The United States military should be significantly reduced in size and scope.

So my opponent's entire round can be summed up as one gigantic appeal to authority. Con implies that because the military does things a certain way, that the military's policies are in fact justified. If that were true, this entire debate would be moot. I'm arguing the military's goals and strategies ought to be amended. While I acknowledge deterrence as the security goal, I believe conflict can be avoided even by reducing the military's funding. That is what is up for debate. My opponent has to JUSTIFY the status quo, including both the goals and the means to achieve them. Thus far all he has done is quote current policy. Con has argued that the U.S. defense policy is full-spectrum dominance, which means the goal is to be able to win any war of any kind without allies. However, Con has not justified this goal, proven it as the most practical or moral course of action, explained why it's realistic (I've argued it's not) or most importantly, justified why this amount of funding is necessary to achieve this goal. Instead, Con has focused on arguing that the military is under-equipped because we have an aging fleet of ships and aircraft. Of course Con does not provide a comparison to other nation's fleets, because the U.S. military technology is still far and above the weaponry or capabilities of any other nation on the planet [1]. But for the sake of debate, extend all of my dropped arguments regarding the futility and danger of an impending arms race. Also, consider the U.S. has access to more nuclear power than any other nation [2]. Con ignored the vast majority of my arguments from R2. I explained that perhaps the greatest threat to U.S. security involves taking out the electrical grid via EMP or other blow to our natural resources [3]. My opponent completely dropped this valid point as if it were irrelevant. To reference official military experts, the greatest threat to U.S. security is - ironically - debt [ 4]! This is amazing considering my proposition vs. Con's. After all I have addressed the issue of spending and the U.S. economy; my opponent has not. But really, the DoD also suggests terrorism is the biggest threat which I will get to later as well as cyber terrorism. Please extend all of my dropped arguments about how more resources should be allocated to those areas and eliminated elsewhere from the budget. Investing so much into current endeavors is NOT the most effective use of resources. I explained why the military should focus less on equipment and man power, and more on combating the threat to our electrical grid and other security breaches. Con never addressed my arguments regarding military inefficiency, including but not limited to frivolous military projects (such as Operation Green Sweep) and the trillions of dollars that have been completely blown in regard to the latest F-35 fighter jet and other tech problems. Apparently Con's strategy in this debate is to ignore all of my points, and simply quote a bunch of soldiers insisting that their industry needs carte blanche for "safety." Con writes, "there is not one single defense official in the entire country with actual street cred that has said massive cuts to the DoD was ever a good idea." Con cites military-man after military-man stating the military needs more money. How novel. I wonder if employees of any particular institution were polled on whether or not their funding should be increased or decreased, how many of those employees would vote in favor of a pay cut or against more funding. Hmm. Probably zero. To suggest that I have to find military personnel who say the military ought to be cut is like saying the Democrats have to find poor people to say they should receive government aid. It is circular. While expert military advice is certainly relevant in terms of combat, strategy and other tangible experience, the opinion's of Defense Secretaries and those with a vested interest at a particular level are practically moot in terms of expert advice on economic policy, or the ethical virtue of our imperialistic aims. In fact, I will outline how Con has dropped almost every single one of my arguments in favor of quoting the "expert opinion" of others who have investigated themselves and determined they need more money... shocking. But even so, I HAVE in fact managed to find military personnel to support my claims. "Retired Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski was a former Pentagon analyst, and key figure in revealing how the Bush administration sold the Iraq war based on bogus intelligence... 'I hold the DoD as a federal bureaucracy in a bit more contempt because I spent way more time in it, and I saw close up the actual conscientious, direct political lying to promote war, invasions and occupations - none of which were sanctioned or even reviewed in accordance with the Constitution'" [5]. Ergo, a lot of Con's DoD sources are useless for the sake of discussion. We already know that the DoD wants more money. This debate is about whether or not this amount of money is necessary for defense. Also, in terms of the sequester my opponent keeps referring to, apparently "This tiny reduction in personnel - if it ever happens - is not backed by cuts in spending. No cost savings. No real reduction" [6]. Hermann Goering, a former Nazi soldier explains "Naturally the common people don't want war... that is understood. After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Say, he's got a point! So not surprisingly, Con argues "There is no doubt that this reality is coming true considering the rise of China, a resurgent Russia, an overstretched US military, a rather weak NATO alliance, and a host other frightening war possibilities that range from North Korean cyber attacks, to Iranian Nukes, ISIS, and the never ending War on Terror." First, I'm so glad my opponent brought up nuclear weapons for aforementioned reasons. We should allocate more resources there (where we already far surpass everyone else). Second, I've already addressed the so-called War on Terror in the last round, and my opponent completely ignored it. It's abusive to force me to waste character space -- please extend my arguments regarding how "terror" is effectively fought from the last round. This includes threats like ISIS. Third, I vehemently agree that we have an overstretched military, which is specifically why I have advocated for less global policing. This would require FAR less resources: less man power, less equipment and billions of dollars just to "maintain a presence" overseas. I've also already addressed cyber terrorism, and I disagree with our participation in NATO and the exorbitant burden it places on U.S. tax payers. Con dropped my argument regarding the U.S. footing the bill for other country's defense. Extend those arguments. Moreover, Con suggests I am "insane" for advocating budget cuts considering we have a U.S. military presence in over 22 countries. Apparently Con has missed an entire portion of my argument (arguably the most important part) about how I strongly disagree with such an extensive military presence throughout the globe. Con is expected to justify this occupation - he hasn't. I disagree that imperialism is paramount to our safety, and in fact believe it can impede on our security. Con says there are ZERO defense sponsored studies or intelligence that suggest our foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically war, has made us less safe. In the next round, I am going to negate this by posting several -- I simply cannot in this round for lack of character space. My opponent does not deny the massive expense of our military, but suggests "our troops are providing the nation with the most vital service in the world." On the contrary, that is a massive appeal to emotion (much like most of the "support our troops" rhetoric) which is not remotely justified in reality. No soldier has ever once directly serviced me in any way whatsoever, and therefore their implied value to my livelihood is not substantiated through any tangible evidence, but rather assumed utility with no data to warrant the subjective presumption. To reduce costs, in addition to what I have specified (shift in spending toward different threats, i.e. cyber terrorism, nukes, chemical and biomedical warfare) I would also like to suggest the following -- less foreign intervention; closing at least 1/4 of our domestic defense sites; reducing personnel; and closing unnecessary military bases where we have strong allies and no significant threats - which is most places. We can afford to close at least 50. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We should be able to rely more on our allegiances, and focus on other efforts to avoid war. Other countries should also pay more for their own defense. Finally I propose more of a libertarian type funded military, which is arguably more efficient and more lethal. I will expand in the next round. [1] http://nationalinterest.org... [2] http://www.defense.gov... [3] http://www.gpo.gov... [4] http://www.defense.gov... [5] http://www.motherjones.com... [6] http://www.lp.org...