Military Conscription is Just

Hayd, thank you for allowing me to participate in this tournament that I was not even qualified to participate in, it means a great deal. Thanks to Lannan for taking the time to participate in what has been a great debating experience for me. I hope I have presented a challenge for you. Lastly, I wanted to thank all who will read and those who will vote. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Lannan’s Case Contention 1: People as an ends not a means. 1) Lannan claims that under “The Kingdom of Ends” people are still entered into a contract and thus under my own criteria it would be just. Sure, I will let that pass as it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand. He does say that the quote I used talks about taking away freedom and that on that point alone, his case is made. I confess myself completely perplexed by this thought. Are we arguing about Justice, or Freedom? Obviously this is rhetorical, Lannan has not provided a clear link of Freedom to Justice and thus this point does not matter. Aside from this oversight, it is important to note that the quote I used demonstrated that a draft would make society more equal, which he claimed was “important” in his first round. This was the purpose of the quote. 2) My opponent claims that I misunderstood his argument. Quite the contrary, his argument misses the mark. He still has provided no justification for the existence of rights. Because of this huge misstep this contention is not relevant. Again I stress that we are arguing Justice, that is to say what is due. If people are due certain and specific rights, con would have needed to demonstrate this which he has not. Contention 2: Harms Society. 1) My opponent here spends his time attacking the idea of “enough. ” This demonstrates that he missed my argument. I argued that if there are volunteers, there is less need for a draft. This does not impact whether a draft itself would be just or not. 2) Lannan again tries to use the quote I provided out of the context I gave it. I was not arguing for a draft in and out of war time, in fact if I did it would be irrelevant to the topic. He claims that the rich will buy their way out of a draft and thus a draft would disproportionately effect the poor. Again, as I argued last round, have career soldiers already does that, trust fund babies don’t tend to enlist. If anything, a draft would be more fair from a socioeconomic stand point that no draft. Summary of Case I have demonstrated that con’s case is off topic. He argues about rich and poor, when drafts would be held, and freedom. None of these contentions have been properly linked to the topic of whether Conscription is Just. The only one that could perhaps is freedom, though as rights were never justified or shown how they tie to justice the only mechanism we have to weigh Justice in this debate is contracts. This is why I win. Affirmative Case I argued that this debate rests on the value of justice and that the mechanism by which this can be examined is contracts. This was dropped by my opponent and thus my framework stands. Due to Social Contracts, military conscription is just. The only contention Lannan really gives this is to say that this is not so. He does not say why not, he does not provide an alternative way to measure or achieve justice. If not contracts, then what? He doesn’t say. He says that I am committing the is ought fallacy. This is not so. I am not arguing that because drafts exists they are just. I am arguing that because individuals have a contract with society, if that contract is inclusive of drafts then they are just. He gives the example of Hitler, this again will demonstrate missing the topic. He argues that because the people consented to Hitler that crimes against humanities were committed and thus contracts are not just. This is a non sequitur. He only shows that just because a contract is just, does not mean the actions taken are just. Essentially I am saying that those unjust things done by Nazi Germany and Hitler are not due to a draft. Nor are they inherent evils of a draft. Rather, they are entirely independent. Finally, Con presents the example of Vietnam. I confess this hits very close to home. I have several family members who fought in Vietnam. Two uncles on my mother’s side were drafter, one went and the other dodged. This debate topic for me is not just an exercise of debate, but has roots that run very deep for me. Do I blame my one uncle for dodging the draft. No, was the state just to draft him, absolutely. Essentially my case boils down to this. The relationship of a person to the state via social contract makes conscription just. This is because contracts dictate what is due. This is how Justice has been defined. Thus I affirm, Military Conscription is Just.