Duty of every citizen is to defend a country and render national service when called upon to do so.

The PRO side of this debate offers the following definitions: national service: a period of compulsory service in the armed forces(Oxford) I offer the standard of Competing Government Obligations for this debate. Contention 1: American Citizenship Currently, only 0.5% of all Americans serve in the armed forces regularly, Compared to the 12% of Americans in the Civil War and an all-volunteer army during the Vietnam War, the current ratio of armed forces is extremely scarce. US News: "A small percentage of Americans do the fighting for the rest of us, creating a wedge between military professionals and average citizens. Many elected officials lack military experience, and few have children in uniform. For most of us, defending our country is something we watch on television. Little in the lives of young Americans helps them understand that citizenship is more than a list of rights to which they are entitled." The impact of this disparity is very prevalent. As Americans, if we do not fulfill our duty to protect our very rights, we are essentially undermining the purpose of this country, where every man fights for not only their own freedoms but the countries freedom. A country where people invest in their personal affairs to the point that the country is forgotten is a country that lacks the spirit of citizenship and unity. Contention 2:Economic equality Under the PRO world of mandatory national service, there will be no separation between classes, and the economic status will have a minute effect on serving the army. This provides a common platform by which our citizens are judged. Because we are able to deter such inequality that is generally attributed to government and moral duty, we have access to four main impacts in this debate. I. Political Institutions Policial institutions will be impartial towards everyone. Candidates that rely on campaign contributions will no longer be skewed in terms of voting and representation. II. The wealthy will not be able to manipulate or abuse others. Scanlon 2014: If wealth is very unevenly distributed in a society, wealthy people often end up in control of many aspects of the lives of poorer citizens: over where and how they can work, what they can buy, and in general what their lives will be like. As an example, ownership of a public media outlet, such as a newspaper or a television channel, can give control over how others in the society view themselves and their lives, and how they understand their society. III. Economy The economy will also be impartial by voting PRO. Scanlon furthers, "Economic inequality makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create equality of opportunity. Income inequality means that some children will enter the workforce much better prepared than others. And people with few assets find it harder to access the first small steps to larger opportunities, such as a loan to start a business or pay for an advanced degree." Krugman 2014 mentions stats from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: "Real wages for most U.S. workers have increased little if at all since the early 1970s, but wages for the top 1 percent of earners have risen 165 percent, and wages for the top 0.1 percent have risen 362 percent." (Krugman calls those "supersalaries.") Again, the idea that this is objectionable is not mere envy." Remember that by our standard of government benefits, we need to allow our country to thrive off of the main priorities of government: civil involvement, equality, and a common representation of minorities and majorities alike. For all these reasons, I affirm.