Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

"Since…it?!?!" It states "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy." To not allow someone in something does not imply others are allowed in there. For example, it's right to say that heterosexuals are not allowed to rape in the United States, & I think we'd all agree they should not be allowed to rape. The fact that homosexuals aren't either & shouldn't either does not negate this. Similarly, saying heterosexuals should not be allowed in the military does not negate the position that "homosexuals should not be allowed in the military". ""We"… countries." "We" can also mean a "collective" of "people" such as the American People. For example, in the Declaration of Independence it says "We the People". By "we" I was referencing "we" as a country and a people. "If…EXIST!?!?!" But you can be denied from something that does exist because it is removed from existence. For example, you get a job. Your position is eliminated. You are denied that job because it no longer exists. "How…island?" Costa Rica isn't an island, it is in Central America[1]. This shows Con's lack of knowledge about the world. "You…"evidence"." Costa Rica is a small country compared to the United States, but considering its population of 4,509,290[1] Costa Rica as a testing sample is way larger than most scientific experiments. I admit the experiment's limited as most political science experiments are since setting up carefully controlled experiments is hard. Almost all political science experiments are unintentional, since no country goes out of its way to implement policies they think will bring disaster just to test it. But there's compelling evidence. Countries with similar cultures and levels of economic development in Latin America that do have militaries all have by the indications I gave in the last round a lower quality of life than Costa Rica. It a has a higher life expectancy than any other Latin American country other than Guadalupe and even higher (as I've pointed out) than the United States[2]. I've already pointed out it exceeds the US in health care too. Costa Rica has enjoyed a long peaceful history with no major domestic or foreign conflict since it abolished its military[3]. Since Costa Rica is doing so much better compared to other developing Latin American countries and better in many respects than the economically developed United States it's a good indication that banning the military helps lead to great increases in life quality. "The…No." I know Congress declares war. But in a democracy it's important to persuade the public. At the time the public supported the war. If they didn't Congress would've thought twice about it. Now that we're at war it's not hard to keep it going even with public opposition. It's harder to start a change in policy even with popular support than it is to oppose a change in policy. "Did…NO!" Helped restore power to states over the years? What are you talking about? States have not lost power except in the Civil War when the northern states fought the southern states. "Companies…this." Companies can not write policy or bribe officials directly, but they can and do take part in influencing the political process. Companies donate money to candidates and this money often comes with some kind of understanding. In some cases it is the other way around. Congresspeople seek out companies and tell them their views to get the companies to pay them. The congresspeople who hold views closest to the richest companies win the primaries and ultimately the elections. "No,…ect." Then how do you explain the ongoing insurgency in Iraq? The only concern for a country that invades is not "can I defeat the ruling government?" it's also "can I restore order under a regime favorable to my interests? How much will this cost in terms of blood, money, and morale? Will I get enough out of it?" There would be a huge insurgency using guerilla warfare against any occupying power and since there are so many more Americans than Iraqis the insurgency would be even bigger. "What…then!" And now Con shows ignorance of history. The United States DID have a military back then, in fact it had one as far back as the Revolution, the Continental Army[3]. "There…throats!"" Or we could've made peace with the Native Americans and let them keep their land averting one of history's biggest human rights tragedies. "We DID…a communists!" Con apparently doesn't know what "communism" is. Communism as defined by Dictionary.com means "1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2.a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. 3.the principles and practices of the Communist party. 4.communalism." Communism has nothing to do with invading or not invading other countries and neither does Democracy (as I have already explained). The word "invade" means "to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent". By definition this is exactly what the US government did. It entered Iraq forcefully as an enemy of its government and military and definitely with a hostile intent, maybe not (in theory) hostile to Iraqi civilians but certainly hostile to the Iraqi government and military so it fits the definition. "WE…YOU!?" Screaming does not help your side. "Since…Destruction"." And when the United States invaded there were none[4]. "There…things!" Sources please. "You…from!" You honestly think Saddam would've used his WMD even if he did have them? If he struck with even one nuclear weapon Iraq would have been turned into an instant parking lot. The most that would've happened is he would've said he had weapons of mass destruction and used that to tell the world never to go to war with his country again. As it is if he really had nuclear weapons going to war with him would've been too dangerous. A country being invaded that knows it will lose that has nuclear weapons has nothing to lose by using them so invading a country that has nuclear weapons makes no sense. "YOU…military!" It isn't persecution or discrimination to deny a group of people something if you deny it to all others equally. Nothing in your resolution stated I must defend the right of heterosexuals to be in the military. "THIS…beliefs." More pretty words. In reality the military was made for using force for the US government. Whether that protects our beliefs depends on the intentions of the US government. Anyways Con still refuses to respond to the fact that the United States government has a record of setting up non-democracies or at least illiberal democracies including the new Iraqi and Afghan governments. "That's…military" But I'm not trying to prove there isn't a military. Clearly there is. I'm trying to prove we should get rid of it. "then…sense!" Let's look at the resolution "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the don't ask don't tell policy". For people to be allowed in the military the military has to exist. So if the military should be abolished then nobody should be allowed in the military.If nobody should be allowed in the military then that includes homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, everybody.If I prove the military should be abolished that proves "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the don't ask don't tell policy." "If…win." No if you don't debate me you concede to me.Remember since you brought forth the debate you have the burden of proof. Sources 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...