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”
- Merriam Webster
- 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.
No Comment