Public Forum

January 2017 Public Forum Brainstorm NEG – Military Spending


  • Increase in military -> increase in conflict
    • More wars = more death
    • Can lead to an arms race.
      • Other countries could follow our example in increasing military to intervene.
    • Could lead to more destabilized nations
      • Lots of extreme impacts from here
      • Intervention causes U.S. dependency
        • Democratic movements are not effective because they are dependent on U.S. aid
  • Increase in military -> U.S. intervening more
    • more death and violence
  • Situations are escalated when we intervene with conflict.
    • conflict defined as between 2 or more nations, if we get involved others may as well.
  • Desperate measures weapons.
    • Our increase in military can lead to other countries developing new weapons to win in desperation (chemical,bio,nuclear,etc.)


  • Soft hedge is more important than hard hedge
    • Longer lasting allies
    • Higher chance of peaceful resolution
  • Decreased military spending could be better
    • Having military presence makes people mad (I.E. terrorists in the middle east)
      • More military presence = more terrorism.
  • Large portion of budget already spent on military, “significantly more” would be a lot more.
    • Consumer/business confidence down
    • More debt (debt ceiling)
    • Lower budget for other things (humanitarian)
    • General Econ impacts
  • Military Industrial complex (google this if you don’t know what it is)


  • FRAMEWORK: there are 2 questions that the judge has to agree with
    • Do we need to respond to international conflicts?
    • Should we increase military spending?
  • We should increase defensive military spending but not for the purpose of intervening in international conflicts
    • really difficult point to run if you want. We were just trying to come up with alternatives.
    • due to the wording of the resolution this could be a point for the aff.
  • FRAMEWORK: AFF must prove increasing military spending is better than increasing the alternative. (humanitarian, etc.) NOTE: if you do this you have to explain why they can’t do both at the same time.
  • Clean up budget so money is better utilized in military spending. We can still respond to international conflicts with military and more military than we have now, but we would be using the money more efficiently so we aren’t actually increasing the military budget.
Previous post

January 2017 Public Forum Brainstorm AFF - Military Spending

Next post

February 2017 Public Forum Brainstorm NEG – Cuban Embargo

No Comment

Leave a reply