Military conscription is unjust.

Military Conscription Hello and Good Luck. Road Map: Overview, AC, NC Overview: THIS IS LD VALUE DEBATE. Before voting on this round I would like the judges to remember that this is LD Debate and not normal debate like the last tournament. In LD Debate the most important thing is the value/criterion. My opponent fails to give either of these. This is bad because there is no way to evaluate the round (no criterion) and there is no way to tell when your goal has been reached because there is no goal (value). Thus, in this round you must vote for me because my opponent has failed to propose a value/criterion meaning that there is no way for them to win unless there is a link to my value. All I have to prove in this round therefore is that I link to my standards better than my opponent. No matter how abusive my value/criteria may be, you must use it because it is the only way to evaluate this round. AC (Opponents Case)- Resolutional Analysis- US is not in the resolution thus it is absurd you limit the debate to the US. Conscription = Draft Contention 1 (Rights)- 1.Violate Rights more if there is no draft. Shortage of troops means that country will be in turmoil in times of war. This means many innocent citizens may be KILLED. This is the biggest right violation possible. 2.Disregard American Values because the resolution is not looking to America. 3.Third Point also US specific. 4.Slavery may be illegal but so is murder of innocent citizens which is what will happen if there isn't a proper military. 5.More rights lost if innocent are killed because there isn't a military. Draft is necessary is some countries to compose a legit. Military. Con. 2 (Morality) 1.If under attack rather than declaring war, then immediate draft need be an option. 2.My opponent assumes that the gov. is starting the war. I'm saying that if under attack, immediate draft is needed. 3.Says that it is unfair in the US but doesn't show how it is unfair in different places. 4.I addressed the last point in the rights part by saying negative harms more rights because innocents will be killed. This pt. is not morality related. Con 3 (Effectiveness)- Con 4 (Money) - GROUP 1.The lives of innocents which need be protected are more important than a monetary sum. 2.Tax payers would be willing to pay if the threat was high enough and the alternative is an attack on the country leading to death. 3.It is better to have an incapable military than no military. Con 5- ( Not Necessary)- 1.May work for the US but not for other countries. Once again the res. Is not US specific. 2.Higher benefit packages would cost taxpayers money which my opponent already said was bad. 3.Other countries are not as rich as the US and may need drafts. Con 6- (Social Impact)- 1.This is not known to happen in other countries. NC- (My Case) I negate. 'Military conscription is unjust' I value Justice defined as giving each their due. Use this because the resolution is asking us to evaluate the justness of an action. Thus, Justice is the ultimate goal. The criterion is Protection of Innocent Citizens. Since aff doesn't provide standards this is what we use in the round. I contend that neg protects citizens better than aff. I will make this point clear and give you the judges a clear place to vote. Claim- The Negative Debater Better Protects Innocent Citizens Warrant- (Example) The US gets greedy for oil. They decide to invade a huge oil producer: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a weak army and is a developing nation meaning that supplies are low. If the US attacks the weak army, more people will die than if the US attacked a strong army. In this case military conscription is needed and thus just. Impact- Conscription Protects more innocent people. Thus, I have clearly shown that in this round a negative vote is necessary. The LWERD forgets a value/criterion which is worthy of an automatic loss. I have responded to every argument and brought up many of my own. Thus you must Negate.