions
    Army146.9
    Navy168.8
    Air Force161.8
    Defense Wide102.8
    Total580.3
  • Military spending isn't just for the military exclusively, its for the military families, and the veterans as well.
    The veterans clinics, and the veterans hospitals across the country.
    Commissaries, medical and dental clinics, as well, that take care of the soldiers, and the families also, along with housing. 


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Why do you find the previous points of view irrelevant? 

    "The U.S.A should cut miliary spending


    I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise"

    Military spending isn't just for the military exclusively, its for the military families, and the veterans as well.
    The veterans clinics, and the veterans hospitals across the country.
    Commissaries, medical and dental clinics, as well, that take care of the soldiers, and the families also, along with housing. 




    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987

    Why no counter arguments?

    From your own perspectives, why do you believe that the US government should cut military spending? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @YeshuaBought

    "I agree. We would be better off if we could spend the money on Medicare for all citizens."

    A thought, the Space Shuttle program was done away with:

    The total cost of the actual 30-year service life of the shuttle program through 2011, adjusted for inflation, was$196 billion. The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 was about $450 million per mission.
    Wikipedia › wiki › Space_Shuttle_progr...
    Zombieguy1987
  • To cut military spending?

    Some of humanity, helping the rest humanity to become non defense focused, instead of being defense focused?

    Which may be a few decades or centuries from now? 

    The words "War, and a military," are very ingrained from within, the very dialects that humanity draws it various languages from.

    So until humanity in general, mindfully tires of the words "War and military," humanity, is I guess, going to continue to experience the words "War, and a military," until humanity as a whole learns to live without those very words as a part of its own dialect, language choices?

    Imagine, the words (War, or military) residing from within the confines of a dictionary or in a history museum only?

    And being talked about in past tense situations only?
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    Why no counter arguments?

    because your questions are always off topic and not worth wasting my time 

    From your own perspectives, why do you believe that the US government should cut military spending? 

  • @Zombieguy1987

    "The U.S.A should cut miliary spending


    I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise"


    Military spending isn't just for the military exclusively, its for the military families, and the veterans as well.
    The veterans clinics, and the veterans hospitals across the country.
    Commissaries, medical and dental clinics, as well, that take care of the soldiers, and the families also, along with housing. 

    So you view the above questions as this?

    "because your questions are always off topic and not worth wasting my time"

    I would hope that all the above would be worth your time?

    So who's position are you taking when you want to judge how the US government apparently utilizes funds for military spending, to prove you otherwise? 

    Are you maybe trying to judge the Government?

    The United States military?

    The military families?

    The veterans?

    Or maybe the overall infrastructure that is used to manage all of the above?

    I included various websites as reference material, did you maybe review them? 




    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "The U.S.A should cut miliary spending


    I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise"


    Military spending isn't just for the military exclusively, its for the military families, and the veterans as well.
    The veterans clinics, and the veterans hospitals across the country.
    Commissaries, medical and dental clinics, as well, that take care of the soldiers, and the families also, along with housing. 

    So you view the above questions as this?

    "because your questions are always off topic and not worth wasting my time"

    I would hope that all the above would be worth your time?

    So who's position are you taking when you want to judge how the US government apparently utilizes funds for military spending, to prove you otherwise? 

    Are you maybe trying to judge the Government?

    The United States military?

    The military families?

    The veterans?

    Or maybe the overall infrastructure that is used to manage all of the above?

    I included various websites as reference material, did you maybe review them? 

    All of this stuff... Off topic 



  • @Zombieguy1987

    All of this stuff... Off topic 

    You asked your question.

    "The U.S.A should cut miliary spending


    I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise"

    Exactly what type of a response are you looking for?

    (Military spending isn't just for the military exclusively, its for the military families, and the veterans as well.
    The veterans clinics, and the veterans hospitals across the country.
    Commissaries, medical and dental clinics, as well, that take care of the soldiers, and the families also, along with housing. 

    So you view the above questions as this?

    "because your questions are always off topic and not worth wasting my time"

    I would hope that all the above would be worth your time?

    So who's position are you taking when you want to judge how the US government apparently utilizes funds for military spending, to prove you otherwise? 

    Are you maybe trying to judge the Government?

    The United States military?

    The military families?

    The veterans?

    Or maybe the overall infrastructure that is used to manage all of the above?

    I included various websites as reference material, did you maybe review them?)

    I provided reference material as well, and you view that material as off topic as well? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    Just to be clear, even if you are on topic, it seems like the only thing you want to do is post article after article, and never actually address points that are posed to you. I would be shocked if you actually took the time to respond to me here with anything but the same basic points you’ve been posting here because that’s been my experience in these forums with you. Get past the basic hurdle of showing that you care enough to address our responses and you might see people engage with you in return. 

    I will say, however, that this is not my attempt to get into this discussion. I’d honestly just love to see you actually participate rather than use every post to pose questions and provide copy-pasted articles without context or summary. Who knows? Maybe on this topic you’ll actually hear me out.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 455 Pts
    edited February 2019
    @whiteflame

    If you maybe have an issue, please take it up with Aarong? 
    Zombieguy1987whiteflame
  • @whiteflame

    "The U.S.A should cut miliary spending


    I feel the U.S government should cut military spending, prove me otherwise"

    What is your response? 

    Zombieguy1987
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 676 Pts
    edited February 2019
    @TKDB

    ...Seriously? It’s not a site issue. I am not angling to get you banned. I am not saying your conduct is so toxic that you are damaging to the site. I’m saying that the way you interact with those who disagree with you does absolutely nothing to further any of the debates you’ve been a part of, and I’m hoping that by making clear what isn’t helping, you’ll at least engage with the ways that you interact with others on the site. Maybe you’ll defend the absolute lack of effort to respond to us, or maybe you’ll provide some reason why your tactics somehow make sense. Not that I’m holding my breath - you don’t even seem willing to interact with me when I’m only challenging you on your behavior. Who knows? Maybe you’ll do more than just throw out red herrings or ignore my posts every time you see them. I can dream.

    Oh, and in case I wasn’t clear earlier (let’s face it, I was, and you just didn’t read the post), I’m not interested in debating you on this topic or any other. I’m telling you that every time we’ve interacted had been little more than a chore without any payoff. You refuse to interact with my points, refuse to defend your own, present nonsequitor articles with no context, and ask questions ad nauseum that have already been answered. You want me to interact with you? Engage with me first.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame

    What do your previous points of view have to do with the theme of the forum? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    These posts have nothing to do with the topic, they have everything to do with you. They are not, however, previous points of view. You’re doing the same things here that you’ve done in every discussion. So, I’ll ask one last time: can you just respond to one thing I’ve said?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @whiteflame

    What does the below from you, have to do with the theme of the forum?

    "These posts have nothing to do with the topic, they have everything to do with you. They are not, however, previous points of view."
    "You’re doing the same things here that you’ve done in every discussion. So, I’ll ask one last time: can you just respond to one thing I’ve said?"
    whiteflameZombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    It’s questions like this that make me seriously question if you read a word of what I said, and it’s posts like these that reenforce the reasons I had once chosen to forgo continuing to try engaging with you. If this is your response to my attempts to talk to you directly, to keep ignoring the issues I’m bringing up and fail to even engage with anything I’m saying, then you’ve made quite clear that this isn’t just a pattern for you. It’s the only way you know how to engage with anyone. If that’s what you want, once again, you can do so without me.
    Zombieguy1987
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch