Topic: We should ban private military companies

Argument: pmcs should be banned, as they are profiting from war and destruction. it is their interest to cause and prolong discord in the world.

Argument: private armies are generally used to violate human rights because they are not subject to restrictions like current armies

Argument: private armies are necessary to enter in extremely dangerous conflict zones where the use of irregular soldiers is necessary

Argument: private companies are able to be better funded than government militaries and therefore are better equiped for dangerous situations

Argument: private companies are very useful to us and necessary if we have a shortage

Argument: private companies have less strict guidelines and less oversight which makes them careless

Argument: private companies of any kind play an important role in society, besides they are companies and business service providers

Argument: private companies should be free to organize and supplement whatever public services are available, including military.

Argument: private militaries are a threat to security if they decide to overthrow the government

Argument: private military allows for less red tape to get things done and should not be banned.

Argument: private military companies abuse the locals and lack effective oversight so should be banned.

Argument: private military companies all have different standards and can result in everything varying from the usual standards and therefore they should be banned.

Argument: private military companies allow more investment than governments can afford and so are essential to future security and should not be banned.

Argument: private military companies allow people with money to hire their own armies to force others to do what they want. military forces should only be allowed at national level.

Argument: private military companies are a business like any other and are subject to national and international regulations

Argument: Private military companies are a legitimate business model, the use of which could save the government on its defense budget.

Argument: private military companies are a risk to the general public as they are not regulated and therefore should be banned

Argument: private military companies are a threat to our democracy and should not be tolerated anymore

Argument: private military companies are around to make a profit and may do things that are dangerous in order to cut expenses

Argument: private military companies are basically soldiers for hire, driven by money and nothing else.

Argument: private military companies are dangerous as their neutrality cannot be guaranteed. they may be open to counter offers for their services.

Argument: private military companies are dangerous. they are nothing more than mercenaries following the whims of their boss.

Argument: private military companies are dangerous. they fight for their bosses' interests, not the interest of the country.

Argument: Private military companies are just profiting on war and conflict. The company owners make loads of money and just send out people as cannon fodder for money.