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

I will now go through each of Con's arguments and demonstrate their invalidity or insignificance. Con, please point out if I am misrepresenting your arguments. Rebuttal One: Military Service isn't Suited to All Con's first argument is "that military service is, and should be, a career choice. People who decide to serve in the military...likely have an invested interest in it, and are thus well-suited to working within the army." What Con's argument fails to address is that there are actually a plethora of different career options when serving in the military (1). Some of the military career fields (which each include multiple different jobs) include Business Administration and Operations, Counseling, Social Work and Human Services, Cybersecurity, Engineering and Scientific Research, Education and Training, and, of course, Combat Operations (1), among many others. Clearly, there are enough options for almost anyone to find their place in the military. Con also says that "People...who don't qualify for these two...things, generally, will either quit or get dishonourably discharged from the army." First of all, Con provides no evidence to support this claim. Con's source lists the ways that one can be dishonorably discharged, but does not provide statistics about discharge rates. In addition, the only offense listed in Con's source that drafted military members may be significantly more likely to commit is being Absent Without Leave. Every other offense is a crime regardless of whether one is in the military or not. Rebuttal Two: Preventing People from Pursuing other Career Paths Con states that "there's only a very limited amount of "areas" that they can actually fit into while in the army". However, as I outlined above, there are a multitude of options for military members. Con says that "Assuming that one individual wishes to become a veterinarian--upon high school graduation, they would eligible to apply for university degrees in this area...If they were made to complete mandatory military...their plans for the future (and the benefits they could reap for society as a whole) would be placed on hold or perhaps even ruined for good." To paraphrase, Con says that military service prevents people from pursuing their dreams. First of all, national service time frames are not exceedingly large. Drafts only last a few years. If one is drafted into the army at age 20, they will surely be out in less than five years. That gives them plenty of time to pursue their career paths afterward. The life expectancy of a U.S. citizen is about 78 years (2). If a draft's service time is three years, the draft would only take up 3.8% of a person's life, leaving them plenty of time to do other things. Con also says that "It's basic biology that...if people are going to university, it's best for them to do it while relatively young." Con provides a source for this argument, as well as a quote about brain cell aging. However, Con fails to link the obscure quote to any meaning, with regard to learning and age. In addition, even if Con were to link aging and slower learning, as I stated above, drafts are not very long. If one is drafted at 20, they surely won't have to stay longer than 25, which gives them plenty of time to learn whatever they wish to learn. Rebuttal Three: Diversity in Society Con's argument essentially boils down to draftees being unable "to pursue whatever paths they like and be the human being that they truly are." Con also points out that there could be a draftee who "doesn't want to associate with the military". I already explained in my above rebuttal that draftees have plenty of their life awaiting them after they finish their service. I agree with Con that some draftees may not want to be part of the military. However, the draft serves an important purpose: the protection and safety of the United States of America, its citizens, and its allies. The Life and Security of so many people protected by a strong U.S. military far outweighs the preferences of some disgruntled draftees. - Through these rebuttals, I have demonstrated that Con's case is thoroughly flawed. In addition, Con's valid points are insignificant when compared to the importance of the benefits that I presented in Round One. Sources: (1) http://todaysmilitary.com... - Website created by the U.S. Department of Defense (2) http://data.worldbank.org...