Resolved: In order to better respond to
international conflicts, the United States
should significantly increase its military
spending.
In this debate, the Pro must frame its arguments around the notion that the U.S. is an
integral component of the world’s stability. For years, the U.S. has been the world’s hegemon,
protecting itself and its allies from violence, terrorism, and regional instability. Despite this
effective history, the time has come for the U.S. to bolster its military, particularly with the
threat of conflicts across the international sphere. Funding is necessary to maintain our
superiority, which is the crux of the pro’s argument in this debate. Many of the cards below
discuss that funding now is insufficient, not only because of the threats of terrorism, China, and
Russia, which will be discussed next, but much of the funding allows the status quo to be
maintained, and that’s it. Essentially, the U.S. defense budget is enough to maintain our
military, but it doesn’t allow for much maintenance or advancement in technology, which is
especially necessary now. The threat of terrorism today is a different beast than that we’ve
seen historically. Terrorist cells are mobilizing and recruiting in new and different ways through
the development of social media. This means our military must not only be effective in combat,
it also must be superior in the realm of cybersecurity. Only an increase in funding can make this
happen. Another threat is a rising China, which continues to not only combat us in the realm of
cyberwarfare, it is also developing its navy and ground forces in a rapid fashion that could put
its defense spending comparable with that of the U.S. With our new President-Elect casting
China as an enemy, a rising Chinese defense budget is a threat that must be countered, which is
why the U.S. must bolster its spending. For the last several years, President Putin has shown
the global community he is willing to take whatever measures necessary to promote his
dominance in East Asia. The conflict in Ukraine is demonstrative of this, as incursions into
Ukrainian territory continue to occur. Putin also has a dangerous relationship with Bashir alAssad, the President of Syria. Despite a global rallying to end the violence in Syria, Putin and
Assad have a different agenda in mind. ISIS isn’t their first priority; it is instead maintaining
Assad’s primacy in the region. With bolstered U.S. military spending, it allows the U.S. to
maintain dominance in this realm of political affairs. Putin will not counter the U.S. if it knows it
could not win a war; the lingering effects of the Cold War are demonstrative of this. The threat
of the U.S. also is a reason Putin hasn’t fully begun an invasion of Ukraine, as NATO and its allies
would intervene.
At the core of the con arguments is the notion that an increase in military spending is
the root cause for much of the problems and harms that will be discussed by the pro. First, this
will entail a discussion of proliferation. For decades, the United States aimed to be the
hegemon, the world’s police with the capability of deterring conflict. One problem, though, is
that now, many nations are continuing to bolster their own weapons programs. Instead of a
program of deterrence, the world is now witnessing a world of proliferation. Nations like North
Korea, Iran, and Pakistan all continue to develop their nuclear programs, despite the desires of
the international community. Although Iran signed the nuclear deal recently, in a new era of
U.S. foreign policy under President-elect Trump, this deal may not be stable, which could lead
to more violence and proliferation down the road. Proliferation has the probability to create
catastrophic effects across the international sphere. With a lack of developed technology,
history shows that proliferation could lead to accidental launch or problems with reactors,
which can lead to the deaths of thousands of civilians. Also, current anti-American sentiment is
one of the reasons terrorism exists in the first place. By attempting to be the world’s police, the
U.S. will continue to create enemies abroad, and no amount of military spending will be able to
conquer it. Additionally, an increase in military spending inevitably trades off with other facets
of the budget. The next fiscal year is already set; the government has decided how much money
goes where, painting a picture of the next year’s appropriations. Because of this, any increase in
defense spending has to come from somewhere. Typically, the first programs on the chopping
block hurt the most disadvantaged in our society, which could lead to elimination of programs
like Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare. The lack of support can further entrench people living
below the poverty line, which affects their quality of life. Though does not seem to be
comparable in magnitude to pro arguments, judges will be persuaded by the arguments that an
increase in military spending hurts us at home.
