Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust.

Here we go! 1a, 1b, 1c, 3: The CON states that his hypothetical scenarios are legitimate for this debate. But he fails to account for the fact that humans, when robbed of liberty, resist. This is what has undermined conscription in the past and will in the future. Unless the CON has a chemical that will invert this core idea of human nature, he must concede that conscription causes unrest in the military and domestically which negates any benefits it might provide otherwise. It makes things worse. CRITICAL POINT: At best the CON has only shown conscription to be ambivalent – sometimes just and sometimes unjust in execution, depending on which military. But volunteerism is ALWAYS more just than conscription: A. If military victory is indeed best for the citizens, citizens will rise to the occasion without the government having to violate their rights. But if conscripted, there would be unjust violation of rights and a less effective force, both of which are unjust. B. If military victory would be the worst for the citizens, citizens would not fight and would be led to prosperity by the invaders. But if conscripted, they would perform poorly as soldiers – and we would still have violation of rights. 2. You say that this debate doesn't center around which system is better. But if one violates more rights than the other, it is unjust. If I can make money either by getting a job at McDonalds or by enslaving an ethnic group, which option is just? It's not both of them. 3. And when is that? I've shown you already that if a volunteer military fails, a conscripted one would only make things worse. And refer to my response to your 1A point – if there's really a danger that can and should be solved by a military, the people will rise to the occasion. 4. Then all of my responses will be above or below. 5, 6b. False. The Social Contract covers the restriction of those rights which are necessary to secure the public. But if the government excessively restricts rights in one, two, or three of those categories (when they don't have to – because in ANY case that drafts could occur, volunteerism could do it one better) then that is unjust. This is the most basic tenet of any Social Contract philosophy – that some rights must be restricted to secure others. I don't think it's too confusing or contradictory – my use of natural rights as a basis for my case doesn't mean I am an anarchist. 6a. This is stemming from cross-examination, where (I assumed) that you thought I meant that justice was only violated when all three rights were unnecessarily abridged. It looks like this is just a misunderstanding that won't influence much. 6c. Actually, you can accept it. And here's why: a nation that uses volunteerism still violates some rights just as a government would, but preserves the most rights (which is therefore the just option) in regards to military matters. So outside of military matters, some rights would still be violated – those required to provide security. But a draft violates more rights than required to provide security – in fact, it violates so many that it DECREASES security (see above why conscription is counterproductive). That's how you can tell when a government is being just or unjust. If it is violating an amount of natural rights that does not increase protection or decreases it (conscription being the example here), then that is unjust. 7. When you pull somebody off the street to go get shot at, people die whether you want them to or not – the intent is moot. And draftees will have to get shot at – otherwise, as can be seen in cross-examination, there will be no frontline fighters for the military. 8. Cross apply my responses to it. 9. Balderdash. If they're afraid of writing their name, then I don't want them in my military. If they're afraid of getting shot, they won't be a good soldier. And if the CON wishes to give them non-threatening jobs, see cross-examination for why this will fail. 10. I'm responding to the "intent" argument. 11a. And I've rebuilt them. 11.b Yes really. I've shown that if volunteerism fails drafts will do no better. The CON's plan of giving conscripts the easy jobs, benefits, etc. is refuted in cross-examination. 11c. No you don't. Read Hobbes. One's liberties are WORTHLESS in the state of nature because they are not protected by anything. 12. See cross-examination for why this fails miserably. 13. It still proves that the fall of a regime is not necessarily a bad thing for its citizens' natural rights. So your arguments about "last resort" aren't necessarily in the best interest of the citizens. 14. Aha! The CON has now abandoned any attempts to show that a draft has a remote chance of improving the military. He states in the previous speech that he has not argued any success rate because it is an "ends justify the means" approach. While I do not say that ANYTHING that works is just, something that has not worked in the past, has no hope for working in the future, and will AUTOMATICALLY take away more rights than necessary is absolutely unjust. The CON advocates conscription, regardless of its empirical failings, psychological pitfalls, and oppressive, unjust nature. And while his intent may be to "save" a nation, we must recognize that this intent does not give drafts any value as government policy. 15 But that would have happened with any form of conscription, because it stems from the unnecessary violation of liberties. See Paul's evidence. 16a – This point is really irrelevant now, so I won't waste characters responding to it. 16b That would be great, if a) the CON proved that every invasion was a threat to the rights of the citizens (Berlin wasn't) and b) the CON proved that conscription can defend us, which he has not. I have shown that all the CON's clever machinations for integrating drafted personnel would hurt the military as a whole – see cross-examination. Now let's condense things to three main reasons why the PRO win's this debate: I: THERE IS NO REASON TO PREFER CONSCRIPTION TO VOLUNTEER SERVICE The CON's arguments boil down to the idea that conscription ought to be available when all other avenues have been exhausted. But even if that point were reached, drafts would not be of any use. The CON says that conscription=more troops=the capability to stop a threat, but I have shown that this process would cause domestic unrest and incompetence and rebellion within the military, all of which are counterproductive to military victory. The CON's system of easy jobs and benefits offered to conscripts would cause those front-line volunteers to either go AWOL and join as a conscript, meaning there would be no actual "fighting" force, or to rebel themselves and once again hurt the military (as pointed out in cross-examination). Conscription, even as a last resort, would not improve a nation's chances in military matters. II: CONSCRIPTION UNNECESSARILY VIOLATES NATURAL RIGHTS Remember the distinction that a government is permitted to take away ONLY those rights necessary to protect the remaining rights. A volunteer system takes away no rights. A draft takes away many rights and threatens all those that remain. Plus, conscription lessens the military's ability to do its job, meaning these remaining rights, if they really are threatened by invaders, will be jeopardized as well. A draft is outside the jurisdiction of a just government as per Social Contract theory, and since a just government can't do it, it is unjust. III: VOLUNTEER ENLISTMENT WORKS BETTER See my CRITICAL POINT above, where I demonstrate that whether or not rights are actually threatened, a volunteer force's response to them will still be better than a conscript force's bumbling incompetence. Reagan was right. Hitler was wrong. Thus, I firmly urge the judges to vote PRO. Thanks!