Military Conscription is Unjust.

I am taken back a bit as I expected a conclusion, not a full round of argumentation. I am well within DDO etiquette to respond to claims of fallacies, and correct attempts by Pro the reword my argument erroneously. I will present no new arguments. Pro spent a portion of her final round blasting former President Bush, the Republican Party, and FOX news; none of which have anything to do with the resolution. As I made clear, we do not have but one draftee in the armed services and no draft has been instituted in any of the gulf conflicts. Fear of a draft serves only to further my point that instituting one now would indeed be political suicide regardless of the talking heads at FOX news. Pro spent time on the Vietnam conflict and the illegality of the Gulf War, the latter having, again, nothing to do with the resolution. (As a side note, the legal analysis from the referenced blog shows very poor scholarship) I fully agree that instituting the draft during any portion of the Cold War and Vietnam was a mistake, but the resolution applies even when the draft is properly instituted as it was during WWII so a misuse of the draft in one or even two situations is not enough to uphold the resolution. I explained as much in my last round. Pro continues with the claim that enlistment increased in response to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 thereby negating the need for a draft, but millions were drafted during WWII and they were needed. History does not support the position that the draft was unnecessary during WWII. The voluntary enlistments were not enough in WWII, and no draft was instituted after 9/11. I am not sure why Pro continuously mentioned it. Pro contends I committed a fallacy in an appeal to emotion, but this charge is unwarranted. I never once used the phrase "patriotic duty" and my argument (no quotes needed, Pro) is based on the necessity of the draft as a limited option, not emotional appeals. Pro's attempt to distinguish jury duty from slavery but add conscription to the definition is unconvincing. The scope of the penalty for either is irrelevant, and like jury duty (which Pro agrees is essential to our county) military conscription is a necessity in certain cases. I have provided an example where conscription would be viable and history, in the respect of WWII, showed a strong example also. The rewording of my claim concerning bias is poorly done. Pro created a straw man and attacked it, not my actual argument. I made very clear that the resolution was unconditional; therefore, it applies even if all bias is removed from the draft so any argumentation concerning bias is irrelevant. As for Pro's contention concerning training and testing, I cannot understand why pro linked a source which cited another source which then cited a third source for the required material. The original article is very speculative and deals with a war in which no draft was instituted i. e. the Iraq War. My point in RD 2 was a response to draftees training compared to volunteers – it is identical. I am aware of PTSD and I am aware that a substantial portion of soldiers do not suffer from this condition. I enlisted in the military and underwent more tests than I can remember now. Most of the people turned away failed the physical, the others the psychological portion in Basic Training. Draftees and Volunteers undergo the same testing, period. If Pro has a plethora of source contradicting this point, she should have stated them, merely or otherwise. In conclusion, the resolution was not upheld. I provided an historical example of the necessity of the draft and a hypothetical. Pro presented an unconditional resolution and attempted to uphold it using conditional circumstances. Pro's continued references to the Iraq War and 9/11 were outside of the scope of the debate and both leave the voter with little to consider. I urge voters to consider my argumentation, not Pro's straw man representations of my position, and negate the resolution.