Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

First, I'd like to address the definition framework. Second, I will present my arguments against my opponent's syllogism. The negative's "burden," if you will, would be to prove this syllogism false. Hence, while I don't technically have an offensive negative advocacy, I don't feel that this debate requires one. If my opponent disagrees, I will provide one in round 2. Conscription: This is clearly out of context and abusive to the negative's ground. Not only is the word choice of this definition particularly non-universal & prejudiced, but motivation is artificially inserted to weigh the debate toward the affirmative unfairly. Hence, I would like to redefine to something far more accurate: Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: A compulsory enrollment of men for military or naval service; a draft. This is more equitable within the round because it accurately describes the governmental act of conscription, and it fairly limits the topic to the subject of the draft. My opponent's definition draws no brightline between Siberian labor camps, for example, and the actual draft, which are clearly different situations. If my opponent wants to link slavery and conscription, let him do it in his case, and not by skewing the definitions to make it so without citation. Military Conscription: Again, apply my above definition instead as more equitable. 1A: 1. Most of my opponent's case arguments are taken from Ayn Rand without citation. While this isn't a reason to negate on-face, I ask that my opponent properly declare his sources in the future. 2. This argument is oversimplified and hyperbolic. The draft does not imply that a person has no right to life. Rather, it utilizes the social contract in order to defend the liberties and rights that a democratically minded state is founded upon. It would be irresponsible of the government not to protect its citizens from outside invasion and enslavement via a standing military, but a government is of the people if it is legitimate. Hence, the army must be of the people. Not only that, but a legitimate government is made up of officials who we vest with the authority to declare war on a dangerous state or to defend a nation if that time comes. If the military is required to preserve a given state, then the citizens should be required to participate in its maintenance. 1B: 1. Conscription, in and of itself, does not entail soldiers as property. In a legitimate government, conscription is merely a clause in the social contract. In fact, if the citizens of a given nation are governing themselves properly, conscription would not be necessary as every citizen would feel a communal responsibility to protect the nation in which he or she lives. While some illegitimate governments may enact conscription unjustly, you are arguing in absolutes. As the negative, if I can prove that countries could use conscription in a manner other than you and Ayn Rand assert, then I've won the debate. So, let's consider the US and slavery for a moment. In the US, African American slaves, for example, were treated as property. Quite literally, in fact. They had no right to vote, no right to property, life, or liberty. However, does a soldier, even on the battlefield, lose his right to all of the benefits of American citizenship? Besides the possible danger to his life (which can technically be said of ANY profession, even a chosen one—think construction, deep sea fishing, police work, fire fighters, etc. ), a soldier retains all of his rights as a US citizen. This is not to say that becoming a police officer is the same as conscription, when it clearly is not. No one is compelled by the state to be a police officer. It merely proves that the possible sacrifice of life to serve a community is not restricted only to conscription, and therefore it cannot be argued that the possible sacrifice of life is inherently unjust, nor does it automatically make a person property of the state. The affirmative fails to link soldiers to property past the fact that they might have to die in battle, which is no evidence of the state's ownership of a man. 2A: 1. Again, the affirmation insists that conscription always entails a dictatorial government forcing people into military service, in which they are doomed to die. This is entirely exaggeration. Since my opponent is arguing conscription as a universal concept, I remind the readers that I need only prove that this concept, in and of itself, does not equate to slavery. And clearly, by examining conscription's role in legitimate governments who recognize the social contract and follow it, we see that legitimate governments use conscription only to defend the rights that have been established within a state by defending against outside aggressors. This is the state's job, and if the state is comprised of its citizenry, then its citizenry has an obligation to chip in. This would, obviously, include military service. At the point where the state is under-resourced, either people must be compelled to protect their own rights and the rights of the community, or the state perishes. 2B: 1. I'm not sure I need to respond to this, since my opponent makes no specific scriptural reference, but I challenge my opponent to find this passage and actually relate in it any way to the proper conception of conscription. If my opponent would like, I will detail for him how many people are held unequal in the Bible, though I find it useless to the debate at hand, as the Bible is Christian mythology, rather than a text on governmental workings or motivation. While I will admit the importance of Christian doctrine in informing many governments and constitutions, the direct link of slavery or equality to the Bible doesn't really provide offensive ground for the affirmative. 3 all: 1. First of all, conscription has opt-outs. National guard service, religious exceptions, and documented anti-war or pacifism exceptions are only a few. I would not characterize a legitimate state's use of conscription as completely non-consenting, "unspeakable martyrdom. " Second of all, as I have stated on numerous occasions in this round 1 post, the affirmation's descriptions of conscription do not speak to the whole of the concept. In a legitimate state, not only is the conflict engaged in or declared by the people or representatives of the people, but the social contract strongly implies that citizens have an obligation to help protect the state if the state is founded by and made up of its citizens. To refuse to help defend your state is akin to withholding the resources that a state requires in order to remain a viable state. If that state is the state that has freely awarded you the rights you have, then you have an obligation to help protect it. 2. In fact, you can turn most of my opponent's arguments on the obligation argument alone: a conscription, in general, equally distributes the weight of protection of the state amongst citizens as a whole, rather than a volunteer service with incentives, such as what most first world militaries practice today. This leads to a phenomenon of a military comprised of socioeconomically abused soldiers, as they are the only ones that need the incentives in the first place. Hence, the elite remain out of military service more often, and the burden of military service is shouldered by the poor or disadvantaged. Because my opponent's syllogism clearly fails to prove that conscription, as a concept, is akin to slavery, and because conscription is logically more equitable in times of conflict than volunteer service, I urge a strong Con vote. Thank you, and I await my opponent's response.