There will be a plethora of arguments coming from the con side of the debate that will
deem an increase in military spending problematic. One of the ways you should frame the pro
rebuttals is to discuss that first and foremost an increase in military budgets are inevitable.
President-Elect Trump has called for a drastic increase in military spending, which means that
many of the con arguments don’t matter as the increase will happen no matter what. This
notion also gives credence to the pro side of the debate – if military spending is inevitable, then
clearly many of the reasons for an increase in spending are worthwhile and necessary to
combat. The con will argue that a policy of offshore balancing is more effective than military
spending to maintain hegemony. Though good in theory, the policy of offshore balancing does
not allow a military to be as reactive. Yes bases would exist, but military superiority would no
longer exist, as spending is reduced, troops are spread thin, and other nations would perceive a
weakness in the U.S. military. Additionally, by reducing spending, innovation ceases to be a
priority, which disallows efficiency in the military and allows other nations to surpass us in
military technology.
Many of the pro arguments will aim to belittle the con attacks, but it is important to
demonstrate the significance of increased military spending in a plethora of areas. First, the pro
will say the budget tradeoffs are not a big deal and happen often. The problem, though, is that
defense spending is already at an all-time high. Already billions are being funneled into our
defense budget with little argument as to why it is not enough. Additionally, with the sentiment
from President-Elect Trump that more deficit spending is a terrible policy, the money has to
come from somewhere. This means that budget tradeoffs are inevitable. Particularly with a
focus on the military for the source of the tradeoff, typically budget items on the opposite side
of the spectrum are the first to go, and these tend to be social programs. This means that issues
like poverty, domestic abuse, and the like go more unchecked, leading to the discrimination and
dehumanization of thousands of Americans. Because these tradeoffs hurt those at home, it
seems that they are truly a “big deal,” and are worth protecting. Also, focusing on the reasons
militarization of bad can help to frame the reasons for which funding should not be increased.
The risk of endless war should be enough to demonstrate why an increase is unnecessary and
should vehemently be avoided. Throughout the subsequent speeches for the con, one
argument that needs to frame many of your responses is the notion that Anti-American
sentiment is rather inevitable in a world of increased military spending. One of the reasons the
IS has gotten so much prominence is due to a vehement hatred of the U.S. abroad. Due to our
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, many nations in the Middle East feel as if the U.S. is
overstepping its bounds and meddling in affairs of which it should not be a part. No matter how
much the U.S. bolsters its military budget to attack terrorism abroad, other terrorist cells will
pop up, making this violence inevitable in a world where the U.S. continues to increase its
military spending. This means that no increase in spending, no matter how much, is possible to
end terrorism, which is an important argument to demonstrate why the pro cannot win.
As the debate concludes, the pro must focus on the main reasons the increase is
necessary and compare those to the arguments from the con side of the debate. First, one of
the important framing arguments is the notion that an existential threat is imminent. Whether
it’s a terrorist organization plotting an attack abroad, or the threat of chemical warfare, or the
risk that more nations continue to proliferate, something must be done. One of the ways in
which these crises can be managed is through an increase in U.S. military spending. As the pro,
you must focus on the magnitude of the arguments in the debate. The threat of a global war is
likely worse than the risk a budget tradeoff occurs. Additionally, discussing the threat of a rising
China or Russia seems far worse than allowing those nations to become regional hegemons. It
all comes down to whether or not the world needs a dominant force to combat these threats.
And for the final focus, you must demonstrate that the world does in fact need a nation willing
to wield its military might to ensure the safety and security for all.
When in the final focus speech and attempting to weigh arguments, there are a few
important things to focus on as the con. First, you should highlight the notion that systemic
impacts are more important. Budget tradeoffs are inevitable if the U.S. increases its defense
spending. If you can demonstrate that these more probable, likely, and relatable implications
are more important than some improbable war impacts. Additionally, as the con, you must win
that there is no reason to increase the budget, that the status quo is sufficient. By casting doubt
that a budget increase is necessary, you can prove that the U.S. should not take on the risks
associated with further military spending.
