Military Conscription is Just

Pro's CaseDespite this being a cross-contention argument, I would like to bring up and note that my opponent has not refuted and hence dropped my John Locke argument on the Social Contract being between a group of individuals with other individuals. This shows that the government's duty is to respect the rights of the people as the people created it for the people and if it failed to preform its duty then it may be overthrown. This key argument was dropped which shows a shift from my opponent's altrusitic view on government to a focus on individual rights which defeats my opponent's case at face value, but for the sake of debating I will continue. My opponent goes throw this debate and states that due to Social Contracts that the conscription is just, he gives no reason for why this is true nor does he give any other reason. We have no reason to accept his argument as he has failed to uphold the Burden of Proof and show how there is a link here and why it is just. The only referrance he makes in round 2 is a vague sentence that simply calls the Constiution a Contract and people have to uphold it and protect it, and the draft is part of that. This is extremely vague, as I have previously pointed out, and my opponent has declined to expand on this idea and, as I mention before, dropped the argument that I have presented on Locke's Social Contract in R3. My opponent also skims over the NAZI Germany example showing that it has nothing to do with the draft, but fails to see that it attacks the Contract argument. Which showed that people have more bargining power and can create the deal under my opponent's condition and do horrible things. I can give more examples, but I do not want to run out of space. My opponent drops the Vietnam case, so I'll extend that across the board. He also drops the previous argument on conscientious objectors. Contention 1: Individual Rights1. Kingdom of EndsMy opponent drops the fact people enter into the Kingdom of Ends as a Contract and this is the natural utopic state we should strive to. Hence this argument is important as it shows that we should work towards this soceity and performing the draft destroys this. Dropping this argument goes against my opponent's own case as it upholds contracts, so even if my opponent's case stands, this argument will hold weight as it applies to this contention. My opponent claim that there is not a link between freedom and justice, but my opponent himself states it in Round 2, " The society as a whole and the individuals involved are free to negotiate the contract or refuse to enter the contract. This is only just. As this freedom exists, it is reasonable that a society could determine the possibility of a draft as part of this contract. " By this, he shows that this freedom to negotiate and justice corrilate and destroying this, like what occurs in the James quote harms the ability to negotiate and is against his own case.2. Objectivism, The Right to LifeMy opponent continiously asks for justification of this right, but I have stated and justified in in R2 where their ability to control their own destiny is key and this, once again as stated before, applies to my opponent's case as without the ability to control one's destiny, they are unable to be able to "negotiate the contract" hence going against my opponent's case. My opponent has dropped my John Locke Social Contract argument as well as the disposable human argument. Contention 2: Draft Harms Soceity1. Harms the militaryHere my opponent has dropped a very key argument on how the draft creates a casete system, harms the militaries ability to fully perform, and creates discrimination of military members. These are key arguments as this raises the question of why have the draft if it harms the main group it is trying to aid, the military which is important as my opponent tried to make this debate military-centric. I extend my "enough" argument as he fails to understand the vaguness in his argument he presented. 2. Harms Family UnitMy opponent claims that the year round draft argument on his quote is irrelivant, but fails to realize that his quote provides the vagueness for it as well as other nations requiring it even in times of peace. Thus this argument stands and my opponent's arguments are negated. To conclude, we can see that this debate revolves around the rights of the individual as my opponent has dropped the John Locke Social Contract argument to show that the government is a creation of people between people to protect the rights of people. This is important as we, as a society, must move towards the Kingdom of Ends and reach this Utopia, which my opponent has dropped. He has conceded on a great deal of arguments, but even if his case stands, many of my arguments are applicable to his very own case.