Public Forum

January 2017 Public Forum Brainstorm AFF – Military Spending

MILITARY

  • The bigger the military(United States) the less chance of escalation. or faster de-escalation
  • Increase hard hedge.
    • preserve spot as hegemon
    • wars will happen to become hegemon
      • lots of extreme impacts from this
  • show examples where a larger military would have helped resolve conflicts
  • We need more military so that we don’t spread ourselves too thin
  • in order to maintain current relationships we need a bigger military (we need larger military to prevent over-extending when helping allies)

NON-MILITARY

  • We need to have more military to deal with economic threats (I.E. Desert Storm/middle eastern conflicts)
  • Mil. spending boosts the economy
  • More mil. spending gives the perception of being stronger (talk softly carry a big stick). just because we have a military doesn’t mean we have to use it.
    • IMPACTS: decreased conflict/war. Enemies less likely to want to fight us.
  • R&D: Increased military budget does not have to only be for traditional weapons/more soldiers.
    • Cybersecurity (better intel, better cyber defense, better offensive cyber attacks)

WORKAROUNDS

  • Definitions of significant.
    • Merriam Webster
      • “having meaning”
      • “having or likely to have influence or effect”
  • Definitions of conflict
    • War, battle
  • FRAMEWORK: If we can show that response to conflicts would be faster or more efficient then we will win.
  • FRAMEWORK: The neg has to defend the status quo budget permanently.
    • Extend this and say that even if conflict does arise they cannot increase budget.

LOOK AT HOW THE RESOLUTION IS PHRASED.

  • we cannot increase military spending if we get in a war.
  • What would a war look like with our current military budget.
Previous post

December 2016 Public Forum Brainstorm – Plan Colombia

Next post

January 2017 Public Forum Brainstorm NEG – Military Spending

No Comment

Leave a reply