Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its military spending.

First, My opponent"s points about the GDP are purposefully misleading: our Defense spending per GDP is infact 9th in the world and Conn Carrol of the Heritage foundation stated in 2010 that it is lower than it ever has been at a 9% in the 60"s. So were 9th in percentage for military spending, but first overall in GPD? See how that"s misleading? Also, the "800 billion a year" is factually incorrect. The U.S. spends around only 600 billion a year - Sarah Wolfe of NPR 2/12/2014 (more recent) -Now onto my case. First, let"s frame the world in order to best render our decisions. 1.Putin is "Acting like a cornered animal" and "is revealing himself as a thug" Russian journalist Yulia Latynina says. His sole goal is to enforce the "Putin Doctrine" 2.North Korea is on the Brink of a collapse, and not a pretty one " David Trifunpv from the global post 3.Turkey just shot down a Syrian airplane (tensions rising yet again) 4.Trouble in Venezuela . 5.In February Iran"s military chief said they were ready for a decisive battle with America and Israel and that military option was on the table. Not even mentioning China"s military goals and problems with terrorism, obviously we have no room for error! Kim Holmes PhD of the Heritage foundation this year stated that although military cuts would still allow us to defend from, say, 1 threat, but not the 46 armed conflicts the International institute for strategic studies predicted recently. The U.S. will not be able to prevent all of them with a reduced military budget. Now onto My opponents case: 1.Let's look at the economic arguments and waste arguments. Sub point A: the Economist stated in 2011 that for every $ spent in military spending, our GDP increased by $1.50. Sub point B: I propose the following counterplan: the U.S. should use the funds reserved by the Affirmation indicted of waste to invest in (1.) space weaponization and (2.) humanitarian waste. Sub Point C: Consolidation is not reduction, meaning that my opponent must win the waste argument AS WELL proving the lack of use. -The consolidation of defense funds away from waste prevents the many impacts I described. -Even as of now, our navy has admitted (Admiral Samuel Lockhlear ) that the cannot in the status quo meet its requirements. Imagine if war broke out with the many scenarios I described! 2.Now let"s look at My opponents articles cited at the end of the Affirmation case. Please note 2 things. a.They are all from 2, 3, or 4 years ago. (My citations are from this year or are backed up by easily found recent research) b.compounded on their lack of recency, they cherry-pick data, and attempt to diminish drastically the actual dangers in our world. 3.To refute the 3rd goal of my opponent: Sub point A:There is no claim made that our military spending affects our relations. Sub point B:It does not make sense that it would. That argument has to do with the mindset of the people. If our government has this mindset, changing the budget will just result in an increase of the budget. The real solvency of any impact to this argument is in changing the mindset of how we as people act in the world, WHICH IS NOT competitive with a vote for the negative side. 4. to bring the theory of inherent argumentation: My opponent must bring up inherency . If the plan is inherent (meaning that the status quo is on its way to solving it already) then there is no need to enact a plan. -The status quo IS moving in the direction of defense budget cuts. There is not much opposition to it as of now, meaning there is no reason to vote for a plan independent of the status quo. 5.to bring the theory of harm argumentation: My opponent must bring up that our spending actually HARMS something. -the only argument made is waste which is countered by consolidation. As of now, the only harms of voting affirmative are in favor of the negative. Voting affirmative rejects the ability to consolidate the funds and prevent the many harms I bring up.