Military conscription is unjust.

[Introduction/Clarification] Yes, I did fail to post my argument on debate.org. When I had tried to submit my argument, it kept saying "Your post must be less than 8,000 characters" and would not let me make a submission, even though I had almost 500 characters remaining (this happens pretty frequently for me and I've complained about it before; however, it will usually let me post so long as I have more than 60 characters remaining). In regard to the time that I posted, first of all, it has absolutely no merit in this debate whether I posted when I had 20 minutes left or 2 days left. So long as I posted within the time frame allotted, I could have waited until the very last second if I wanted to. Con has no business trying to put down my argument because I waited almost the full 3 days -- there was a (personal) reason for that. Furthermore, as Con, he had the ability to not only wait 3 days to accept my challenge, but he also had another 3 additional days to post his argument (which he utilized). In that case, he is in fact the one who was at a greater time advantage than I. Additionally, I posted the time that I submitted my argument in the comment section. For the first day or so (not sure how much longer after that) debate.org keeps track of when someone posts, i.e. 1 hour ago, 2 hours ago, 3 hours ago, etc. The time that I posted on Facebook supports my comment. Therefore my opponent was well aware of the fact that I posted my argument in time; for him to suggest otherwise is a blatant lie, however, I understand that you gotta do what you gotta do. Especially if you've put forth a really weak case such as Con has. And finally on this point, it is not unusual for there to be problems posting on the site for a number of reasons. A round posted on Facebook can absolutely be valid -- consider a debate between Logical-Master and beem0r for the previous tournament, for instance. -- In regards to the lack of v/c in R1, I agree with my opponent that different judges vote different ways, and I respect that. However, my point here was whether or not a v/c was NECESSARY from Pro in R1 from *ALL* debaters if an automatic loss was not to be considered. If the answer is yes, so be it. I definitely respect that LD debate rules should be followed, and I agree with Lakeville that I and other debaters should have looked into LD debate more closely. But if a v/c is deemed absolutely mandatory as to not result in an automatic forfeit, the same standard must apply to ALL Pro debaters in this tournament. Whatever else the judges vote on is subjective. -- Now I will respond to each of Con's points: [Rights] 1. Con says, "If an army-less country is attacked more people would die than if we used some citizens to form a military and essentially win the war." That is probably true. However I have never advocated for an army-less nation; I have simply argued against military conscription. One does not = the other. 2 & 3. These points were exactly the same, and stated that people MUST fight because they have an obligation to protect their nation's freedom. In response, first, not every country is free, so this point is mute. Second, this does not address the fact that military conscription is NOT limited to times of war. People can be drafted at any time for any reason under the terms of military conscription, even if it has nothing to do with their country's protection. 4. The govt. can make attempts that able-bodied people are drafted; however, that does not necessarily mean that they will. -- [Cost] 1. "If we drafted a small number of well-bodied people then the small military would be effective." ... This is a horrible point. Because if a medium to large number of so-so or even non-able people were drafted, the military would not be effective. It's as simple as that. Plus, how would it be decided if people were able or not? Is it going to be like the 60s where people just claimed to be gay or mentally ill in order to avoid the draft? Looking into "who should go" assuming that there would even be mental, physical or social criteria is an unavoidable additional cost. -- [Social Impact] 1. Con says, "Im saying that in certain situations where life is being threatened people would be accepting of military conscription." That may be so, but if a situation were that severe, history shows us that people would voluntarily sign up for the military and a draft would be unnecessary. This happened after 9/11 and ESPECIALLY during WWII (people were lined up around the block to register for the armed forces). -- [V/C] "Lwerd doesn't tell why her definition [of justice] is preverable thus you use mine..." was said by the Con. But actually, I did pose the question of how drafting people to war had anything to do with "giving people their due." To send citizens off to kill and/or be killed without taking other factors of their life and the situation into consideration is not justice. I feel that my definition of justice should apply, as it states "the preservation of rights" which sounds less like a death sentence and more like a universal principle. Further, Con's only statement in defense of his definition is, "We give more people their due because more lives are protected" which really makes no sense at all (and it's all I have to go by in this final round). Next Con says, "My opponents response to my criterion is saying its the same as my value" which is completely untrue -- I never said that. I said that MY criterion was almost the same as MY value. His value was giving each their due (justice) and his criterion was "protection of innocent citizens." So far I have yet to find an adequate link, and given my opponent's case, I'm willing to bet that the judges haven't either. Then Con says, "The lwerd still gives criterion thus we use mine." I can't help but notice that this sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. But even if it did, Con would still be wrong -- I did provide a criterion: the preservation of rights (which is essentially how I have defined justice, the agreed upon value). Con's final point reads "A strong army may result in a win. Meaning that conscription protects more." This is undoubtedly true, obviously. However unfortunately for Con, it has absolutely nothing to do with military conscription. A strong VOLUNTARY army could just as well result in a win and protect more lives. And finally Con ends with, "she has not linked to my c/v and has not provided a criterion of her own meaning I still win." This is ridiculously false. In R2 I absolutely shattered his case even according to his own flawed v/c, by responding to and refuting his claim, warrant AND impact. Thus I have won this debate even on his own terms! Further, I also did in fact provide a v/c of my own in R2, so now Con is being downright abusive by just sort of making things up as we go along. -- [Conclusion] * If I lose this debate based on the lack of v/c introduced in R1, that's fine. However to impose this standard on me and none of the other debaters in the tournament is blatantly unfair, though I will accept whatever verdict the judges decide. * If I lose this debate based on a missed round, I would like to point out again the proof I have indicating that I did not in fact miss the time limit. However, again I will accept whatever the judges decide. * Contrary to what my opponent's claims are, I have in fact introduced a v/c of my own and defended it, while ALSO debating Con's very own weak and incredibly flawed v/c (even if I/the judges chose to accept it). Thus, I have indeed won this debate on all logical accounts and by far provided the better arguments, even if you exclude my R1 points. I leave the fate of this debate into the judges hands. If I lose - no biggie - but I'd like to wish my opponent luck in future debates, as I feel he'll need it. Thanks again for reading/judging ~ L.