Military conscription is unjust.

Alright, so first, I'm going to refute my opponent's case, then, I'll go on to providing my own. I'll agree with the definitions, but if PRO decides to define them a step further, then I will not be obligated to agree. Judges, please note that my opponent accepted cross examination for this debate, therefore, please read the comments of the comment section to record the information brought about during that session. Rebuttal 1: Unfortunately, my opponent's defeat will be spelled out in this round due to the answers he has provided in C/X. The affirmative states that there are just laws in the United States, but there is just one problem with this assertion: IT COMPLETELY DISMANTLES HIS OWN ARGUMENT! He consideres it to be unjust for individuals to be forced to act against their own free will, but this is just what all laws do. We follow them even against our own free will. Therefore, the very lack of choice makes the idea of "laws" period unjust, if we are to follow my opponents logic in his first contention. This contradiction makes PRO's argument inadmissible, therefore, you are to dimiss it. Next, during C/X, my opponent stated that laws were unfair if they didn't apply to everyone. Judges, it will be this statement that will also be my opponent's downfall during this debate. If we look at his definition of conscription, at no place, do we see any particular clause which would suggest that it is a concept which forces certain individuals into a country's armed forces. Rather, all that is suggested is that individuals are being forced into a country's armed forces. Ergo, the lack of fariness which the affirmative speaks of doesn't apply to conscription. I will explain in detail for his 2nd and 3rd contention, but essentially, what this means is that you are to immediately consider the second and third contentions that he presented as being completely irrelevant. I shall explain moreso in detail. Rebuttal 2: The united States' chauvinistic tendencies have nothing to do with the actual concept of conscription, therefore, idea of conscription itself is not a link to the inequality which the instigator is talking about, therefore, his second contention is irrelevant and is to be dismissed from your judgment. Not only that, but even noted in the instigator's definition itself, at no place do we see "a system that forces merely certain groups of individuals to enter war." All the more justifying my request. Furthermore, working towards making all individuals eligible for conscription would solve PRO's problem and still leave conscription out in the open, further proving that his problem isn't actually conscription. Rebuttal 3: First, this technically falls under the same problem I brought up in my previous rebuttal. Like previously, PRO's problem with conscription can be solved while still maintaining conscription. In other words, if he finds it problematic that senators and representatives are immune to drafting, than simply put, we can work towards making them play a role in being drafted. Hence, AFF's problem is solved and conscription is still up and running. Since this is the case, it is abundantly clear that his assertions have nothing to do with debating the resolution. So with 3 out of 4 of his contentions being utterly defeated, that just leaves his fourth contention. Lets rip it apart. 4) There's no question that fighting in conflict can have long lasting effects on soldiers involved. But just as these effect can be negative, they can also be positive. When going to help resolve a conflict, one can manage to learn more about life than he/she ever understood while in the comforts of his/her own home. Many are ignorant and more often than not, take the lives of the soldiers for granted. But to be put in the place of a soldier resolves such ignorance; one learns just what it means to protect their country. Not just that, but having the honor of being able to defend one's own country can make one easily feel like a hero, thus raise one's self esteem to new heights. Also, for the thrill seekers (all the people who enjoy putting their lives on the line for the sake of a thrill, conscription is just what the doctor ordered. Just think how they may just be able to go home and brag to their grand kids about how they were part of something so epic. In response to psycological trauma, there already exist programs which debrief soldiers as well as insure that their psychological wounds are healed so this is nowhere near as much as a problem as my esteemed opponent would like you to believe. MY CASE: LAST RESORT: I urge that the system which requires citizens to be forced to enter into their own respective country's military be used the way it was originally intended to be used; I urge that it be used as a last resort. In other words, if a country's technology, regular military forces, and regular defenses can by no means guarentee the safety of the nation, compulsary enrollment should be upheld. Or in even better terms, a country should resort to it only when it needs conscription. Now when I say "last resort", I mean a situation where the nation in question is at risk of being obliterated or by any other means compromised entirely. The people then have the opportunity look at their options. They can even contribute to the war in order to defend their nation as well as their way of life. Or, they can sit home and wait to see when they will be eliminated, conquered, or placed in any other undesirable circumstance. Basiclly, when military survivalbility and way of life is being threatened and the usual defenses (military and technological forces) are insufficient, a country is justified to turn to and rely on its citizens. To rely on conscription in any other scenario would be ABUSING conscription, which is then, "unjust". From this, we can conclude that conscription itself is quite just. Keep in mind that we are debating whether or not military conscription itself is unjust. This is what enables me to cast the US's terms which go in addition to conscription as irrelevant to this debate. Furthermore, such a debate enables me to ignore "abusive conscription" Some of these points make require more elaboration depending on PRO's rebuttal. Thus, I give permission and now stand waiting for cross-examination (if PRO finds the need) in the comment section.