The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy Is Beneficial To The United States

I'd like to go ahead and clarify that, while I did leave out that part of the definition, I did so only to better highlight that aspect of DADT later on in my post. My opponent's first contention deals with economic costs. First of all, keep in mind that many of these numbers she throws out (like the 252.4 millon) are not even associated with keeping gays out of the military; the approximately 250 million turns out to be training enlistees; this number would be just as high with or without DADT, so its impact is truly minimal; this is furthered by the fact that she provides no statistic in her case to tell you how many homosexuals are actually thrown out of the military as a result of DADT. Second of all, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. She talks about how this is a frivolous expenditure, how it's wasting money; while this might be rhetorically pleasing to read, the fact is that, look at what President Obama is doing right now; We've had hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in stimulus packages passed, along with the national debt, which is going up by trillions at this point; my opponent is truly overestimating the economic impact of DADT; take one hundred million dollars for DADT; compared to 100 billion, around 1/10 of current stimulus plans being passed around, and DADT is about 1/1000 of what we're spending. Third and finally on this argument, even if you buy into it, you have to accept that a program like this is going to cost SOMETHING; there's no way that it could be free. Understand that simply because something has costs does not mean that, overall, it is not beneficial; I will hammer this idea home a bit more in a few paragraphs. Next, she talks about matters of practicality. She gives us the idea that our troops are spread too thin, that we simply don't have enough men to fight these wars. First of all, I honestly don't agree with these wars, and so a shortage of soldiers encourages the United States, ideally, to seek the quickest possible end to those wars. Second, the fact is that less homosexuals are being discharged now than ever, so the impact as far as loss of men is, again, quite minimal; http://usmilitary.about.com... The report points out that between 1994 and 2003, nearly 10 years, less than 10,000 homosexuals were discharged; compared with the hundreds of thousands in America's standing army, coupled with technology that allows us to have less soldiers on the battlefield, this argument really works better for the PRO side. Third, as far as criminals in the military are concerned, the belief goes that the military will teach these people discipline, respect, and will make principled men out of them; obviously, this isn't 100% the case (as nothing ever is), but you can't discipline someone straight, assuming that homosexuality is a natural-born case; if it were a choice, homosexuals could simply choose not to be so before joining the military. So really, DADT is a minor inconvenience, worst case scenario. As far as the unpopularity argument is concerned, look at my first post; the fact that is unpopular is the benefit; it works as proof that people finally ARE beginning to come over to the side of tolerance and equality; she completely drops the idea I give you that Blacks had to deal with all kinds of unjust laws, whcih acted as stepping stones in a way, slowly paving the way for equality; in the same way, DADT might not be ideal, but the fact that society is of that same opinion shows that we are ready for change, and that in and of itself is beneficial in that we are ready to 'hop to the next stone', so to speak; and while my opponent says that it is a 'tool of segregation and demoralization', I ask you to again examine the closing statement from my first post: "So, before judging the DADT policy as a cruel, bigoted tool of the government, I would ask you to keep in mind that the darkest hour is just before the dawn; only with less-than-favorable policies like DADT can we make landmark changes in America like Brown v. B.O.E. for the blacks; only with DADT do we have a way to quantify and prove injustice in society; and only with DADT do we have something to build on, and a way to move forward to a new era of peace, understanding, and equality." So, while I agree that anyone should have the right to be in the military, I also know that we can't skip the stepping stones in between; we as a society cannot simply jump straight into equality; sadly, this kind of change takes time, and the fact that DADT is unpopular benefits this change by showing us that we are nearly ready to move to the next stone. In the end, you can vote one of two ways. You can vote for the CON, who provides you with some very minimal-impact arguments, and one argument (unpopularity) that I really pre-empted in my first post. Or, you can vote PRO, who advocates accepting that we aren't ready to go straight to equality, and that DADT is simply part of the long-term transition; I've given you evidence, logic, even historical precedents that parallel the situation that we are currently seeing. The one thing that I want you all to remember, no matter which side you are leaning toward at this point, is that every situation is going to have its costs and benefits; what I hope you take into consideration is that the minimal economic and 'practical' costs are far outweighed by the progressive political and social benefits. I am thankful to my opponent for providing me with the most engaging, in-depth, well thought out debate that I have had on this site thus far; and I sincerely look forward to the final round.