Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust.

I wish I had more time to go in depth, so as usual with my debates, most of my arguments may require elaboration in future rounds. RE DEFINITIONS: I shall agree with the definitions of the terms for this debate. RE RESOLUTION ANALYSIS: I shall agree with the resolution analysis for now, but would request that PRO elaborate on what he means by "necessity" as well as how "necessity" is an unrelated factor. Alright, I'm going to start by supplying you with my case as I believe it will make things far simpler when I begin rebutting the case of my opponent's (for reasons you shall see soon enough) 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; I urge that it be relied upon when necessary. In other words, if a country's technology, regular military forces, and regular defenses can by no means guarantee the safety of the nation, compulsory 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 circumstance that would negate any of the "natural rights" which PRO has pointed out . Basically, when military survivability 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 as relying on its citizens would mutually be preserving these citizen's natural rights. 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. We are not debating its effectiveness or practicality, as PRO himself pointed out. Furthermore, such a debate enables me to ignore "abusive conscription" as to rely on something when it isn't needed is certainly abusive. Now with that being said, I shall move on to PRO's case RE CONTENTION I: LOCKE'S SOCIAL CONTRACT SUPPORTS NATURAL RIGHTS: A. I agree that Natural rights are the basis of American ideals. B. I was going to make a big deal out of this, but as PRO has pointed out during C/X, the government does restrain liberty so that other liberties may be upheld. I agree with this, but this won't help PRO's case in the least as I now submit that whereas conscription does restrain some liberty, this is so other liberties may be protected, therefore, by PRO's logic, making it just. Just what other liberties does properly used conscription protect one may ask? See my case. C. I shall agree. RE: CONTENTION II: MILITARY CONSCRIPTION IS UNJUST Re A: Based on my opponent's logic as well as clarification during cross examination, I merely have to demonstrate that military conscription does not violate the three "natural rights" which he brings up. In other words, I can very well concede that two of the natural rights are violated provided I show that at least one natural right isn't violated. After all, this is my opponent's justification behind a system that VIOLATES natural rights; he justifies it by pointing out that the laws that violate natural rights can still be just provided they are manifested through the intent of preserving the remaining natural rights. Keep in mind, in order to vote CON in this debate, you only have to agree with one of the natural rights which I'll argue that conscription upholds. Life: Refer back to my original insinuations on military conscription. When not abused, it is used when necessary in order to defend the most important of these natural rights (life; without life, you can't have liberty or happiness, so of course it's the most important. :D ). Conscription is not only a chance for some selected citizens to defend their own lives rather than merely have to sit around (knowingly waiting to have their natural rights impeded upon), but also a chance to increase the likelihood of survival for ones back at home (those not selected for conscription). True, it may endanger lives, but it is not a system with the intent of taking away lives. Rather, it a system set with the intent of preserving lives, ergo, if we accept PRO's criteria for "just", then conscription must be considered just.. Liberty: Very much similar to that of the above. The individuals selected are being given the opportunity to contribute in preserving the amount of liberty they have as well as the liberty of the citizens who were not drafted. Granted, the ones conscripted have some of their liberty restrained, but this is no different than one having their liberty restrained by ANY law. Unless PRO intends to argue in favor of anarchism, he has no argument if he wishes to attack conscription on the matter of liberty. Pursuit of Happiness: Again, conscription (when not abused) is an effort to preserve this right for everyone to pursue happiness in the future. The only way PRO could possibly argue otherwise would be if those who were conscripted had to permanently participate in the military, those conscripted have something to look forward to in the future (which they wouldn't if they were simply going to have their natural rights stripped away by an invading nation). Re B: Hold on one cotton picking moment. Refer back to what PRO clearly stated initially. I quote, "Proofs about its effectiveness, necessity, or other unrelated factors shall therefore not affect the debate." So noting that these words came out of his own mouth, why on earth does he decide to turn around and cite the Vietnam War (which is actually example of abusive conscription since that War wasn't necessary not to mention that the US had other means of combat which it didn't resort to) as well as "baseless conjecture" from one of the most recent potential presidential candidates? Why is he attempting to discredit the effectiveness of conscription despite earlier saying that such is irrelevant to this debate? I agree with his original proposition. This isn't about whether or not conscription is very effective but rather whether or not it can be considered just/justified. Thus, I implore you to dismiss this argument on the grounds of PRO's own resolution analysis. Re C: This is nothing more than a repeat of Sub point A, thus, I ask that you cross apply my response to that sub point here. CONCLUSION: Hmm, well I wish I had myself a nice quote to present, but alas, I guess I can settle with refuting the information in PRO's quote. ". . . that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it" 1) Appeal to pity. 2) Hey, it's what happens when one abides by the government. They abide by its terms too and are coerced to obey its rules. Conscription is no different (the most one could argue was that it was more extreme than the usual restrained liberties, which would be a bit arbitrary I guess). Surely Mr. Webster doesn't maintain the position that most (or all ) laws are unconstitutional. If so, then I'm not even sure why he'd be complaining. The rest of the quote either repeats the same point concerning liberty or relies on some fancy rhetoric in attempt to sway those based on emotion rather than logic as with the "appeal to pity." And that'll do it for now. Dynomite?