Should conscription be introduced into Australia

Pro Argument: ASEAN Alliance.In defense of his case, my opponent begins by arguing that the U.S. would not be a match for a Chinese invasion, since (A) the U.S. is hugely indebted to China and (B) the Chinese army has such a larger amount of manpower in their army. Now I believe that my opponent is wrong in his argument that the American military would not be able to successfully stand against the Chinese, but I believe I have found a more interesting point in regards to this argument. The point is that regardless of the answer, this does not help my opponent's case. If even the U.S. which is the largest and arguably the most powerful country in the world could not stand up to the force of the Chinese military, then I implore my opponent to answer as to why the drafting of a few million unwilling conscripts would make any different whatsoever? If on the other hand the U.S. military would be sufficient in its making Chinese holding of Australia unattainable then my point goes across again in that conscripts would be unnecessary for this to occur. My opponent has spent so much time arguing up China's threat that he has made conscription functionally useless against stopping the Chinese if they do ever plan to attack.===Defense of the Con Case===Contention I. Self Ownership. In his attempted refutation of my point, my opponent makes a rather queer rebuttal. He argues that conscription could not be slavery because the government (unspecified which one) has it legal. Now I don't want to look like an idiot for pointing out the obvious but the U.S. government functioned for almost a century with slavery being legal. I assume my opponent does not think that slavery wasn't slavery when it was legal. Self ownership, also being a concept that exists prior to man-made government institutions is usually conceived to trump positivist laws. Self ownership is seen as a truth about the world and of people which is valid regardless of governmental recognition or even opposition.Contention II. Political and Religious Liberty.My opponent argues that his plan only applies if the Australian government is in a defensive war and thus this would not apply to pacifistic objectors. I will refer my opponent to the definition of pacifism is basically defined as "a commitment to peace and opposition to war." [http://plato.stanford.edu...]. This means all war, regardless of its intent or the conditions under which it began. A Jainist is against war, killing, or violence even in self-defense. This is what distinguishes pacifism from most people's conception of justified violence. Seeing as this is the case, my opponent's point does not refute my argument that conscription forcefully discriminates against citizens based on their religious or political beliefs.Contention III. Moral Nihilism.My opponent not only misinterprets and misrepresents my third contention, but he never actually argues against it. First, my opponent has mistook moral nihilism (the view that there are no objective moral truths) with epistemological nihilism (the view that we can never know anything). I am not in this debate arguing that knowledge is impossible. I am only arguing that moral claims do not have objective truths to them and that in regards to the resolution, should is thus incoherent. This is because should being defined, refers to obligation or duty which are intrinsically moral terms. If objective morality does not exist though then neither does obligation or duty. Hence no one should or should not do anything, hence the resolution is impossible to affirm.