Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

To roadmap, I will go down the aff case first, then I will by defending my case and conclude with voters, and I will signpost when I get there. My opponent's justification for the CI is that if we did not follow it, we would be immoral. He does not show why this makes us unjust and immoral, he just says it does. This is by no means justification.I still win this point. He then tries to defend the CI from my attacks by saying I'm wrong, Kant allowed for us lie to the criminal, and for us to kill in self-defense. In Kant's essay, "On a Supposed Right to Lie" he rebukes this, and says that just as ALL killing is wrong, ALL lying is wrong. So no lorca, killing in self-defense, and lying to murderer's is in fact WRONG. This means that the CI is WRONG. I win the value debate. My opponent's criterion of free will and equality has nothing to do with his value anyways, the CI does not mandate either, in fact, Kant is one of the major opponents of a man's right to free will. He says basically that we do not have self-ownership, more or less arguing against my opponent's criterion, so his criterion is irrelevant and is lost to my criterion of the social contract. For his first contention, he claims he has shown something he has never shown, his 1st contention is an unsupported sentence, he never, in any of his argumentation shows how conscription is unable to be made into a universal maxim. I clearly win this point. For the second contention, he says it comes from an application of the definition of his value. What doesn't follow is how military conscription is not universally right. He acts as if that it is an established fact, which is not true at all, nor is it supported. Military conscription forces people, yes, but it is blind. It forces everybody equally. In Israel, EVERYBODY is forced EQUALLY to serve for two years in the military. Just because it is forced does not mean it is unequal. Conscription affects everyone, for example, Elvis Presley was drafted during the Vietnam War. regardless of stature, everybody is conscripted. My opponent's final point is that lack of justification does not concede points to neg, which is false. In debate, everything must be justified, there are no assumptions. All I have to do to win a point is to show that it is false, irrelevant, or an assumption. My opponent makes many assumptions, for example, he assumes the correctness of the CI, that equality and free will link back to the CI, and that conscription violates equality. All of these are unjustified claims, and furthermore are false. Assumptions must be treated as false. Moving on to my own case... First, my opponent says that I have not provided a definition of justice, and he provides an egalitarian definition. He then says this supports the CI, his value, which is not true, which I have already shown. He then says that the social contract helps the aff because the government needs to uphold the rights of the citizens. My defense is that the government can not uphold the rights of its citizens if it is taken over by the Nazis. My opponent tries to preempt this and says that conscription is not necessary. He provides the example the US's voluntary military. He says that this is sufficient protection. To rebut this, I bring to light the example of Israel, which faces much larger enemies and is surrounded by them on all sides, as well as facing internal terrorism. In their case an all-voluntary army is too small and insufficient to defend Israel, so, Israel uses conscription to protect its people who would otherwise be oppressed by foreign rulers. Next my opponent attacks my first contention by saying that the US uses a voluntary military. According to the Oxford Companion in American Military history, the draft was used first in the US during the revolution where it was instrumental in winning our freedom. In short, without it, we would not have a just government, and would have been oppressed. It was also used during WWII, and Vietnam, and was made dormant in 1973. You still must sign up at age eighteen, so that, in times of need, such as the situation I provided, you can be drafted. Next my opponent says that the draft is unjust in terms of retributive, distributive, and egalitarian justice. First off, my opponent is making an assumption, and furthermore, retributive and distributive justice don't matter, as my opponent has limited debate to egalitarian. Anyways, I have already showed that the draft is egalitarian, everyone can be drafted. Even conscientious objectors have to serve, although not on the battle field. Next my opponent assumes that conscription does not follow the CI, which I have already shown to be false, and furthermore, I have discredited the CI. My opponent then says that unethical treatment is not in the realm of Locke, which although true, is irrelevant, because conscription is not unethical, as I have shown. He again claims that military conscription is not done equally, which I have shown time after time to be false. Onto voters. First, the aff world allows nations to have weak armies, and be unable to defend themselves from foreign threats, which fails to uphold my criterion. Second, the aff case is supported only by numerous false assumption, which is right there a vote for neg Finally, military conscription is equal, and under aff's definition of justice, anything that is equal, is just, so you vote neg because something that is just is not unjust. Thank you