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

First on the GDP arguments: My opponent only stated"My post was factual data". Please accept only warranted claims! That does not mean that my evidence can't be. If you look up my evidence, You will see that the WORLD SPENDING is actually 1.5 trillion. Not our budget. And also again, my opponent is trying to manipulate the data. Its not that we spend a lot, but that our military spending matches our economy and GDP! Now onto cases. I would like to bring up the rule that if an argument is not answered in the consecutive speech/post, it is considered conceded (dropped/forfeited). First, My opponent dropped the list of dangers and the Holmes evidence and did not respond to the argument of the evidence attempting to diminish the actual danger in the world. Next, My opponent dropped the economist evidence, stating that military spending actually helps our GDP and economy. It innovates and multiplies it. This means we actually need to keep military spending to access the impacts of the affirmative arguments. Now onto the Counter-plan: - First of all this was dropped. -Second, weaponizing space now is key to preventing an arms race in the future with catostrophic impacts. Many countries would use it to create a local and Hegemony and ultimately be "un-flank-able" - Everet Dolman, 2006, "Toward a US grand Strategy in Space" -Third, The United states military acts lot with humanitarian aide. Focusing that part of the military would also refute the global relations arguments my opponent brings up. focusing on humanitarian aide would not harm the U.S. ability to cooperate, but would actually give it more of a voice in global cooperation. -Fourth, moving funds around or consolidating funds does not mean a reduction of military spending, meaning that this counter-plan advocates for a Pro vote. Next, My opponent dropped the Locklhear evidence saying that even as of now, our military has trouble dealing with certain threats. imagine if a multiple front war broke out! Which I proved is definitely a possibility. Next, My opponent dropped the arguments against the Pro evidence: 1. It isn't very recent 2. It cherry-picks evidence and historical data Now onto the Pro relations argument. My answer that our relations with other groups and nations has not to do with or military size, but with the mindset of our leaders. What would really solve the problem is finding a way to change this mindset. which is not a competitive Idea with keeping our military spending. They are not mutually Exclusive. Now I will elaborate on What I mean by Harms and Inherent argumentation and Why they are important. a. First is HARMS. - Now My opponent did bring up some harms in the last post, so let us compare and calculate which one would be worse. Opponents: we could use extra money for education and health care, and military spending sometimes causes terrorism. - the first part isn't even a harm, It's what maybe could be benefited. is a little more money (The 400$ Bill is being exaggerated) Mine: -War with Russia -War with North Korea -Massive trouble in Syria -Riots and Marches protesting all over Venezuela -Conflict with Iran. So which one would be worse? also considering that "Education and Infrastructure" really have no impact other than: they would be good, and In a war we REALLY couldn't try to fix it. Also consider that My harms and Impacts are SUPER recent events and evidence, compared to education and infrastructure which governments have been worrying about for millenias, and that My Economist Evidence was dropped stating that Military spending helps our economy. Now I will quickly talk about Inherent Argumentation: My inherency argument states that the Status quo (what is going on now) is already looking to passing military cuts. this means that even if My opponent wins that military spending is bad, there is no reason to vote for it because It will already be solved soon. This again was dropped. Thank you. I will answer questions in comment