Large militaries are irrelevent in the modern world - 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!

Large militaries are irrelevent in the modern world
in Military

we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and so a large military is irrelevant
calebsica
  1. Live Poll

    is military spending irrelevent

    14 votes
    1. Yes
      21.43%
    2. No
      78.57%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • We’re gonna regret not having the largest military in the world if we make it smaller.
    War will come. There’s no doubt about that. And when it does, we still have to be in charge of having the worlds largest, most powerful, and badass military in the world.
    Zombieguy1987calebsicakevin_burke
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • If you want to be conquered by someone who does not share your mindset, then sure.

    The problem with pacifism is that, as soon as a single power ceases to be pacifist, the whole system crumbles. Pacifism is easily exploitable. 

    As long as there are militaristic nations with serious ambitions out there, such as China, Russia, North Korea or Iran, it is important to have a sizable power in order to limit their reach.
    kevin_burke
  • We’re gonna regret not having the largest military in the world if we make it smaller.
    War will come. There’s no doubt about that. And when it does, we still have to be in charge of having the worlds largest, most powerful, and badass military in the world.
    The USA is impossible to conquer you know that right?
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • With a big military...
    Oh wait, nvm. We got the second amendment
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • With a big military...
    Oh wait, nvm. We got the second amendment
    Um.. No
    Its because the USA has natural barriers on the East and West coasts in oceans which would make supply lines very hard and neutral or friendly nations on the North and South 
    cheesycheese
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • We can't say it is totally irrelevant but yes, due to proxy wars, smart intelligence and smart militaries matter. In addition, big economies are also becoming significant as compared to military powers. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts

    @cheesycheese

    "Large militaries are irrelevent in the modern world

    we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and so a large military is irrelevant"


    List of states with nuclear weapons
    • NPT-designated nuclear weapon states (ChinaFranceRussiaUnited KingdomUnited States)
    • Other states with nuclear weapons (IndiaNorth KoreaPakistan)
    • NATO member nuclear weapons sharing states (BelgiumGermanyItalyNetherlandsTurkey)

    Humanity has nuclear weapons, terrorism, and so on.

    So on a scale of 1-10, exactly how peaceful, would you rate your view of this?

    "we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and so a large military is irrelevant"





  • @TKDB

    I’ll give this another shot, see if you’re actually willing to engage with a single point I make.

    Would you mind telling me why your source, which shows that many nations have nuclear weapons, reveal that the world is not peaceful? I agree, there are many nuclear weapons. None of them have been used against another country since WWII, so that seems like evidence supporting the view that nuclear weapons function as effective deterrents to their own usage. Wars have happened with nuclear weapons, but none approaching the levels of damage caused by either world war. Vietnam is decades behind us, and nothing nearly so damaging has happened since. Terrorism is a problem, to be sure, but hardly at the same level. Even if it was, war between democratic nations is basically unheard of in modern times, meaning two modernized militaries haven’t clashed directly in quite a while. It may not be absolutely peaceful, but that’s a substantial shift towards the positive.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    ...Do you honestly think that’s the slightest bit responsive to my post? Did you even read it?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    ...Do you honestly think that’s the slightest bit responsive to my post? Did you even read it?

    Its @TKDB. He'll read the first line and then go off topic with something like this

    "It may not be absolutely peaceful, but that’s a substantial shift towards the positive."

    What makes you believe that this is true?

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987

    The lack of global warfare, lack of warfare between the most advanced societies (which can also do the most aggregate damage, as they have the tech to do so), the use of more targeted strikes as the chief means of engaging in combat, a general unwillingness to go to war with other nuclear powers... the list goes on.

    For the sake of answering your topic, I don’t know if a large military is unimportant. Nuclear and military umbrellas probably have more functionality than the weapons/militaries themselves, though it’s an open question whether weakening either one substantially will retain the effectiveness of the threats they pose. I can also see how those threats are harmful, but I don’t think it can be argued that the threat of intervention by a large military has no positive effects.
    Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 102 Pts
    edited February 5
    @Zombieguy1987

    I answered the question.

    Here's the response:


    "Large militaries are irrelevent in the modern world

    we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and so a large military is irrelevant"


    List of states with nuclear weapons
    • NPT-designated nuclear weapon states (ChinaFranceRussiaUnited KingdomUnited States)
    • Other states with nuclear weapons (IndiaNorth KoreaPakistan)
    • NATO member nuclear weapons sharing states (BelgiumGermanyItalyNetherlandsTurkey)

    Humanity has nuclear weapons, terrorism, and so on.

    So on a scale of 1-10, exactly how peaceful, would you rate your view of this?

    "we are living in the most peaceful time in human history and so a large military is irrelevant"

    Hence, we aren't living in a peaceful time.


    Zombieguy1987
  • @TKDB

    I know this might be a shock to you, but he does want to debate. He asked me a question about my views based on what I posted, and will likely come back with a response specific to my post. Incredible how that works. What he doesn’t want to do is take the time to post responses to you when you’re posting off-topic sources and ignoring his points. I can understand why.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I find it annoying when prolifers kill people in war. Don't kill something and claim to be prolife.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987Zombieguy1987 436 Pts
    edited February 9
    I find it annoying when prolifers kill people in war. Don't kill something and claim to be prolife.



    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 Hypocrite. It is either wrong to kill someone, or it isn't. Prolifers who kill people are profetus, not prolife. I will NEVER change my mind.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987 Hypocrite. It is either wrong to kill someone, or it isn't. Prolifers who kill people are profetus, not prolife. 

