Military Conscription is unjust

alto 2 osu if you can, could you help me build a better case if you find any links.Thank you to alto 2 osu for accepting this challenge. Roadmap: The negative advocacy (I am short on space so I will pack it all up as tightly as possible) 1: Value and criterion impact 2: Contentions and applications in the real world versus hypothetical situations. Definitions: a. The use of the word "coercive" in the definition of compulsory is unwarranted; conscription is only coercive if the state makes it so. The concept in and of itself only applies involuntary, which is not the same. This is not true whatsoever. The definition states "coercive or enforced" which denotes that either one is applicable. Coercive refers to physical retribution and enforced refers to legal matters. This is a simple misunderstanding, all I am trying to say is that the resolution implies a retributive action when one does not follow this specific law. This is completely logical that a law be enforced. My definition of compulsory is from Merriam Webster, I just put it into sentence form, so I didn't write the source I will accept my opponents definitions because I see no point in debating definitions that pose no relevance in the round. V: Justice Note the word "each" in her definition. This provides that justice is an absolute and absolutely no rights will be violated or there will be retribution for violators. Each denotes an individual person. Even without a draft the negative advocacy cannot guarantee an absolute. To show this I will provide an example: Imagine you are robbed (each denotes an individual level) but your robber escapes and is never seen again ( each citizen was not given his/her due because the robber was due punishment). C: Fulfillment of the social contract The social contract is completely theoretical and flawed Note: "...unwritten social contract exists between..." this is essential to the AFF advocacy because the social contract is completely nonexistent other than being in thought. The problem with this is that a citizens is signed into this contract from birth, way beyond years of comprehension of it and is automatically bound by it. The problem that arises is that again, this contract is compulsory. We are forced into this contract and if we violate it we could even be executed. For man to be just the action has to be of good will not enforcement of the social contract. Actions from inclinations are not just because fear cannot constitute justice. For this to be proven wrong justice would have to be fear laden. My opponent claims that there is an existence of justice in military conscription in the theoretical LD vacuum. I will agree to this conditionally. There can be a just action when applied to anything in the philosophical realm. The burden of the negative is to show that military conscription IS just or neutral not "can be" or "may be" just/neutral. 1: Citizens have a clear obligation and interest in protecting the state: This is a true statement but there are some flaws. 1) If citizens did follow this obligation or not is truly their choice. Again, comes the central struggle of this debate compulsory versus compellment. Any compulsory action is created out of fear and fear does not constitute justice. 2) Apply this to the real world...Each and every state does not guarantee everthing listed in cont. 1. Many states barely include domestic enforcement. This is also a relatively new concept. Legislation doesn't protect every just citizen in many societies. In truth roughly half people around the world are in poverty, are robbed and abused, and are send to do involuntary work just to survive. To reinforce the point I will show how in some instances protecting the state is for the worse. Alexander the great of Macedonia revolutionized the known world by spreading his utopian(hellenistic) view of the world to other socities by conquering. This implied destroying the old societal structure and applying his own. In that instance protecting the old state was bad. Many warriors dies in the bloody skirmishes between the massive Empire and nearby states. Once the new state was established it would be peaceful until the disbanding of the empire. It brought on many advancements in technology, culture, and politics. This shows that the obligation is not always present in illegitimate (real world)states and in turn protecting the state is not always the wisest or most just action. 2: Voluntary service leads to far more social injustice than military conscription: I fail to see how this point pertains to the resolution. My opponent is just saying that voluntary service is worse but is this not direct to the resolution. I can agree that it is worse without it affecting my case. The affirmative advocacy is not based on practicality. I understand that a draft may be unjust but it is necessary. The affirmative is not advocating the disbandment of the social contract or the elimination of a draft. It is a necessity but IT IS NOT JUST. Impact: By eliminating my opponents first and second cont. my opponents values and vc basically have no hold on the resolution. I agreed to both but said that in truth the statements are both compulsory and as is a central theme justice is not composed of fear and retribution. My opponents v and vc are also eliminated so vote aff. Onto my advocacy: rebiulding and remaking Value Justice: 1)My opponent does not acheive more justice because I do not deny a draft or voluntary service, I just say that neither is just. By affirming the resolution you don't not use a draft or protect the state you just prove them as unjust. 2) Again the same thing I just say that they are unjust not that we should stop protecting the state. 3)"possible freedoms, while I ensure real ones." This argument is completely illogical for real freedoms have to be possible, right? VC: Maximization of possible freedoms: The compulsory anture of something does make it morally bad because it is not morally right. Many different philosophers have told of good will being the only true and just action. It has to come from a sense of duty not from coercion or inclination. (Kantian good will) It has to be unjust because fear does not constitue justice. A compulsory action does not constitute good will. C1: 1)a This has already been disproven b The state is not necessarily legitimate but we are arguing a hypothetical draft that has to be 100% mandatory for those needed by the state. Even if this argument was dropped the premise would still stand that those who are drafted will be hurt by that injustice. 2) This is for the affirmative position not pertaining to the negative. 3) I understand how this may be confusing or weird. All the affirmative says is that affirming the resolution includes enacting a draft if necessary but it is unjust. a: I apologize because it is unwarranted but this is LD debate and requires only thoughts not evidence (one of the reasons why LD rulz). The concept of military conscription by your definition " compulsory enrollment of persons" implies that the application is indeed in question. NOTE: COMPULSORY. This means the application is not in question but whether application exists or not. Fear is the only method of application for compulsory nature makes this action unjust and fear is used to provide a real world link. In other words, since the word compulsory is in the definition application exists and the only method of application other than voluntary is coercive or fear so it is unjust by application. There are no other ways to "compulsively" apply a draft. 2) Again, ignore this refutation because the affirmative doesn't deny a draft it just says it is unjust. The character limit doesn't allow me to continue the post. Look to the comments for the rest of my rebuttal. :0 :) :8 HA!! Thanks to all of the judges and my opponend Alto 2 osu. This has sure been one of the most interesting debates on this website