Military Conscription is Just

I would like to note that before I start that I will attempt to get through all the debate arguments this round. Some may seem a bit choppy, but this is so I can get to each with the assigned character limit. Opponent's CaseFor this section I'm grouping my opponent's two arguments together for the sake of space. My opponent groups together a case and states that the individual has to serve due to the state for protection and such, but my oppoent makes a series of mistakes in his argument. First is that of Humme's Law, by the natural assumption of what "is" is ought to be. He does this by simply accepting that since the draft simply exists in real life and links it to being a contract, which I'll get into soon, makes it just. This is simply not so as there is no other reasons argued in it that show that conscription is just outside of him arguing that these people live in a nation. In some nation's, people do not have the barganing power that my opponent speaks of. The vagueness of the resolution can apply to a nation ran by a dictator where the people have zero barganing power and it would not actually be applicable under this set of arguments my opponent has put forth and henceforth, making it unjust.Not all contracts may include the freedom to bargin. One side may have more bargaining power over the other. On example, using my opponent's definition is that Germany had elected Hitler to power, trusting his policies that he would put forth. Hilter then went on and created many devistating things that happened to the Germany people, the Holicost. My opponent's argument simply states that as long as it is an agreement between +2 parties and freedom is there, it is just. The political freedom was there in the election and many of the NAZIs supported this plan, so the support and negoiating power was there, but many people were killed under this for reasons seen "just" by the government though they were crimes against humanity. The same can be seen with the draft as we send countless thousands into the military off to their deaths like in Vietnam when a great portion of the nation was against it, but didn't have the power to change it.Contention 1: Indivdual Rights1. People as an ends not a means. My opponent claims that this would be unjust since the society would not be recieving anything in return, but this is false. The soceity would be under a contract, but at the microlevel. Each individual would have a contract with other individuals to not violate the Kingdom of Ends. This is still a contract and is just under my opponent's argument. This means that this argument holds and the draft is unjust due to the violation of the Kingdom of Ends. My opponent brings in a quote, but the interesting thing about it is if you read it you will find that it talks about how inferior the youth is an how they should have no freedom in their life choices and be in the military. Under my opponent's own case, the sole fact that it opposes freedom makes the case for me. My opponent then moves to state that it's justified for them to uphold the social contract, but why would the ending of one's life when they object to this issue for whatever reason, having their freedoms stripped away for a small portion of their life, be just. The answer is once again, under my opponent's case it argues for me. My opponent has dropped the harms of the distruction of the Kingdom of Ends, so I'll extend that across. 2. Objectivism, the Right to LifeMy opponent is confused with my argument, but I would like to remind him that the Social Contract is when a group of individuals create a contract with themselves to form a government to carry out order and when the government doesn't do this, the government is disbanned. Hence the idea that it's the "People's government." When you begin to infringe upon the right of the individual, the very people who are on both sides of the contract, you are violating the terms of the argeement by puting people in danger via the Right to Life [1]. By this, the people would be able to break the contract as the very thing that they have created as an agreement amongst themselves had harmed them. I'll extend across my arguments on the individual harms.Contention 2: Harms Society1. Harms the MilitaryMy opponent completely ignores the fact that the creation of the consription would create a military caste system which would harm those in and out of the military. It wouldn't matter on size, it would still harm the status of these indivduals in soceity creating a new level of discrimination in and out of the military, once again harming society. My opponent states "enough," but what is "enough" the US's military spending matches the next several top militaries on the list, but where is "Enough." "Enough" is a fairly vague term and hence should be a discarded argument for that very reason. The fact that these people are not as effective in the military is still a key factor as they won't be able to do as much and harm the military's ability to function.2. Harms family unitMy opponent states that war harms more than the draft, but as William James from my opponent's quote did point out. The conscription is manditory service, in and out of war time. This would create a constant burden, even outside of war time.The fact that people apply for this status and many are even denied this, some even go to other countries to escape this shows how bad and how people's individual freedom's are being harmed. The fact is no matter what, the poor fight and the rich can buy their way out of it no matter what war. “someone has to tell me how rich people are forced to serve along with poor people. Rich people can always find doctor who can say they have a bad knee...not ready to go back to a totally unfair system when we ask the poorest people in this country to serve.”- Sen. John McCain [2]Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...)