PRO
Contention 2: Protecting Taiwan is a national security
objective, and the only way to check Chinese aggression is to
maintain military superiority through increased spending.
The U.S. must prioritize its security commitment with Taiwan to continue to promote
democracy and maintain America's military superiority.
Eric Gomez, policy analyst in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, September 28,
2016, "A Costly Commitment: Options for the Future of the U.S.-Taiwan Defense Relationship," The
CATO Institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costly-commitment-optionsfuture-us-taiwan-defense-relationship (accessed 12/7/16)
Advocates of the U.S. military commitment to Taiwan argue that the island’s success as a liberal
democracy is linked to the regional security interests of the United States. For example, during his
failed campaign for president, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that “Taiwan’s continued existence as a
vibrant, prosperous democracy in the heart of Asia is crucial to American security interests there and
to the continued expansion of liberty and free enterprise in the region.” In the U.S. Congress the
ideologically driven, “pro-democracy” camp of Taiwan supporters is large and influential. Proponents of
a strong U.S. commitment to Taiwan also argue that Taiwan’s political system is evidence that Chinese
culture is compatible with democracy. According to John Lee of the Hudson Institute, “Taiwan terrifies
China because the small island represents a magnificent vision of what the mainland could be and
what the [Chinese] Communist Party is not. This should be a reason to reaffirm that defending
democracy in Taiwan is important to America and the region.” Supporters of a strong U.S. defense
commitment to Taiwan through restoring America’s military superiority want to send a clear message
to Beijing that the security commitment has not been shaken by China’s growing military power.
China's capacity to spend on its military is comparable to 90% of the U.S. military's spending.
Peter E. Robertson, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Australia, May 3, 2016,
"China's Military and Growing Power," All China Review, http://www.allchinareview.com/chinasmilitary-and-growing-power/ (accessed 12/7/16)
This low relative military costs exchange rate implies a real value of China’s military spending of 40%
of the US in real terms – larger than the level implied by using PPP rates of 33%, and much larger than
the market exchange rate based figure of 18%. Moreover, if both countries spent the same fraction of
their GDP on the military, the relative size of China’s military machine is over 90% of the one of the US
China's strength and its rise in military budget could become a challenge in the balance of
power in Asia.
Peter E. Robertson, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Australia, May 3, 2016,
"China's Military and Growing Power," All China Review, http://www.allchinareview.com/chinasmilitary-and-growing-power/ (accessed 12/7/16)
But another aspect of China’s rise is its rising military strength. Its military budget has grown at double
digit rates for 20 years. The wider political economy implications of China’s rise also depend on this
military muscle (Mearsheimer 2006, Friedberg 2011, Kaplan 2014). As evidenced by Obama’s ‘pivot to
Asia’, this is already changing the balance of power in Asia, and the US foreign policy response.
Increasing the U.S. military presence in the South China Sea is crucial to stability between
Taiwan and China, and this is truly done through a commitment to Taiwanese security.
Eric Gomez, policy analyst in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, September 28,
2016, "A Costly Commitment: Options for the Future of the U.S.-Taiwan Defense Relationship," The
CATO Institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costly-commitment-optionsfuture-us-taiwan-defense-relationship (accessed 12/7/16)
The most straightforward way to bolster American credibility would be to increase the U.S. military
presence close to Taiwan and clearly demonstrate the political will to honor the defense commitment.
The combination of increased military presence and unequivocal political support would be a clear
break from dual deterrence. Instead of directing warnings and reassurances toward both Taiwan and
China, the United States would only warn China and only reassure Taiwan. The United States would
welcome a stronger Taiwan, but U.S. support would not be preconditioned on Taiwan’s willingness to
develop its defenses. The ultimate goal of this policy option would be the establishment of a decisive
and durable U.S. military advantage over the PLA. The clearest indicator of the U.S. commitment is
military resources. Increasing the survivability of American air power in the area around Taiwan
would send a clear signal of support. The American forces currently deployed in Japan would be the
first to respond in a Taiwan conflict. Increasing the number of hardened aircraft shelters at U.S. bases
in Japan, especially at Kadena Air Base on Okinawa, would protect aircraft from ballistic missile
attacks. Additionally, the United States would revive the annual arms-sale talks with Taiwan that
occurred from 1983 until 2001. Advocates for returning to annual talks argue that moving away from
scheduled talks resulted in arms sales becoming less frequent. Future arms sales would include more
advanced equipment that Washington is currently unwilling to sell to Taiwan, such as the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter aircraft and diesel attack submarines.
