Resolved: The US should implement a military draft

I'm afraid there may be some miscommunication so far as your stance on this goes but nevertheless. .. "There are several reasons why I think, as many do, that the United States should not reinstate the draft. " Good wording, I agree. "1. It would be illegal. The Constitution forbids Congress to send conscripts off to fight an undeclared war, or to conduct a peacetime draft. The theory here is that while Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress to "provide for the common defense" and "raise and support armies," the framers simply meant to establish a professional army, composed of volunteers. Not draftees. Besides, Iraq and Afghanistan are undeclared wars. " Not necessarily, this may be helping my case but you must also realise that if Congress decided to word it how they wished, it would seem almost necessary to implement a draft. That does not mean we should. Don't get me wrong, I agree with my opponent insofar as the concept. "2. A weaker argument, but still valid, is that it would violate the 13th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution, which abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude, and establish due process - In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. But Supreme Court rulings are subjects to their time periods. It is not an unfounded assumption that this issue is seen differently today. " Bad argument, I wouldn't use it. the 13th and 14th say, essentially, that everyone is equal and that due process must be set. However, due process is subjective. "3. Warfare has changed – There is no longer a need for massive human cannon fodder. Maybe in Napoleon's time, or even in Vietnam (debatable) but no longer. The military is high-tech, with battlefields controlled from 1000's of miles away. We have a more mobile force and a superiority in weapons and technology that is unrivaled. " I agree. "4. It would lower morale – one of the most important attributes to an effective fighting force. The strength of a volunteer is their heart to do what they are doing – THEY WANT TO BE THERE. With a draft come people who would do their best not to be there, or are ineligible. ( Be it Conscientious Objectors, students, dodgers, or valid medical cases) The Vietnam War shows us this – besides being a most unpopular war, and the first time America "lost", over 500,000 draftees dodged the draft, and 70,000 of these went to Canada. " Again, I agree. I would also like to point out that the US military is notorious for a specialized army, not a large standing army. Cannon fodder is about the gist of what a draft would be. Also, troop morale plays a large role. One may argue that Stop-Loss is a negative and is, in essence, a draft but a soldier signs a contract saying that they may be subject to stop-loss. Draftees are also paid less. Many people join the army for financial security. In addition, Draftees would need to be trained by a specialized official. That would take twelve of their eighteen month tour time. Most draftees, thereafter, would drop out. That's 4 billion dollars (According to the New York Times) Wasted on training. Let us review my contentions. 1) I am in almost complete agreement with my opponent. 2) We are known for our specialization (i. e. a navigator of the Mississippi River wouldn't be called to navigate the Euphrates. ) 3) Draftees are paid less 4) It would be a gross waste of money on training troops who will most likely drop out after their first tour. I thank my opponenet for conceding to the resolution and urge a firm CON ballot.