America's military is the greatest in the world.

My opponent can refer to his experience and complain about a supposed ad hominem attack (interesting that you can't even spell it correct and yet claim to know it when you see it), but unless he actually knows what the fallacy is he's simply embarrassing himself. Here's a simple lesson: even if I stated in my round that my opponent is a pathetically pompous idiot, this itself wouldn't constitute an ad hominem UNLESS I conclude from this insult that his argument is wrong. No where in my round did I do this -- when I refer to your arguments as ignorant or illogical, this was to simply summarize the criticisms in my argument (which can be summarized by critiquing your arguments for disregarding some facts, etc.). That is the point of an introduction, isn't it? If you're butt hurt about this, too bad. You should find another retort than ad hominem. ==================== Ground Forces ==================== "So you admit that your earlier point about China being, and I quote "so secretive" is a steaming pile?" False dichotomy - learn to round an argument. I argued that there are gray areas when attempting to trace the progress of a nation's military technology (especially China, for example we aren't even sure about the amount of their military spenditure), but EVEN if we were to continue argue on this issue and thus deal with a fuzzy area, America's technology still seems to be superior. What's even more ludicrous is that you argue China's practicality and supposed cost-effectiveness prevails over America's waste. Even if China was more cost-effective, this can be disregarded by the fact that America can afford the military spending in the face of a war. Highlight this with the fact that the USA spends about half the world's amount in military spending, outclassing China by 9x. You say I've "indicated no such thing", but if you read my d@mn rounds, early on I gave links and pointed out that in 2005 we only spent around 4% of our GDP. 4 PERCENT. You retort by giving me a graph from the Wikipedia page on US military spending, while amusingly sighing in the process, but ironically the same expression can be fired back. The graph depicts the percentage of our SPENDING, not taking into context the GDP. From the same Wikipedia link: "For FY 2010, Department of Defense spending amounts to 4.7% of GDP. Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, the Department of Defense budget is slated to be $664 billion in 2010 (including the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan previously funded through supplementary budget legislation), higher than at any other point in American history, but still 1.1–1.4% lower as a percentage of GDP than the amount spent on defense during the peak of Cold-War military spending in the late 1980s." Then, you bring up sole examples such as the inferiority of the M4 against the SCAR and SOCOM. I countered by demonstrating the relatively insignificant operational effectiveness. You then give me a link about a few of China's equipment and expect me to reply to all those with these character limits, but let's compare a few: the Chengdu J-10 is an impressive multirole aircraft, but the USA boasts the F-35 Lightning II and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The artillery system can potentially be compared to the one you linked a video about, lol. Their main battle tank can be challenged by the Abrams. As you can see, the list is long and I'm not going to compare every unit simply because you lazily gave me a single link. Rather, it's your burden to at least reference some examples and explain their superiority. Should I just do what you did and give a link of America's military equipment, and expect you to refute all of them without wasting character limits? ==================== Other things to consider + History ==================== "Thomas Barnett" You seriously arguing that it's a particular flaw of America that being a soldier in war is psychologically stressful? THIS PRACTICALLY HAPPENS TO ANY COUNTRY AT WAR. "Yeah, there was absolutely no need for nation-building after WW2." It's frustrating dealing with your quips; they totally ignore the point most of the time. The point of nation-building after WW2 was for reasons like PEACE. In a practical situation, most nations would not go to war without having other nations mixed up, nor will they simply annihilate another country with nothing being done about the aftermath. But in this debate, a hypothetical between America and some other country is being considered, without the aftermath (and what moral acts should be done) being considered. "I didn't say it was the only, I just don't believe it was a defining factor. Even if Germany hadn't been put on the back foot by Russia, have you actually seen the size of the place? the occupying force alone wold have crippled Germany's army." So you acknowledge that elements such as geography affected Germany's success...great, rams in my point of the flaws of blitzkrieg or a general flaw on Germany's part (i.e. they don't have enough numbers to compensate for their ambitious goals). "It wasn't superior, not even remotely, the only reason it was so effective was because the Russians said "hey lets try tilting the armour"" It's always enjoyable seeing you smug about a point, and then falling face first as it crumbles. You did this with the point about the M4 (as I used your own link), and about the US military expenditure (as I used your own link). Unfortunately, I don't have another link of yours to use on this point but whatever: the T-34 tank (regarded as one of the best WW2 weapons created) excelled mainly because of it's balanced attributes, high production rate, and high reliability - attributes that the German tanks lacked. With the Allied having an immense production rate as well, during the Eastern Front the Russians were able to focus on the production of T-34's as well. The T-34 IS an example of superior technology; having high production rates, balanced attributes, etc. is not an inferior tank in tactical terms. "...the RAF did so well because someone somewhere said "anything's better than nothing"" LOL, so your argument is basically what, they got lucky? Having worse pilots and planes means you win? No, the RAF prevailed because the German's made/had the following critical errors: they had a lack of heavy bombers and short range flight for their fighters means fighting over English land would take more toll per German loss than per British loss. The deal breaker is that Hitler changed plans from annihilating the RAF and instead bombing London - a fatal mistake that allowed the RAF to retake air superiority. ==================== Conclusion ==================== "It's interesting to note that my opponent has yet to show how America's military is superior to all others." My opponent has debated before, so is he foreign to the concept of a burden of proof? For example, in my previous round I clearly asked of my opponent to supply one country that is better than the USA - he gave none. I have neither the patience nor the character limits to visit every nation and compare them the America. Do I claim that atheist is true only by going through every religion and invalidating them? No, as an atheist my opponent should know better.