Should conscription be introduced into Australia

===Refutation of Pro's Case===Isolation. This point does not prove all that my opponent must prove in order to uphold the resolution. This is because he has failed to support the presupposition that a full scale invasion of Australia would be over in three days. No link to a credible source projecting the outcome of an invasion was provided by my opponent, we're simply supposed to take his word for it. This is unacceptable though. If credible evidence is not provided for my opponent's conception of how quickly an invasion would take place (or how long it would take for a substantial response by Australia's allies would take), then his entire point of Australia's isolation from the rest of the world is moot.AESAN Alliance. My opponent has also failed to provide sound reasoning for why the AESAN alliance would even want to invade Australia. While it is certainly true that Australia would provide a place to temporarily alleviate present population problems, my opponent overlooks the negative incentives inherent in an invasion of Australia. The first and most obvious being that if the AESAN Alliance is to take over and maintain their takeover of Australia, they will inevitably have to deal with Australia's allies. One of these Allies is the United States, home of the world's largest military. Australia was a party to ANZUS, binding themselves and the U.S. in defensive matters. If Indonesia were to maintain their control of Australia, they would need to be able to stand up to the U.S.' attacks, however this seems unlikely in that the U.S. accounts for 41% of world military expenditures with China accounting for 8.2%[1]. In fact, all of Asia and Oceania only account for 20% of overall military spending in the world with the U.S. alone almost doubling that[1]. Couple this with the fact that China is currently just as dependent on trade with the U.S. as the U.S. is with China and it becomes clear that an invasion of Australia would not be profitable under any Indonesian cost-benefit analysis.Manpower. My opponent's last point is that sheer manpower of the Chinese army. Based on the (unsourced) figures my opponent provides, the Chinese military employs almost 15x as many people as the entire population of Australia. It would appear my opponent has just made a point in my favor though. Even if the Australian were to conscript every single member of the country, Australia would still be outnumbered 15 to 1. My opponent even admits that "an invasion of such scale would mean inevitable defeat". With such a bleak outlook as this it escapes me why my opponent would support such an inhumane practice if its effects would only be marginal.===Con Case===Contention I. Self Ownership.Conscription clearly violates the generally held principle of self ownership. Under self-ownership, the only legitimate owner of a person's body is that person themselves. This same argument is the reason why slavery now appears abhorrent to the majority of civilized peoples[2]. The idea of owning another human being goes against our deeply held convictions and the only reason that conscription appears acceptable to any is because the government is generally divorced from the standards which we apply to everyone else. Why though? The government is merely an institution made up of regular people. If it would not be permissible for me to go to my neighbor's house and conscript him to do my laundry, one exhibits wild inconsistency in thinking it permissible for a government to do essentially the same thing.Contention II. Political and Religious Liberty.The second point I would like to make is in regards to the freedom that many in the civilized world enjoy of being able to hold political and religious beliefs on their own without normally being forced to break those beliefs by the government. Obviously minor exceptions do exist. However, it would be going against the very concept of free thought entirely to conscript people against their religious or political beliefs. Consider the anarchist, someone who opposes all government war irrespective of cause. To conscript him would be to deny him his right to political conscious and by extension would deny all Australians the right to political conscience. The Australian government in employing conscription would basically be saying that only political or religious views of one kind (those which support war) are acceptable.Contention III. Moral Nihilism.The third, final, and (I think) most substantial argument against the resolution is the incoherence of the term should. The resolution properly read says that there exists a moral obligation or duty to impose conscription in Australia. However, this term presuppose the existence of objective morality, the existence of objective obligation or duty. However, there is much reason to believe that such a thing does not exist. The impossible gap between determining how a State of affairs ought to be from how it merely is[3] and the seemingly definitional fact that values are inherently subjective all give one reason to think that morality is a mere figment and not objectively binding. If this is true then the term should in the context of the resolution is incoherent and the resolution is unaffirmable.===Sources===[1] http://www.globalissues.org...[2] http://www.fff.org...[3] http://personal.bellevuecollege.edu...