Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust.

Round 2! Please refer to the Con's first speech to make sense of my refutation. And please don't think that my capitalized letters are an attempt at yelling – I just use them to emphasize in the absence of bold or italics. DEFINITIONS: Cool. RESOLUTION ANALYSIS: Great, we're in agreement. But I shall elaborate: When I said that "necessity" should not be used as an argument in this debate, what I meant is that it is too vague. For example, the statement "It is necessary to do X to prevent Y," reveals nothing about the nature of why, nor the nature of X, nor any evaluation of whether doing X is worth the protection from Y. If the statement were "It is necessary for me to drown my younger brother so that he no longer annoys me," this may be true – but it is not just. "LAST RESORT: I urge…when it needs conscription." 1. But does this exist? I will need more than a hypothetical situation to justify conscription. Is the maintenance of the nation's status quo necessarily the best situation for its citizens? It wasn't true in Nazi Germany. Does this mythical nation not suffer from lost morale as a result of being forced into mortal peril? One might say by the same token that "Being prejudiced against unicorns is unjust." The issue does not exist, and therefore has no bearing on justice. "Now when I … has pointed out." 2. But they CAN'T look at their options. They don't have the choice. They are forced into a system that jeopardizes all of their rights and one that (in every instance produced thus far) has not protected natural rights any better than voluntary enlistment. And we still don't know enough about this hypothetical nation – including whether it might even possibly exist – to prove the justice of conscription. "Basically, …is quite just." 3. I agree that any scenario when voluntary enlistment is sufficient would be a scenario in which conscription is unjust. The problem is that there is NO situation where conscription is more sufficient than volunteerism. Give me an example of where this happens in the real world, or I will continue to disregard it as unlikely, considering the fact that the evidence presented in the first affirmative shows that voluntary enlistment has always been more sufficient than conscription. "Keep in mind … is certainly abusive." 4. Cool, but I still don't know where (or if) this applies anywhere in the universe. And I'll talk more about what I meant by effectiveness later, since it seems to have been misconstrued (and part of that is my fault). "B. I was going to …See my case." 5. Yes, the government restrains some natural rights, but no, it should not restrain them excessively. Military conscription is the taking away of rights to pursue an end that is no more easily pursued than it was before the rights were taken. The government is permitted by virtually every social contract theory to take away some natural rights, but none of them permit the taking or more rights than is required to maintain the state – which is basically what conscription is. "Re A: Based on my … that conscription upholds." 6. A misinterpretation. While I did state that military conscription violates the three natural rights and is unjust, I did not state that military conscription violated justice ONLY when it violated ALL THREE of them more than volunteerism did. If conscription violated more than volunteerism in any single natural rights category (all other things being equal) it would still be unjust. I apologize for my unclear statement: I only said it because the fact of the matter is that conscription DOES violate all three to a greater extent, even though only violating one would have been sufficient to render it unjust. 7. Wait – the INTENT of preserving natural rights is not enough to make conscription just. Chairman Mao's "Great Leap Forward," was INTENDED to improve the lives of every Chinese person, but led instead to oppression, misery, and a Great Leap Backward. The INTENT of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus was to create a place where Turks could live happily, but it led to civil war, poverty, and severely damaged international relations. Intent does not make justice or injustice any more than the clothes make the man. "Life: Refer back … be considered just.." 8. But every use is an abuse, because no situation exists where it protects rights better than volunteerism. So, even by that standard, conscription is unjust. 9. The "chance" afforded to those selected citizens is ALREADY afforded in the status quo. They can volunteer, so you're not giving them anything they didn't have already – except for a dip in morale which will affect their performance in the military. Also, the status quo is already better for the person and the nation to protect natural rights, as I have shown previously. 10. Again, intent does not make justice. Refer to #7. "Liberty: Very much …of liberty." 11. Because this is very similar, my arguments #8-#10 can be applied. But also remember that there IS a difference between the infringement on natural rights inherent in other laws and the infringement inherent in conscription – namely, that the infringement of natural rights in conscription does not make conscription any more protective of natural rights than volunteerism. The preservation of the greatest possible sustainable amount of natural rights is not anarchy, but the American dream. "Pursuit of Happiness: … an invading nation)." 12. If the draftees get killed, maimed, or psychologically damaged, that will most definitely infringe on their pursuit of happiness. 13. How do we know that their natural rights will be stripped away by an invading nation? Didn't happen when the USA marched on Berlin, as far as I know. In fact, if I recall the opposite occurred. One more proof that "necessity" ignores too much of the facts to be a valid argument standing alone. "Re B: Hold on … resolution analysis." 14. Again, I was unclear, and apologize for being so. When I mentioned that "effectiveness…shall therefore not affect the debate," what I meant to impart was that something that works is not made just by virtue of its success. Looking back, I realize that I unfairly limited the debate on both sides, and some judges may want to hold me to this mistaken proposition. So here's the situation: A. If you accept my clarification here, we can determine that conscription only poses a greater threat to the country, not a greater protection. B. If you do not accept my clarification here, we can still disregard conscription as unjust because it violates more rights than volunteerism does. And (for the sake of preemption) don't let the CON hold me to a standard where no effects can be debated while at the same time debating the effects on his side of the resolution. 15. The Vietnam War – necessary or unnecessary – is still a proof of the failure of conscription to achieve any better results than volunteer enlistment. Whether or not we should have gone there has no bearing on whether or not our successes increased post-conscription. "Re C: This is … that sub point here." OK, then cross-apply my responses. "1) Appeal to pity." But I do not claim injustice BECAUSE of pity; I pity the conscripts BECAUSE of the injustice forced upon them. We should absolutely pity victims of injustice, and attempt to prevent any further injustice. "2) Hey, it's what … obey its rules." But when the government disobeys its own rules by excessively violating natural rights, the social contract as Locke theorized it declares that the citizen has no moral imperative to obey it. "Conscription is … complaining." Conscription is very different, because it tosses liberty to the side when voluntary enlistment is a better method and protects liberty better. Webster cried foul because of this disregard for natural rights. That's it for my speech!