Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

On the lack of a negative "case": While your reasoning makes little sense, I can provide a negative advocacy if you want to spread both of us in terms of time and space to argue. Basically, my advocacy will be based upon the logic I've already outlined in refutation to your case. In other words, no new arguments here. These are all claims I've already made that have gone unrefuted. But before I do that, I want to state that I think it unfair to say I am required to have an advocacy to defend against all possible reasons to affirm, even though the affirmation doesn't assert them into the round. I will address any arguments that the affirmation brings, but the purpose of an advocacy on either side is not to categorically refute everything that the other side MIGHT say. (I apologize for caps…this silly interface can't italicize) Negative advocacy: Conscription, when used within a legitimate government, is just due to the fact that legitimate governments utilize social contract and democratic theory to build their infrastructures. Therefore, citizens are obligated to protect said nation under these theories. As I stated before, either you protect the state or the state will be demolished by a competing state, which inherently leads to less protection of rights. Hence, conscription is justified to preserve a legitimate state in times of military need. Conscription can even be used in a less than legitimate state or an illegitimate state to do the same thing, but at that point conscription may be applied unfairly. However, since illegitimate states are already violating human rights in the first place, this is to be expected. That aside, I reiterate that if I can disprove that conscription is categorically not unjust, then I've sufficiently negated the round. Also, the turn at the end of my round 1 posting can be considered an independent and offensive reason to negate. Conscription balances the load of protection of rights from the socioeconomically disadvantaged to the entire population of (male) residents possessing citizenship. Besides legal loopholes having nothing to do with conscription as a general policy, conscription does not discriminate. Aff's 1 (general): Note that my opponent does not address any of my analysis regarding my burdens, other than that I need a case, apparently. I specifically state that, since he is talking about a general concept, rather than a specific country, that my job is to cast doubt on his advocacy. I do this using the implementation of the conscription in legitimate states. If it can be implemented in a legitimate state and be just, then it cannot be wholly unjust. Hence, you negate the resolution. Don't let the affirmative shirk his burden to affirm the resolution he wrote. 1B: All of my analysis on this subpoint essentially extends. Soldiers are clearly not always considered property, even if drafted into service. Space compels me not to elaborate, but I encourage you to re-read my round 1 post on this subpoint. Aff's 2 (general): The affirmative is absolutely right. We must consider all governments. However, the affirmative is responsible for proving that conscription is wholly unjust. I'm not talking about one or two exceptions, here. I'm talking about a good chunk of the governments in existence. If we are to weigh an act as just or unjust, we should weigh the act itself, not simply the way it could be implemented by states who clearly abuse human rights to begin with. If the affirmative cannot account for those democratic nations or social contract-abiding nations, then he cannot affirm. 2A: Please note that he does not address any of my arguments, except to reiterate the false claim that I am limiting the debate to only democratic nations, and that I can't do that. My job as the negative is to disprove that conscription is always unjust. I am doing that by pointing out high profile exceptions and by analyzing conscription as a concept. I don't ever limit the field of debate. I'm doing what I should be doing: disproving the affirmation J 2B: I don't think we have the space anymore. We have enough already. I'll drop the biblical arguments if you do. Aff's 3 (general): My definition clearly applied to the "entire concept" of conscription. My arguments, on the other hand, seek to cast doubt on the affirmative's declaration that ALL conscription is unjust by bringing up examples that show that the concept does not inherently have to be unjust. Its application can be unjust, but so can the application of just about any concept. Conscription, being the compulsory enrollment of men for military or naval service (as accepted by my opponent) is not in and of itself unjust, especially if applied in a nation that utilizes the social contract. I also want to reiterate my example of soldier rights in the US to demonstrate that conscription does not automatically rob a citizen of his rights. It does put the "right to life" into some jeopardy, but my opponent is assuming, in his rhetoric, that every soldier sacrifices his life, which is patently untrue. On the turn: I think my opponent fundamentally misunderstands my argument regarding voluntary service unfairly burdening the poor with the duty to protect the nation. Allow me to elaborate. I didn't say anything about criminals at all. What I said was that, in a voluntary service model, the socioeconomically or socially disadvantaged end up protecting the country, rather than an even mix of citizens from all parts of society. Incentives for joining the military, such as the ability get funding for higher education, are only necessary for those who don't have funding for higher education, such as underserved minorities or the poorest of the nation. If they wish to escape their poverty, then this is one of very few options (maybe the only option) that they have. A member of the elite, wealthy class has no lack of resources to pursue higher education. In fact, things like legacy allow them easier access into universities than even more highly qualified applicants. Hence, in order to even go to college, the non-elite are, by lack of choices, essentially coerced into military service. So, voluntary service essentially has this coersive, or forced, element to it, as well. Conscription, at this point, becomes the more equitable option for defending a country. I am negating. I negated the affirmation's syllogism, and proved via its negation that conscription is not unjustified. The affirmation never specified anything about having an independent advocacy. Nor did the affirmation specify that my job is anything but disproving him. However, I have provided a negative advocacy, as it were, and I look forward to my opponent's response to it.