CON
Rebuttal to Military Spending Key to Check China
China continues to be a threat only because the U.S. continues to posture in the South China
Sea. With a hold on bolstered military spending, China has no need to continue to nuclearize or
posture in the region, which is the only true way to foster stability and deter violence.
If the U.S. bolsters its military, it could have negative implications on its relationship with
China, like the continued nuclearization of the region.
Eric Gomez, policy analyst in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, September 28,
2016, "A Costly Commitment: Options for the Future of the U.S.-Taiwan Defense Relationship," The
CATO Institute, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/costly-commitment-optionsfuture-us-taiwan-defense-relationship (accessed 12/7/16)
The most important negative consequence of restoring U.S. military superiority is the severe damage
that would be done to U.S.-China relations. China and the United States do not see eye-to-eye on many
issues, but this does not make China an outright adversary. Chinese cyber espionage against American
companies, the rise of alternative development institutions led by Beijing, and island-building in the
South China Sea are of great concern to policymakers in Washington. However, U.S.-Chinese
cooperation on other pressing issues, especially environmental concerns and punishing North Korea
after its recent nuclear tests, has supported U.S. goals. China is certainly not a friend or ally of the
United States, but treating it as an enemy that needs to be contained is unwise. Restoring U.S.
military superiority would set back much of the progress made in U.S.-China relations. Restoring U.S.
military superiority might be a boon to America’s credibility in the short term, but superiority may be
fleeting. The growing U.S. military presence in East Asia, a result of the Obama administration’s
“pivot” or “rebalance” to the region, has exacerbated the Chinese perception of the United States as a
threat. Restoring U.S. military superiority will likely support this perception and provide a strong
incentive for China to invest even more resources in its military. Additionally, falling behind in the
conventional balance of power could prompt China to increase the quantity and quality of its nuclear
weapon arsenal. If Beijing quickly offsets the advantages of stronger U.S. military support for Taiwan,
the United States could end up in a similar position to the one it’s in now, but with a stronger China to
deter.
Offshore balancing is sufficient to deal with the rise of China and other threats; further
entrenchment in liberal hegemony is unnecessary.
Giovanni Grevi, Senior Policy Fellow at the European Policy Centre, December 2, 2016, "Discussion
Paper: Lost in transition? US foreign policy from Obama to Trump," European Policy Centre,
http://aei.pitt.edu/82224/1/pub_7240_lostintransition.pdf (accessed 12/9/16)
Based on this damning assessment, critics of liberal hegemony call for a major strategic shift towards a
strategy of restraint and offshore balancing. The latter would consist of drastically scaling back
international commitments and focusing on fewer, clearly defined core national interests. These
would include: preserving American predominance in the western hemisphere; preventing rivals from
taking over key global regions, namely Europe, the Gulf and East Asia; fending off the terrorist threat;
and preventing nuclear proliferation. The implication of this approach is that the US should progressively
withdraw their forces from Europe and the Gulf, where no alternative hegemons loom on the horizon
(Russia and Iran being, in this view, not powerful enough), and allies are in the position to provide for
their own security. Given the rise of China, however, prominent advocates of offshore balancing
believe that the US should remain committed and engaged through relevant forces in Asia-Pacific to
contain the only potential rival to their power in Asia and beyond. In case of a major upset to the
balance of power in Europe or the Middle East, the US would be in the position to go back on-shore,
support their allies and push aggressors back.