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

"I disapprove of how my opponent depriciates the value of our military, especially as an American. Our military exists to provie us with freedom. Every word that you write, every letter, bulges with the blood of those who sacrifieced themselves for you so you have the freedom of speech, freedom which you seem not to value." This is empty rhetoric wrapped up in an ad hominem attack(implying I don't value freedom). Con offers up no evidence of any of these claims. The US military exists to serve the state, i.e. the United States government. It will only "provide us with freedom" if that is the government's intentions. Our government has shown time and time again that pleasing lobbyists and campaign contributors is more important to them. As far back as the Mexican War the government has waged war for commercial interests, at the time Southern slave owners excited about getting more land to build plantations and more representatives to defend slavery[1]. Lobbyists from the military-industrial complex and the oil industry that go to Congress to encourage war are not thinking about our nation's freedom. They are thinking about turning a buck. Anything can be made to look like a threat to national security with the right "witnesses" and paper work and will be accepted more readily if you have a big pocketbook. Take for example the phony "weapons of mass destruction" used to con the nation into invading Iraq[2]. Con states "Every word that you write, every letter, bulges with the blood of those who sacrifieced themselves for you so you have the freedom of speech, freedom which you seem not to value". He is implying that without the military we will lose our freedom of speech. But history shows the military has been used to suppress freedom of speech such as the Kent State Massacre. However, con is most likely alluding to the threat of invasion that if we don't have a military a nation that does will come in, invade us, and take away our freedoms. Con offers no evidence of this whereas I addressed this concern in Round 1 and gave thorough evidence that our nation would still be difficult and costly to invade if we had no military. It would not be worth the effort for foreign powers. "If other countries could fend off armies wwith civilans, they wouldn've done it. Major countries do not." Are you seriously arguing that smaller countries are more able to fend off invading armies with civilians than major countries? "You emphasize war and killing are bad, but on a note acknowledge defense nessicary. That's what the US military does." This still does not prove the "necessity" of the military. That it is used for defense (though I'd like to point out it has not been used to defend our country since the Civil War, the last war fought on American soil besides the Indian Wars) does not prove it is needed for defense. "We are a democracy, so we don't "invade and attack" countries, we seek to help an existing gov." Dictionary.com defines democracy as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."[3] Nothing about being a "democracy" means we don't "invade and attack" countries. A democracy will invade and attack other countries if those in power can convince Congress and the people to do it. We DID invade Iraq, this is a fact. Our military went in, removed the government from power, created a new one, and is trying (with little success) to help it govern. Life in Iraq has became worse than it was before the war[4]. The new Iraqi government is not even a democracy. It is an islamic republic run under shariah law. Before it had been a dictatorship but at least it was secular. The new regime has a horrible human rights record, and even executes homosexuals[5]. "You clearly have issue with the military, and this is the the debate to have your contentions. I refuse to debate your proposed contentions since it holds no ground and it begins an entirely new debate: "We shouldn't have a military." and does not support this resolution." If you will not debate then I win. The resolution is stated "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy". If we don't have a military then nobody is allowed in the military and so "Homosexuals" would not be allowed in by definition. So proving the military should not exist at all would prove that homosexuals should not be allowed in the military. Had you stated the resolution "If We Have a military then homosexuals should not be allowed in it, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" or had stated something to that effect in Round 1 then I would not be supporting the resolution by arguing against the existance of the military. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com... 4. http://www.commondreams.org... 5. http://gayswithoutborders.wordpress.com...