Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

To lay out my objective, I will first show why the negative does not negate the resolution "Military conscription is unjust", then show why my opponents arguments against my case should not be carried through the debate, and finally I will re-affirm why the resolution should be upheld. Initially, my opponent uses a value of justice to uphold his case. However, he does not qualify which type of justice ought to be used to show why military conscription is just. In return, I offer a definition of justice as "referring to the development of a system of laws and procedures that do not discriminate against any members of society." Under this definition of justice, strict egalitarian justice would not discriminate and would in fact support my value of the categorical imperative. It could easily be considered a maxim that a system of government acting this could be universal law. Thus, since my opponent did not clarify the type of justice he wishes to use to negate the resolution, I in turn prove that justice supports the categorical imperative. The negative's position of Locke's social contract does not uphold the fact that it is doing its job by protecting the people. Locke's social contract theory does in fact support the affirmative, since a social contract theory must uphold the rights of the members and in fact, under Locke, is unjust if it does not duly uphold inalienable rights of the citizens. Further more, why would protecting people require military conscription? A military may be necessary, but not a draft. The fact of the matter is that the United States is capable of having a military that does protect its boarders from other countries. The U.S. uses a completely voluntary military. A social contract theory only assures that a government must provide for the safety of those in a society, not that it forces it's members to provide that safety. The negative's only contention uses the United States as an example. The fact of the matter is the United States uses a voluntary military. The US does not use conscription to provide these means. It does not allow for justice because it is considered unjust by terms of retributive, egalitarian, and distributive means of justice. It does not provide for a universally acceptable moral means that would equate into a moral law. Treating people unethically is not in the realm of any social contract theory. Rather, it is unjust to treat people unequally or punishing them with conscription. This is not just. Therefore, military conscription is unjust. There is justification for the value of the categorical imperative. It is simply that "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." If society does not act in this matter, it is unjust and immoral. Military conscription does not act in a way that should become universal law, therefore is not good or moral. The categorical imperative is achievable if a society uses the categorical imperative as a maxim to determine morals. The categorical imperative provides for more justice and better application under the resolution. Killing is justified under Kant's categorical imperative, such as in cases of self defense. The United States could have been justified under Kant's philosophy since they acted in self-defense. Free will and equality directly relate to upholding the affirmative's stance of the resolution. If each person has free will and equality, it is unjust to force them to serve in the military. Since the neg. uses justice, this upholds distributive justice as egalitarianism, and each person should have the same rights and it would be unjust to force conscription. In rebutting my 1st contention, I think I have clearly shown that the value of the categorical imperative applies, so the contention still applies. 2nd contention directly relates to my value of CI, as it is the application of the definition I provided for the CI, therefore the contention still stands. Regardless, it needs not have direct relation to anything else. If the negative cannot disprove a point, points still stand. For the arguments against the 3rd contention, the neg. clearly points out the flaws in his argumentation. Conscription is forced, voluntary is not. Egalitarianism as justice clearly points that we should treat everyone with the same regard, regardless of social stature or position. Military conscription does in fact not allow for justice and equality, since not all members of society are not treated equally. In this debate, my opponent has stated that I have no justification. This is clearly invalid. Simply stating that the affirmative has no justification does NOT concede a point to the neg. Instead, it clearly shows the lack of argument and defense of the neg. All points that stated that points should simply be carried without justification are just that, statements without justification. All points without substantial argumentation stay with the affirmative. In summary, I have shown why the negative points actually fall under the aff, shown how the aff. Points are still upheld, and shown why the argumentation that the neg gave against the aff case is invalid. This carries all points for the aff, and shows why the resolution should be upheld and why the aff will win this debate.