Topic: We should ban private military companies

Argument: A private company's main interest is to profit and this can lead to bad practices or even corruption. They most definitely should not be trusted to run a military where life and death decisions need to be made.

Argument: a private military company can provide a much more streamlined and money-saving operation versus government-owned entities, which are historically wasteful and inefficient.

Argument: any military component should be government run. putting military operations in the hands of a private company will lead to dangerous situations that go beyond the rules set by our country.

Argument: banning a specific kinds of business violates the principle of the free market.

Argument: having private military companies keeps ideas flowing and more exploration into new technology and weapons so it should not be banned.

Argument: having professionals specialized in killing outside the armed forces of the nation represent a great danger to national security.

Argument: having these forces, give a tactical advantage over any potential attack, your staff is constantly active and not making common life in the reserve.

Argument: if a private military company sends it's employees to dangerous places then it saves the lives of soldiers who won't be sent there

Argument: if they are successful in their job can`t see any reason why they should be banned.

Argument: if they do the job and they do, can`t see any problem in it.

Argument: if we need extra military support in certain areas we should be able to hire them

Argument: inconsistencies arise from private military companies working together and therefore it should be banned.

Argument: innovation and freedom to operate without direct state mandate are important to stay on the cutting edge of military developments and this can only be achieved in the competitive private space

Argument: it could be very detrimental for private companies to develop militias and gather weapons, you never know what they could do or are capable of doing.

Argument: it is helpful that private military companies exist to support combat

Argument: military companies provide valuable expertise to supplement the armed forces

Argument: military companies put their employees at unnecessary risk and should be banned

Argument: military companies should not be banned because something things need to be private to keep certain information and things safe.

Argument: military should only be government controlled to ensure action taken is not profit motivated but national security motivated

Argument: nobody should have the possibility of having a private army

Argument: only governments can be trusted with armies so we should ban private military companies.

Argument: only the federal government should be allowed to handle any military training.

Argument: pmcs can provide security and reassurances to countries that cannot effectively raise the military might they need.

Argument: pmcs should be banned as they exist only to profit from war, unrest and destruction. they are immoral