America's military is the greatest in the world.

My opponent's round is similar to his previous rounds in the sense that he consistently argues from a jaded perspective - he's constantly and conveniently ignoring obvious contentions, making bold claims with no evidence, or distorting historical facts. To begin, he responds to my introduction of the previous round by claiming that I committed an ad hominem fallacy. All I can do is advise him to actually learn logical fallacies before falsely applying them and looking foolish. For example: "Actually Ad Homiem is criticism of the person, not the point, any criticism in a debate that doesn't actually answer for the point is Ad Homiem, you know, like calling me illogical and ignorant." An ad hominem only applies if an insult is used IN PLACE of an argument TO FURTHER a claim. If you actually read my introduction clearly, you would see that my usage of ignorance is chosen carefully -- I'm arguing that you either fail to misunderstand my points or apparently ignore them. I question your logic because you've presented arguments and applied logical fallacies where it's inappropriate to. Simply because your feelings may be hurt does not constitute an ad hominem. ==================== Ground Forces ==================== Do you actually read my sentences? I agree that China's military isn't completely concealed, but I back up my claim from before that we have "absolutely no STABLE WAY" of tracking their military progression. If you still haven't noticed, stable is the key word. This criticism applies to most countries, because unless they were totally open with their military technology we likely won't understand the full scope. But even then, let's say we can still sensibly depict at least a reasonable sense of the growth of their technology - fine by me (and indeed, I might need to soften my point), why don't you start supplying some examples? What's silly is that you always bring up points or issues at hand but never supply your side -- You argue that my point about America upgrading it's military is moot because we...waste too much money? Again, my previous rounds have indicated that WE CAN AFFORD IT better than most countries. Your link gave references to some Chinese equipment but I'd easily counter that the American counterparts are superior and am ready to backing this up if need be. For example, let's refer again to the Army's BCT Modernization Program: you claim it's purely a bureaucratic system, but this is grossly underestimating it. In the 21st century, information and communication is key and that's what this program aims to do. It wants to achieve a more integrated information network between those involved in an operation to help improve mobility, protection, precision, etc. "Liar, I never said that." If you bring up China's growth, but you don't even admit to implicitly implying they are superior, then what the hell are you doing about the resolution? Unless you can supply me a country with a better military, you're just nitpicking at America's military but doing nothing to further your position in this debate. You criticize the M4 for having weaknesses, but you ignore my point that while it does have some problems it is still operationally effective, with the test only revealing it to be 1% less reliable than the other rifles. I don't deny the M4 has any weaknesses or that it isn't the best rifle in the world -- I simply claim that IT'S GOOD ENOUGH. If you read your quote, it states that SOCOM oversees the SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMPONENTS of the branches in the US military. I'm not denying the Marine Corps have special forces - I'm denying that every marine is a special forces unit. ==================== Air and Sea Forces ==================== Since it's been consumed in the history section, I won't add anything unless I need to. ==================== Other things to consider + History ==================== Early in my opponent's round he claims that America develops "expensive tech designed to be used in very limited circumstances" - I'd ask him to back this up. Sure, there are many examples in which certain technology IS developed for a rather limited purpose, but at the same time this isn't inclusive of every technological advancement by America. If this was so, America wouldn't simply be wasteful but rather stupid as well. To further dismiss your claim, in my earlier rounds I've responded to your claims about America's military budget: the percentage of our GDP we use for military spending is quite low compared to most countries, therefore as a nation we can afford it. Thomas Barnett is correct in claiming that not every soldier is fully prepared for all situations, but this has been a constant problem since the earliest wars. We've gone miles to improve this, and while infantry are still susceptible to psychological and environmental (among others) factors, they can still perform reliably under most circumstances. Further, you need to realize that in the context of this debate there is no concern for rebuilding a nation or what not - it's just an epic war similar to WW2 (since we are gauging what nation has a superior military). Again, my point about the flaws of the blitzkrieg tactic is the MAJOR reason why the Germans couldn't push past Russia, not the ONLY *facepalm*. I acknowledge some technical superiority of Russian equipment, like the tank armor as you mention, but this only proves to support my point that having superior equipment can obviously help you win a war. Concerning England: well for one, I'm leaning with some military historians who recently have given the naval forces more credit than the RAF for the success during the Battle of Britain (namely that even if the RAF failed, the invasion still probably wouldn't happen). But nonetheless, while I agree that the RAF did a magnificent job (and perhaps more than I appear to in my previous round), this only serves my point that superior planes and pilots can help win a war. You aren't doing anything to further your point or position here. This doesn't show over-reliance on air power being a flaw (while it would be in itself), it simply showed THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE AIR FORCE OVER ANOTHER. More than anything, it shows the importance of air power. "This is my point, you know, "overtraining" and all that" And I respond with the simply fact that even though a soldier isn't equipped for all situations, that's what other units are for (both personnel and armor). All an Army soldier primarily would have to do is shoot at the targets, advance inwards (or towards whatever helps accomplish the objective), and do the periodic reload and help for his fellow mates. It wouldn't be a situation like Iraq where he would have to distinguish among the innocent civilians, nor train the local militia (jobs fitted for special forces). ==================== Conclusion ==================== After all this arguing, it's interesting to note that my opponent has cited a country that can best America. To uphold this debate, he would have to present at least one nation superior overall than America. So...?