Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Greetings to my opponent, Jokerdude. I look forward to this debate. May the most flawless logic compellingly prevail. I plan on first making my own claim against the resolution, and then rebutting against each contention made by my opponent. I am negating the resolution that "military conscription" is unjust. Therefore, I argue that it is not unjust. I am not experienced with the specifics of LD debate tournaments; however, I assume that I can contend (rather than explicitly complying with) the definition initially provided by my opponent. I would like to say that military conscription does not have to include teens, and that it should begin after undergraduate education, at the least. POINT 1: Socialistic functioning and ethics. Statement: A society will be defined as a collective group of individuals having a specific organization and rules. Reason: Given. Statement: There are many, many different societies in the world. Reason: The world has many "collective groups of individuals having a specific organization and rules." Statement: Ethics are defined as the philosophical study of values and rules, right and wrong, applied to a society. Reason: Given. Statement: Ethics are determined by the collective society. Reason: Ethical values, applying only to a single society, reside in the only ones being affected by the ethics. Statement: The only ones being affected by the ethics are the individuals in the specific society itself. Reason: See definition. Statement: Each society may have differing ethics. Reason: Each society has the potential to have differing individuals (people who decide ethics). Statement: Military conscription is an "ethical" issue. Reason: By definition, it is either right or wrong. Statement: Military conscription has the potential to be just. Reason: The potential exists, as a specific society may derive, on their arbitrary ethical scale, that military conscription is indeed just. It is up to each society to ultimately decide its role, and therefore, this validates such a potential. Statement: The resolution states "Military conscription is unjust." Reason: Given. Statement: The resolution is explicit, meaning that the instigator must prove that military conscription is indeed unjust (and therefore cannot be just). Reason: Semantics. Statement: The resolution is evidently false. Reason: The resolution, inferring that military conscription cannot be just, leaves no room for the potential for it to indeed be just, in any circumstances. However, as evident in preceding statements/reasons, such a potential does exist, therefore invalidating the resolution, effectively making it false. POINT 2: Governmental decision-making. Decision-making and law establishment set forth by the government creates rules. The major role of the government can be defined as protecting its society, as well as providing for its society to ultimately aid in its amelioration. The government should, ideally, act in a manner that would best serve the collective society as a whole. Of course, it is ideal to have public input regarding decision-making at the governmental level. However, ultimately, the government legislates, enforces, and interprets the laws made. POINT 3: Patriotism. Military conscription would improve patriotic values more readily. Essentially, promoting patriotism would be beneficial, as it exemplifies support for the country. Such behavior is altruistic, willing to help assist others with no direct beneficial effect on the altruist. Ultimately, patriotic values help to bring about greater action of the collective in general. It establishes more grounds for trust between individuals in the society, as they are all focused upon a common cause to better themselves, and perhaps life itself. POINT 4: National protection. Military conscription would easily bring about more military personnel (hence its designed purpose). More military personnel mean that there are more people to help defend a society. In case of the need to engage in any type of warfare, a military would be large enough to combat unforeseen problems, preparing itself in case of emergency. POINT 5: Character attributions. Military conscription, leading to national service, would likely ameliorate character, building appropriate chain of commands, higher levels of trust, greater effort, teamwork, self-discipline, and elevated respect for authority. Such character is necessary in the military, later in life, as well as the workforce. POINT 6: Beneficial service to the community. It is appropriate for everyone, as a part of their collective society, to help serve their society in order to better it, and keep it functioning within normal parameters. A society, by definition (see above) is composed of individuals. It is therefore the responsibility of the individuals to form an effective and functioning society. In order for a society to be effective, it should have an effective defense system. As stated, the defense system would be more protective if there were a larger number of people to serve. A larger number of people to serve would be accomplished via military conscription. Such duties (ha) would be beneficial to the society. The military does not entail only fighting, combat, and weaponry. Rather, it also entails scientific research and such. Therefore, pacifists would also have another option, other than engaging in combat. It would seem logical to implement such military conscription. If any one of the points in which I have extrapolated is indeed valid in proving the resolution to be false, I, logically, win. I plan to rebuttal against the arguments of my opponent. "It has been realized by people 30 years ago that this is a bad idea." I would agree that there might have been some flaws 30 years ago. However, a more ideal system could be generated at the current. Military conscription does not mean fighting or combat, necessarily. Rather, scientific research or medical care for various branches could be considered viable alternatives. If the choice were given to citizens of the society, they could pursue what best suits them. Military conscription can vary from the conventional. Perhaps only volunteers could serve in other countries, allowing more leniency for those serving compulsory service (similar to a policy in the Swedish armed forces). "The Federal government has no right to mandate that citizens should have to go into the military. Under the Constitution we have the right to do as we choose so long as we don't infringe upon other peoples rights." First, as mentioned previously, the government, presiding the society, has an obligation to do what is right for the society as a whole. Secondly, an analysis of Locke's Social Contract theory implies, "people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order." In order to preserve social order, for the well being of the society, the government ought to implement military conscription. National defense ought to be prioritized. If my opponent's claim regarding the constitution were true, it would be optional to attend grade school. However, the government has realized that education is a necessity for the country, and thus, made it compulsory. The same ought to be likewise for military conscription. http://en.wikipedia.org... "There are other things to do to benefit the US in a positive manner then fighting in a war." Of course, there are many ways to help society. However, military conscription does not need to deprive people of other benefiting professions. Perhaps military conscription could be applied to mandate a lesser amount of time for serving, such as 1 year, or even less. Once completed, citizens could honorably resume their course of educational study. Cheers, Oboeman.