Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust

"In regards to my opponents argument against Rawl's First principle of justice," Is my opponent claiming that the people who fought and died in the war, received an unfair deal? If not, then what is the reason for ANYONE to fight in a war? "Let's say Tommy always wanted to be a doctor, but he was born into poverty, and forced to attend a not so state of the art school." It is possible for poor people to attend good schools. Scholarships exist for this reason. If Tommy was bright enough, he could easily attend a better school. If he was simply too dumb, then there is no chance for him to become a doctor in the first place. I too am striving to become a doctor, and i know that the MCAT exists to weed out people who didnt try hard enough, or werent smart enough to qualify for being a doctor. "Tommy was forced to fight in the infantry because he lacked the skills to play the role of a qualified doctor." Tommy wouldve lacked the skills anyways. If he was only 18 to 22 years old, he wouldnt have had the qualifications to be a doctor, since he isnt even in medical school. If he was 22 to 25 years old, and still wasnt a doctor, or wasnt in medical school, there is little chance that Tommy would have become a doctor. "Tommy did not receive his equal opportunity because he couldn't afford to go to college and prepare himself to be qualified as a doctor." Utterly fails. If Tommy was serious enough to become a doctor, Tommy wouldve worked hard to enter a good school. Just because people have the potential to become something, doesnt mean they will. Everyone has the potential to become a Doctor. Does this mean that whenever someone applies to the Military, they should be sent to the medical center? Of course not. Only those with the proper education and degree will be sent there. Potential, is not enough. "My opponent relates everything I say back to the USA, when the USA has never practiced true conscription." This is the "No true scottsman" fallacy. It is absurd to believe that just because people were able to avoid being drafted, that this was not conscription. However, this claim is false, as the definition for Conscription is clear:(1) 1. compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft. 2. a compulsory contribution of money to a government during a time of war. Neither entail how long, or who to conscript. And when every single term being used supports this, my opponents claims are seen to be more of a special pleading if anything. "conscription was introduced in Great Britain in early 1916 and then in the USA under the Selective Service Act"(2) "The Conscription Act of 1917 was passed in June, only months after Congress declared war in April"(3) Infact, even in the dictionary, a draft is called Conscription:(4) "12. a selection or drawing of persons, by lot or otherwise, from the general body of the people for military service; levy; conscription." Infact, even here, the redirect is a draft.(5) "IN WW2, a draft was desired because of the need of massive man power." Actually, even today requires massive man power.(6) The only reason why it appears we need less, is because we are fighting against an opponent who also has a force that is not substantial. If the US were to go against, say, China, with a standing force of 2.3 million, do you seriously think that the current amount of troops that are stationed in the middle east would suffice?(To clarify, i believe there are under 10,000 US troops in Afganistan, if not less) "" To Hell With War, Let's Settle this conflict with a fist fight, or more simply an agreement"" Oh really? So what exactly could you give Hitler, to stop gassing the Jews? This is an absurd way of thinking, yet, at the same time, I too wish this was possible. If things could be solved by Negotiation, agreements, or simply placing two people in a cage and letting them work it out, then we wouldnt need wars. Its a shame, that when a Muslim extremists wants to Destroy the USA, the only way they will accept a compromise, an agreement, is if the USA agrees to surrender its citizens as slaves to the Muslims extremists. If thats what you want, great. Then weve lost all our laws, justice systems, and everything. And in my opinion, a government that does this, is the WORST government. "During Vietnam people were killed in Anti-draft rallies" Ah, so draft IS conscription. Okay. And what i was talking about, is the fact that the draft laws STILL exist TODAY.(7) Yet, people who know these laws still exist and can be implimented at any time, say nothing towards it. "Contention 1. Conscription immensely hinders the economy" This is the problem with My opponents source. First off, the government was actually able to save money, according to Paolo Buonanno, as the average pay for the soldier was only 1.4 pounds, while the average pay was 8.8 pounds. This means that the Government had to spend less in order to maintain their army, to spend elsewhere. So this countermands the fact that the government couldnt tax as much, since they were also saving much more(As the government pays the salaries of soldiers). Furthermore, Paolo Buonanno merely states the innefectiveness of Conscription towards the income of the soldiers. Nowhere does he hint that this hurts the economy. Thirdly, Low wages is a mixed blessing; it is bad for the employee, but it is also good for the employer. Tax is also applied to busness owners as well, remember. Infact, the richer you are, the more tax is deducted. In the end, it doesnt help or hinder the economy, its actually pretty even. "This does not allow the gov't to uphold the principles of justice." Actually, no. I am reminded of a good quote from the movie, "Crimson Tide". "We're here to preserve democracy—not to practice it." The protection of Justice, the rights of the people, IS upholding the principles of justice. "the people have little to no say in what goes on with the government" And do those countries, have the basic rights that we also have? No? Then your objection is irrelevant, as those people do not have the basic rights that are violated in the first place. "what's best for the government may not be aligned with what's best for its citizens" Could you explain this a bit better please. "I didnt say every man, woman, child etc. will be drafted" Yes, you did: "We must accept the fact that women, children, mentally handicapped, elders, convicted prisoners, upon many other undeserving beings will be drafted." You said "Must accept the FACT". I hate to be a stickler, but you did. Anyways, does this matter? Ive already explained why no restrictions which are based strictly off of definitions, is absurd. "does not provide protections of the principles of justice." Of course they dont provide protections in those cases, because the rights dont exist IN THE FIRST PLACE. As you said before, "In order to achieve the most amount of justice, one must first value the principles of justice." There is no value on the principles of justice, in said countries. Therefore, this does not apply. I am out of words, i shall address the rest of his arguments in the next round. Sources: 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://dictionary.reference.com... 5. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 6. http://www.independent.co.uk... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...