United States Selective Service System

THE CONSTITUTION REBUTTALMy opponent has two very good arguments, and one of them will be difficult for me to address, but there is another thing, that my opponent has failed to see.It comes from ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 CLAUSE 11 - 12 of the CONSTITUTION: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy" http://www.usconstitution.net...It is with this information that we can conclude that Congress has the right to enforce a draft if it so pleases because it falls under this category, and due to the fact that the US Government has something called, "Implied Powers", then there's no way that one could kill the draft when Congress HAS THE RIGHT to impose a draft if they so please.So it is with this information that we ask ourselves? Well it's in conflict with another constitutional law?!?! This is in fact the tricky part. We haven't had a draft since the 1970s, and there's a reason... Even with all the terrorism and hatred that goes around the world, there hasn't been a draft. That's because we only have a draft when we are in DIRE NEED of one. Concerning my opponent's response about how he would rather have a smaller army with competent and well trained soldiers than a huge army with more soldiers who have no idea what they're doing... I'll say this.Numbers do matter... And yes. Numbers that are eduacted matter too, but numbers matter a lot. And to add to that, the people that you say aren't trained, by the time we fight, will be. You don't have to be a U.S. Navy Seal to join the army. There are standard fighters, and that's ok, because they do the work that needs to be done. And to add to that, ALL DRAFTEES go through a standard combat training before fighting, so the soldiers will have a general idea of how to fight in battle.Rights as a Citizen RebuttalI am not gonna lie... This is going to be the hardest to debate, but I will try my best.For Centuries, the male race have been the fighters / draftees. Even in recorded history, we see that if an army was in serious trouble in a war, that the young men were required to take up a sword and fight alongside the losing team, and this tradition has been kept up until this day.It is a well known fact that men are "built" for battle for the majority as my opponent stated. Women, generally, are not fit for battle such as men are, and that's precisely the reason I think that it's fine that men are the only ones drafted. Certainly, if we drafted both men and women, the risk of a major declination of the popluation would occur. There was always a pattern in history. The men would fight and the women would take their jobs and sustain their family if needed. This system has worked in the past and would certainly work in today's culture as well!This is definitely a tough argument since it is a relatively subjective matter which is biased on either side due to political party. I may not be able to convince the voters that it is a great system, but a good system... Yes. I believe the Draft is a good system that doesn't have a flawed logic in the least. It holds both preparation and the art of carrying it out in a very organized manner.