The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
On balance, current Authorization for Use of Military Force gives too much power to the President.
in United States
Debra AI Prediction
SQL ERROR Table 'i2483808_vf2.Comment' doesn't exist
49% (24 Points)
Against:
51% (25 Points)
Votes: 0
Voting Format: Casual Voting
Rounds: 3
Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round
Voting Period: 24 Hours
Round 1
Round 2
Round 3
Voting
Arguments
Arguments Comments Votes
In August 2013 Obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for a military strike against Syria was a strategic mistake and a sign of weakness.
if the President has to ask a politically polarizied Congress for permission in a time of crisis then our decision making can be completely polarized.
Being a commander and chief is arguably the main job of the President, so lets not polarize the country by limiting that power.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I respect the role of Commander and Chief, but I support Obama's actions in seeking concurrence from Congress on Syria. If he would've done otherwise that would have been a stretch of the Constitution
- Walt Disney
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Too much power for any one person is dangerous and should be prevented, especially for military force.
Even in case of the President of the United States, allowing him to launch a nuclear strike without consulting with anyone is irresponsible.
Here are key issues with the AUFM:
1) The President can authorize use of military force on political grounds, and not just to protect the country
2) Potentially, it can cause continuous war, if motivated by special interests of the President
3) President can become emotionally unstable (and arguably ours is already....) and we can ne relying on emotions of a narcissistic personality not to enter in unnecessary nuclear war.
4) It's questionable that AUFM is consititional.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's an important provision for quick decisions to protect against terrorist threats.
Liberal arguments that question Donald Trump sanity or emotional stability are not only unfounded but also disrespectful to the President of the United States.
In a counter argument, that President wouldn't have power for military force and has to navigate Congress for permission - how long may that take?
Lets look at an example how many times we almost shutdown the government because of the political games between Reps and Dems. Even in the last example where Schumer led Democratic opposition that almost shut down the government. We really can't afford such a delay in cases of imminent threats where quick actions are required.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
WhyTrump said: Thank you for creating this debate about Authorization of Use of Military Force (AUFM). I will take affirmative position.Too much power for any one person is dangerous and should be prevented, especially for military force.Even in case of the President of the United States, allowing him to launch a nuclear strike without consulting with anyone is irresponsible.Here are key issues with the AUFM:1) The President can authorize use of military force on political grounds, and not just to protect the country2) Potentially, it can cause continuous war, if motivated by special interests of the President3) President can become emotionally unstable (and arguably ours is already....) and we can ne relying on emotions of a narcissistic personality not to enter in unnecessary nuclear war.4) It's questionable that AUFM is consititional.
I respect your position @WhyTrump, but calling it irresponsible is subjective. Would it be responsible for President to seek explicit permission from Congress to respond to a nuclear bomb? There are time sensitive decisions of strategic and tactical importance that we can't afford to make everyone in Congress happy about. That's the role of elected President.below are my counter argument to your points above.
1) While it's technically true, is that a larger risk then not responding to a larger threat, and where in history did we see that occur (other than the House of Cards )?
2) If President truly wants to be malicious, Congress can always lobby for impeachment
3) That's why President undergoes regular medical evaluation.
4) Please provide specifics why AUFM is unconstitutional?
@ale5, please specify why AUFM is a stretch to constitution as part of your next round.
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 24%  
  Learn More About Debra
Below article is an excellent analysis of constitution.
Authorization to Attack: What Does the Constitution Say?
In trying to flesh out the question of whether the President can act without Congress, a few sections of the Constitution appear crucial in providing an answer. The first is Article II, which creates the Presidency. An important feature of the Constitution is not only that it establishes offices, but also clearly grants particular powers to the officeholders (e.g., the House of Representatives has the authority to originate taxing legislation; the President nominates judges; the Senate ratifies treaties). The Constitution designates the President as Commander in Chief, but the specific powers proper to this role are not enumerated. Rather, the Founding Fathers simply agreed on the laconic language: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (Article II, Section 2). It is too much of a stretch to simply infer from the grant of that office that the President has the power to launch attacks without the support of Congress.
Although the Constitution does not elaborate on the President’s exact powers, one thing is clear: The President does not have the authority to declare war without congressional approval, since Article I, Section 8 grants the legislature this power. Thus, those who would grant the President the constitutional authority to attack without congressional approval in this and other situations would have to argue that the document anticipates both wars and other types of military actions. In fact, the document lists several other armed conflicts: “Insurrections…and Invasions”, and “Rebellion”. These other kinds of military events differ from wars insofar as they are all instances where the country is suffering some attack rather than initiating it. (War can in fact be instigated by an attack, such as World War II, but this is not always the case.) However, the Constitution does not explicitly say who should direct the response to these attacks. This is somewhat ironic, since the need for the Federal Government to be able to put down future insurrections, such as Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts, was a constant topic at the Constitutional Convention.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 43%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
there is sufficient doubt about Trump's mental state.
The longer Donald Trump is in office, the more he shocks and alarms us with his strange and extremely unpresidential behavior.
From the incoherent, fallacious interview he gave the New York Times on December 28 to Tuesday’s tweet about his “nuclear button” to his Saturday morning assertion that he is a “very stable genius,” the remarks keep getting more menacing, bizarre, and portentous of disaster.
source:
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/1/5/16770060/trump-mental-health-psychiatrist-25th-amendment
The psychiatrist who briefed Congress on Trump’s mental state: this is “an emergency”
The case for evaluating the president’s mental capacity — by force if necessary.
- Walt Disney
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 44%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.12  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
in summary, AUFM is appropriate and shouldn't require congressional approval.
The arguments regarding constitutional technicality and questions regarding Trump's mental state are not backed by real evidence.
A counter argument hasn't been provided for how to resolve potential congress deadlock if a real emergency takes place if Congress permission is required.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
We need to respect the Constitution and the role of Congress to provide checks and balances.
  Considerate: 99%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.26  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
We don't want one person to be in charge of such important decisions.
- Walt Disney
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra