In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory.

In this round I will fortify my own arguments and conclude my case. In response to my national security argument, Con states that I am "exaggerating [the military's] significance here. One of the priorities of all countries, should always be to avoid war--instead of displaying...a national predisposition towards it; which...compulsory service may well do." Con essentially states that compulsory national service may lead to states becoming predisposed to war. However, Con fails to provide evidence of this statement, so it is completely unsubstantiated. Con also says that "countries that have no compulsory military service are in fact categorized as the most powerful countries in the world...I would also ask Pro is outline exactly what "threats" he's referring to, as thus far, his case is purely speculative". The United States is the most powerful country in the world. That would appear to mean that the U.S. has little need of military expansion. However, the U.S. is also in a special situation compared to other countries. The United States serves as the world's police force (1). The U.S. is responsible not only for its safety, but the safety of many other countries. One part of this concept is the membership of the U.S. in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (2). Every NATO member is responsible for the Security of every other member (2). Since the U.S. is the most powerful country in NATO, it is often majorly responsible for defending other members. The U.S. is also involved in the war on terror. The U.S. spends a significant amount of manpower and military focus on the Middle East and fighting terrorism (3). When all of the different responsibilities of the U.S. are seen in aggregate, it is clear that the U.S. needs a stronger military than any other country. Con provides the example of Israel as "a country with compulsory military service", showing that Israel has been in many wars, and taking this to mean that national service does not improve the Security of a country's citizens. However, Israel is a unique case. Israel, a Jewish state, is surrounded by Muslim states (4). Islamic militant groups like Hamas are constantly battling Israel, trying to take its land (5). Israel is also the site of Jerusalem, a place which is holy to both Jews and Muslims. Israel has compulsory national service because it has to have it in order to stay alive. Con also lists Colombia and Kuwait as examples. Kuwait, again, is in the middle of an area ravaged by terrorism. Terrorist organizations like ISIS put the Security of every Middle Eastern state in jeopardy. Con provided no source to back up her Colombia example. Con claims that "The reference to U.S in WW2 fails, as...western policies on war/intervention have changed since then." It is possible that the U.S. is in a different situation now than it was in the WW2 era. However, as I stated above, the U.S. has many things for which it uses its military. Again, the U.S. is part of NATO (2). This means that the U.S. military protects not just its own citizens, but the citizens of many other countries. Responding to my Security argument, Con says that I am "placing a great deal of emphasis on the Nazi regime, seemingly overlooking the fact that this particular period in history was indeed quite unique." Con then says that things have changed since that time. Once again, I concede that the world is not in the same situation as it was during WW2. However, there are still major threats that have to be addressed in the world. The U.S. spends a lot of its military power on the Middle East (3). In doing this, the U.S. protects the Security of countries near the Middle East, as well as other countries that are subject to attack from terrorist organizations. For example, on November 13, 2015, Paris experienced a terrorist attack that killed 130 and injured 350 (6). These attacks were perpetrated by Middle Eastern threats (6), which the United States is working to neutralize. National service has many functions that are vital to a free country, and, in the case of the U.S., a free world. National service in the U.S. would help against the war on terror, help to protect allied countries when they come under attack, and defend Security around the world. I have shown through my rebuttals that Con's refutations of my arguments are invalid, and therefore my arguments still stand. Conversely, I have refuted Con's arguments and shown them to be insignificant. For these reasons, I have won the debate. Sources: (1) http://www.nationalreview.com... (2) http://www.nato.int... (3) http://www.aei.org... (4) https://opb.pbslearningmedia.org... (5) http://www.bbc.com... (6) https://www.britannica.com...