Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust.

1a, 1b, 1c 3: -Alright, PRO utterly drops his points concerning why my case is illegitimate ( hypothetical argument), thus you can't vote against me for those reasons. - I've been repeatedly insisting that all laws restrain liberty. Given that there's no real resistance (at least to the level PRO ASSUMES would come into play for those were conscripted) going on in the US right about now, this notion is clearly false. I don't have to concede on his argument that conscription causes unrest in the military. As shown in cross examination, I provided measures that would deter these instances of "unrest" actions should they have the chance of occurring and without negating the system which is conscription. RE: CRITICAL POINT: Indeed, I shall agree that this is a critical point as PRO has just accepted defeat. We must keep in mind that HIS BURDEN is show that conscription IS unjust (no ifs or buts). If he is going to agree that I've shown there is some justness to it, then YOU SHOULD VOTE HIM DOWN AUTOMATICALLY and stop reading when I finish this sentence; his job was to show that conscription is incapable of being just. A. Nope. Keep in mind that even as suggested by PRO, we aren't dealing with an anarchist society, thus, if military victory is indeed best for the citizens, the citizens shall turn to the government when it concerns what means ought to be used in order to achieve the goal of the citizens B. Nope. We must keep in mind how I defined last resort. It was a situation where the nation would obliterated or by any other means compromised entirely. Citizens being treated at the hands of invaders is not the scenario I had pointed out, ergo, PRO's argument doesn't answer mine. 2. As I've explained many (MANY) times, conscription should only be used as a last resort (when volunteerism fails). My argument is not "Oh, we should just always use conscription and throw the idea of volunteerism out of the window. " Thus, while using his example, it would be like a parent (who has family whose survival relies on the parent bringing home the bacon) having no other career option BUT to enslave an ethnic group. Since PRO's example seems a bit "out there", I'll provide a more adept comparison. Let us say a single mother cannot get a job anywhere (whether it be for criminal reasons, prejudice, or her location) and has children who desperately rely on her income for survival. Looking at all of her options, she notes Both jobs require customers to violate the law, ergo putting them in a situation where the government would have to restrain their rights, not to mention both of these careers are generally considered "immoral. " However, she would still be saving the lives of her children (securing their rights). Note that while using this example, I never once have to compare "prostitution/drug-dealing" with a white collar job. Ergo, my opponent's attempts to center this debate around "volunteerism vs conscription" are meaningless. 3. PRO has done no such thing. He tried arguing about the "effects" of conscription, but not only did I show how his argument was irrelevant due to the argument I made, that his sources (the wiki artical and the nzhistory link) that makes no mention of his claims (see C/X in comment section), that these problems aren't actually caused by conscription (again, note during C/x how I show that the "problems" he pointed out can be solved while still maintaining conscription), but his argument also contradict his own resolutional analysis which he created during R1. I've shut down his points in 1A, so bother looking. 4. Ditto for me. 5, 6n. Look back to how I quoted him in R2; look back to how he said that just violating ONE right would be sufficient to consider something unjust PERIOD. Thus, when he acknowledges that volunteerism still violates some rights, he should be saying that it is unjust. 6a. Dismiss. 6. c. PRO's ignores my question as I asked how we were to objectively determine "greater extent. " Rather than answer, he simply repeats himself with the whole "conscription violates less rights than volunteerism" bit. 7. a) If one is pulling someone else off the street so that they can go get shot at, then that is pretty much saying that the intent is relevant (keywords: TO get shot at). b) See the benefits I point out for relying less on front line tactics in C/X 8. Ditto. 9. Horse radish. Part of the purpose of 12 months of basic training (as is for any draftee) is to get rid of such fears, so if that is PRO's only problem with this point, consider my argument as still standing. And I've refuted him in C/X too, so don't go looking there either. 10. I didn't label anything as #10 in the first round, so again, I have no clue what he is talking about. 11. Looks pretty torn down to me. Upon walking in, I nearly fell through the floor. 11. b Again, CON relying on C/X does him no good. 11c. This doesn't refute my position, so I'm not sure why PRO says "No it doesn't" when he still agrees that liberties aren't restrained in a state of nature (even according to Hobbes). In addition, David Hume gave Hobbe's the stomping he deserved, so I'll just cite: 12. You mean see it for why it succeeds happily. 13. Given that the USA is still functioning, it proves no such thing. And my arguments about last resort specifically say "a situation where the nation in question is at risk of being obliterated or by any other means compromised entirely. " I'm pretty sure it is within the citizen's best interest not to be obliterated or compromised entirely so this rebuttal of PRO's doesn't fly no matter how you look at it. 14. Aha . . . no! a) Although I didn't have to, I decided to entertain PRO's effects arguments during C/X, thus a clear false dichotomy on PRO's part. b) So because PRO uses ONE example where using conscription did not produce a positive result (although incidentally, one could argue that the US's attempts were doomed to failure in the first place), that automatically proves that it will NEVER work in the future. How about Thomas Edison? After his first attempt to create the light bulb failed, that proved that he had no hope of creating a light bulb in the future as we all know that light bulbs don't exist. 15. a) Under last resort stipulations, the US would not have been able to use the draft for Vietnam (the US's participation in said were not even remotely out of last resort, so Vietnam falls under the category of "abusive" conscription) so this is wrong. b) I've yet to see whatever "research" Paul is using and most certainly haven't seen any from PRO. 16. a) My point is about as relevant as PRO citing the speech in the first place. Judge as you wish here. b) 1)See #13. 2) Simply refer back to C/X or the other times where I've countered this during the round. RE: PRO's voters: I: a) My response to this is point 3 verbatim. b) Refer to C/X c) Who said the front liners don't get benefits? See C/X for clarification. II. a) This debate is not about comparing volunteerism to conscription (see Point #2 for why such a comparison is a waste of time). b) PRO yet again contradicts himself as even in this round, he has admitted that a volunteer system DOES take away rights. c) As I've shown, conscription merely restrains some form of liberty. It removes no other rights. III. Check out my response to it. VOTERS: 1. PRO has failed to fulfill his burden. He even admits that at most, I've shown that conscription is ambivalent in spite of the fact that his burden excludes being able to come to such a conclusion. 2. Through refuting PRO's arguments on effects (even though I didn't have to, thus, you should ignore them anyway), there is no reason for you to believe that conscription wouldn't work. 3. Since I've shown that making comparisons with volunteerism is irrelevant, you have no reason to consider conscription unjust.