In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory.

In accordance to Pros rules, I will provide rebuttals in this round and counter-rebuttals/conclusion within the next. Rebuttals:'In order for a state to be safe against outside threats, it must have a strong military. Without a strong military, a state can easily be attacked and defeated. When a state is at war with other states, the Life of its citizens can be placed in jeopardy. The same is true if a state is defeated in war, and its citizens face potential death or new governance that could infringe on their freedom.'Obviously on an international level, having a reasonably military is important but I think Pro is rather exaggerating its significance here. One of the priorities of all countries, should always be to avoid war--instead of displaying an antagonistic attitude and a national predisposition towards it; which over-concern with the military and compulsory service may well do. What Pro is forgetting, is that countries that have no compulsory military service are in fact categorized as the most powerful countries in the world. [3.] https://www.usnews.com...I would also ask Pro is outline exactly what 'threats' he's referring to, as thus far, his case is purely speculative and the threat level that he's trying to base his argument around, is completely undefined. 'When a person is forced to serve in the U.S. military, they may have to put their own Life at risk for their country. Therefore, being a part of the army would put a person"s Life in jeopardy.'Pro basically concedes here that there is an increased risk of losing ones life in the military; and that is surely not a good thing? One example of a country with compulsory military service would be Israel--since it's 1948 establishment, it's been involved in some 15 wars. [4.] https://en.wikipedia.org...These wars, have had some pretty detrimental outcomes. [5.] http://www.independent.co.uk...'When a country has a strong military, civilian casualties in that country are kept to a minimum, and, thus, Life is maximized. For example, in World War Two, only 1,700 U.S. civilians were killed (4), because the U.S. instated a draft that ensured a strong military.'I think countries like Israel (and others like Colombia, Kuwait, etc.) wholly negate this assumption. The reference to U.S in WW2 fails, as this was a worldwide conflict, and western policies on war/intervention have changed since then. (I.E--lessons have been learned.) [6.] http://www.un.org...'If a country is taken over because its military is too weak, then civilian casualties can become much greater. For example, the countries taken over by Nazi Germany had death tolls that ranged from 60,000 to 3,000,000.' See above link; WW2 occurred to due lack of diplomacy among nations and failure of preventative measures. Now, we have strict international law. 'While this is not the value which I have proposed, I would also like to discuss Security. Security is defined as "The state of being free from danger or threat" by the Oxford English dictionary (6). When a country is taken over, the Security of all of its citizens is put at risk, because they no longer have their country"s military to defend them. Cruel dictatorships, such as the Nazis, can take the Life of many citizens and the Security of many more.' Pro is placing a great deal of emphasis on the Nazi regime, seemingly overlooking the fact that this particular period in history was indeed quite unique. Moreover, Europe now enjoys a mostly peaceable relationship, one that is bound by (again) international law and to a large extent, the European Union--which since its creation, has sought to maintain economic sharing and prosperity within Europe. (let's not forget, that Germany had endured economic despair prior to the Nazi regime, which is the largest contributing factor in why WW2 took place.)