Declarations of war should be passed by the military, and only proposed by government, if necessary.

If my opponent will allow me a courtesy, I'd like to summarize his arguments so that I may address them in turn: Contention: "Wars should be declared by a vote in the branches of the military...If 3/5 of the military votes for war, then war will be declared." My opponent offers two justifications for this contention: (1) Doing so will be "for the direct benefit of the american people instead of congress" (2) Doing so will also terminate the propagation of "political" wars. (3) And in finality, votes of the military "symbolize and idealize the power of the everyday american to make decisions that only Congress has the power to now". My opponent must prove his justifications in order for his contention to be valid. However, I will refute his justifications, and in turn negate his contention. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) Doing so will be "for the direct benefit of the american people instead of congress" Allowing the military to declare war will in no way directly benefit the American people, as "the American people" will be the ones directly fighting in the war. As one of a vast number of consequences, some the "American people" will die from warfare - thus denying them any "benefit" and negating your contention. Furthermore, your assertion that Congress benefits from war is misguided. War is among the most costly of expenditures Congress allows - 1 trillion dollars in the 9 years since 2001 according to the fancy clock shown in my source. [A]. This fact should convince you that war if not directly causing "harm", at very least denies any possible benefit to Congress who would gladly spend that 1 trillion dollars another way. Either way, this justification is negated by establishing both the harm to the American people, and by refuting the assertion of benefit to Congress. (2) Doing so will also terminate the propagation of "political" wars. There is no such thing a "non-political" war. Therefore your contention that allowing the military to declare war would end "political wars" is illogical. Your justification is negated. (3) And in finality, votes of the military "symbolize and idealize the power of the everyday american to make decisions that only Congress has the power to now" According to the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill passed by Congress, the maximum number of personal funded in our armed forces is 1,410,000. Assuming that the every branch of the armed forces is fully saturated in recruitment (An almost certain impossibility given they have trouble recruiting enough to simply sustain themselves at current levels) the armed forces represent .0046% (1,410,000 / 307,006,550) of the total US population. Therefore your contention that the American military vote "symbolizes and idealizes" the power of the "everyday American" is absurd. You're in effect arguing that this ultra elite minority should have the right to decide whether the other 99.9954% is sent to war. But this is beside the point: The opinion or votes of the American people are neither better represented nor "idealized" by the votes of the American military, the resolution is thus negated. As all three justifications have been refuted, I look forward to seeing where my opponent takes his argument. [A] http://costofwar.com...