    Here's what it means to be pro-life

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=pivexndrsl6cb9ifkjgj&q=what+does+it+mean+to+be+pro+life&oq=what+does+it+mean+to+be+pro&gs_l=psy-ab.1.3.0l10.987.6676..9451...0.0..0.105.1534.27j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..0i131.uotouhuoj3u&safe=active

    This is from the dictionary from the search

    pro-life

    Dictionary result for pro-life

    /prōˈlīf/
    adjective
    adjective: pro-life; adjective: prolife
    1. opposing abortion and euthanasia.
      "she is a pro-life activist"
    There is no mention of war in the definition. That means what your version of pro-life ISNT pro-life.

    I don't understand your thinking here

    I will NEVER change my mind.

    Sounds like your a liberal who's in an eco-chamber

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 Prowar people who oppose abortion are not prolife, they are profetus. I will never change my mind, so stop pushing your beliefs on me.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987 I'm a centrist, not a conservative or liberal, but i love your strawman fallacy.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987 Prowar people who oppose abortion are not prolife, they are profetus. I will never change my mind, so stop pushing your beliefs on me.

    I'm not pushing my beliefs on you.

    I'm arguing that your idea of what "pro life" means isn't what pro-life means...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 Blocked until you can stop trolling, you prodeath hypocrite. I will NOT change my mind, so STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON ME!
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987 I'm a centrist, not a conservative or liberal, but i love your strawman fallacy.

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…………… You say you support pro-life. a conservative belief.

    Yet when it comes to people arguing that being pro-life is violating a woman's right when it comes to giving birth. You go around suppressing people by blocking them, or just simply say "You will not convince me" Which means you're in an eco-chamber... like a liberal...

    And you prove that IN THIS DEBATE!

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • I blocked you for trolling.
    Zombieguy1987
  • I blocked you for trolling.



    You're proving my point right now...

    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @Zombieguy1987 Blocked until you can stop trolling, you prodeath hypocrite.

    Did you even pass English class? Because Pro-life doesn't= Anti=violence... It means anti-abortion...

    So, no. I'm not a hypocrite. But you. You say you're pro-free speech, yet you're suppressing my arguments to not hurt your fewling snowflake 

     I will NOT change my mind, so STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON ME!

    So.... those persuade me debates were for trolling?

    And, um... I'm not forcing my beliefs on you. Once again, I'm counter arguing your absurd logic about what pro-life means... Because you say you're pro gun, which means your pro-death... So YOU"RE the hypocrite according to YOUR logic



    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    For the first time since 2009, the Carolina Hurricanes will be playing for the Stanley Cup! 

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
  • @AmericanFurryBoy said: Oh wait, we have the Second Amendment. 
    A MIG or Sukhoy can eliminate your Amendment in an instant. That Amendment, today, would compare to a group of armed ISIS guys. An angry suicide mob.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @AlofRI
    Well if our government wasn’t so damn restrictive we could own STINGERS and RPGs. Why have a jet when you can just as easily buy something with range of about 15,700 feet when fired horizontally and can engage enemy aircraft from about 12,500 feet off of the ground.
    Zombieguy1987
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • Military spending is NOT irrelevant. Spending on a huge manned military, I believe, is. A huge army in an area can be wiped out SO quickly. Hi-tech weapons are a necessity and the spending should be on them and the ability to deploy them.
    I'm even wondering about the huge Aircraft Carriers of today. Thousands of people and weapons on board, and stealth submarines with torpedoes or missiles to sink them in minutes. That is a huge manned military in an area that can be wiped out in an instant.

    I hope the present occupier of the White House, soon, realizes that he is NOT smarter than "his Generals". Not reading his intelligence briefs is NOT intelligent. Getting his intelligence briefings from Putin is considerably less intelligent. We need to spend wisely. I hope he listens to OUR Generals better in the future. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @AmericanFurryBoy Please! Do you really want to give stingers and RPG's to those who the NRA (and conservatives) allows to buy AK's and M-16s with little or no restriction!? How many planes do you want to see come down around LaGuardia, Atlanta, Dallas etc.?? Schools would be out. More fun around the airports. You can't hate government THAT much. Or maybe.....?
    Zombieguy1987
  • DrummerDudeDrummerDude 17 Pts
    edited February 17
    @cheesycheese We can afford our current military, we are efficient with our military, and we have a better chance of winning any future wars with a big military. It's simple, and this question should be out of the picture.
  • @cheesycheese We can afford our current military, we are efficient with our military, and we have a better chance of winning any future wars with a big military. It's simple, and this question should be out of the picture.
    My point is that a large military should not be a main priority with the economy however in America the majority of the budget goes to the military.
  • @cheesycheese We can afford our current military, we are efficient with our military, and we have a better chance of winning any future wars with a big military. It's simple, and this question should be out of the picture.
    My point is that a large military should not be a main priority with the economy however in America the majority of the budget goes to the military.
    Currently approximately 15% of the US federal budget goes into the military. It is a lot, but nowhere near "the majority".

    You are probably talking about the discretionary fund requests. Those are only a fraction of the total budget, and are accounted for when the numbers are calculated.
  • searsear 103 Pts
    Destruction and conquest are two different things.
    One U.S. Minuteman ICBM reportedly has more explosive / destructive power than all the munitions expended during WWII by all sides, INCLUDING the nukes dropped on Japan.
    During the Cold War debates raised the issue of global overkill, such as the nuclear weapons on Earth had the capacity to kill Earth's human population 13 times over, etc.

    The U.S. military has the capacity to do great harm.

    Large militaries are irrelevent in the modern world

    There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military. Gen. Horner

    "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower

    The primary legitimate purpose of any military is to preserve national sovereignty. As long as the U.S. has sovereignty, we'll need a military.
    And as long as other nations have the capacity to destroy us as Russia does, we'll continue to need our nuclear triad:
     - nuclear armed bomber aircraft such as our B1 & B2
     - ground-based nuclear missiles, &
     - submarine-based nuclear missiles
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