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

My opponent offered forth three new "revamped" arguments which I will address in the same way as round 1. My arguments still stand though, as my opponent also acknowledged that he conceded those points to me, stating: "In my opponents rebuttal, he negated all of my points". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) Contention: "My point was to be that the military accepted the fight and possibility of death for the bettering of the country." Rebuttal: I would argue that without exception in the history of this country war has never generally "bettered" the American people as a whole. The lone contender which inhabits the gray area between general betterment and harm is the Revolutionary War for reasons that are rather self-evident. However, every other war has burdened the American people with enormous costs despite the meager if ambiguous gains: WWII cost 5 trillion dollars (inflation adjusted) [A] and gained us only 813.17 square miles of territory [B] - that's $6,148,775.78 per square foot. As far as I know, the only worse deal for price per a square foot is in Manhattan. The Iraq War will probably end up costing 3-4 trillion dollars [A], and we'll have gained no territory. My point still stands therefore that war does not "better" the American people by and large: indeed, you must provide quantifiable proof that it does rather than throwing the esoteric and slightly Orwellian phrase: "War for the General Good". (1) Contentions: "Also, how I said that congress benefits from war, I meant with strengthened relations with foreign governments, not money for themselves. The everyday american has to pay for the war in taxes. If the cause is needed enough, they can make the sacrifice themselves." War generally has not improved our foreign relations around the world. If it had improved our relations as you suggested, then we should be among the most beloved of nations because we quite often find ourselves in fights. Instead we find innumerable video clips like this one disparaging US diplomatic missions for the mere association with US military activities. http://www.youtube.com.... One might say that not only are a great many nations suspicious of our motives - justified or not - but also that as a consequence of this suspicion, our military endeavors and our national image are not held in high regard due to our proclivity to fight so unabashedly. As for your last comment about the "everyday American" sacrificing himself if need be for the greater good - again this is rather too Orwellian for me to take seriously. (2) "I also included in my explanation that this would help end wars just for the sake of politics. Lets look at Vietnam. We had no direct threat from them, but we chose to fight to help France and South Vietnam. Now lets look at WW2. We were attacked by Japan and then threatened by Germany. War should only be used to defend ourselves, not to help others. With the military deciding, they know what will come so they can make a clear choice when Congress can be biased." This point is entirely misguided. Vietnam was a perceived threat to US interests in Southeast Asia, we weren't helping France or South Vietnam; we were insuring our investments abroad. Furthermore once revolution was deemed inevitable given non-action by U.S. forces, the U.S. military fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin Incident through covert provocations under the purview of the US Defense Department and conducted by the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group (SOG) [C]. This point alone should convince you that the US military does not always act in the best interests of the American public, as it willingly mislead and exploited the American public into allowing it to engage in direct conflict solely to protect US strategic assets under threat from non-friendly regimes. (3) " My brother for example is a navy seal. He is an everyday american. Congress, however, are an extremely small elite group of rich people that don't see the opinions of the american often, and when they do they take them differently it seems like." The difference here is that your brother - unlike a Congressman or Congresswoman - is not answerable to me, nor should he be as a member of the military. However, since he is not subject to civilian authority, he should not be allowed to decide for me or my country unilaterally whether we should go to war. [A] http://articles.sfgate.com... [B] http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org..., http://en.wikipedia.org... [C] Joint Chiefs of Staff, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam Studies and Observations Group, Documentation Study (July 1970), Annex F, Appendix x.