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

If my opponent wishes to debate his made-up resolution: "Resolution affirmed: Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy, because we shouldn't have a military in the first place. If we do not have a military then by definition homosexuals can not be allowed in it." In contrast to the actual one on the top of the screen: "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" Then so be it, but I will not argue his points, but instead ask him a question of his defenses against his own resolution: =Question= Since you maintain that "we shouldn't have a military in the first place", what military would there be to ban homosexuals from it?!?! "We" implies more than one entity, one that I will assume to be the United States and all other countries. If no countries have a military, HOW CAN ANYONE BE DENIED FROM SOMETHING THAT DOESN"T EXIST!?!?! I just got into an arguement with my girfriend and I"m going to continue to rant. This debate has taken a turn away from the resolution, so why should I continue something that my opponent won't contend?! ARGH! 1. Evidence shows quality of life will improve if we abolish the military- How can you say that for everyone based on your example of a lone island? You cannot. All experiments need a large testing sample, and small islands don't account as a wide ranged piece of "evidence". 2. The United States government uses its military to invade and attack foreign countries at the whim of commercial interests. It is far too easy for leaders to lie to the public and get everyone rallied together for war- Prove that we attack on mere whim, prove that we don't have a reason. And if you knew anything about our civics, then you'd know Congress declares war, not the public. Most of the public wants troops to come home. Have we pulled out? No. 3. The solution is abolishing the military. The very existence of militaries perpetuates war and conflict.- That's like saying a buff person standing beside people perpetuates fights, solely because he appears designed for conflict. He could be a personal trainer, helping people get into shape. The military doesn't perpetuate war and conflict by it's presence. Did the National Guard perpetuate war when they helped restore power to many, many states over the years? No! They helped! Did they perpetuate war in 9/11? NO! 4. Companies influenced the US government into participating in many military actions with disastrous humanitarian consequences particularly in Latin America- No company can partake in Congressional affairs. That used to be a problem back during the Tea-Pot Dome Scandel and early 1900's. Laws were passed to prevent this. 5. Are you seriously arguing that smaller countries are more able to fend off invading armies with civilians than major countries?- No, I'm saying an army of civilains with handguns have no chance against armies of trained soldiers with standard issue machine gun-fire, nukes, explosives, tanks, ect. 6. 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.- What in the name of GOD are you saying? There was no American military back then! There were militas with guns that had difficulty fending off bows and arrows! Defense is nessicary, or else we would have died with arrows in our throats! 7. .....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 govermentn. (entire paragraph)...- We didn't do that! That would define us a communists! WE ARE A DEMOCRACY! How dare you say that the lives spent in Iraq were a waste! HOW DARE YOU!? Since the 1970's, Abdul Kahn has been mooching off the US government for nuclear information, due to us giving nuclear energy to India. But we wouldn't, so he stole it. We found out about it and then we went to look for "Weapons of Mass Destruction". There are several nuclear power plants, nuclear building facilities, and other things! You have no idea what they have saved you from! 8. 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- YOU DEFEND HOMOSEXUAL'S WAY OF BEING! Your implyingness declares that the homosexuals shouldn't be persecuted for who they are, yet you would deny them right in the military! Should we deny those who have bled and died for their beliefs, just because they are different from ours? THIS IS AMERICA! THIS IS WHAT OUR MILITARY WAS MADE FOR! To protect our beliefs. 9. "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." I will depict and dissect every sentence of this, so you can see the flaw of your words. First, look at the resolution. MY RESOLUTION. "Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy" That's all there is! If you do prove that there isn't a military, then the resolution doesn't exist, so all your arguments are false anyways, which would revert back to there being a military! It's a paradox that makes no sense! If I do not debate, then ordinarily I would win. But you have yet to provide ANY ANY ANY ANY reason why homosexuals should be in the military. You started another policy debate: There should be no military. YOU MAKE NO SENSE AND NO ARGUEMENTS! You've infurated me!!! She infurated me!!! Everyone just get along and accept people for their #@%&ing differences!!!