Military Conscription is unjust

I'll use the order my opponent did, with some clean up: Definitions: While I disagree that "coercive" vs. "compulsive" are highly different words with highly different connotations, if my opponent is willing to accept my redefinition, I see no point in pursuing the matter further. Neg Advocacy Neg V: The argument about "each" is irrelevant to the round. "Each" simply implies that justice is provided equitably, and "each" can include the state, as well. The purpose of the case is to prove that all citizens have the reciprocal obligation to protect the state. "Due" implies both rights and duties. Each citizen is due their rights by the government, and is due protection, according to social contract theory. The state is due support from the citizens which formed it, if those citizens expect the state to remain intact. Neg VC: 1. Social contract theory is just as real as any other philosophical theory. In fact, this one is moreso because it is the basis for all modern democratic governments. The social contract exists to protect people, not to compulsorily bind them to the state. Moreover, citizens make the terms of said contract by every law that they sanction through representation and elections. This contract is merely a way to linguistically express a relationship between a government and its people. Take, for example, John Stuart Mills' tyranny of the majority. That theory expresses a relationship between majority and minority populations that has been observed over time. Just because we've named it doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to its name. 2. From what I'm reading, we agree on the burden of the round. All I'm saying is that we default to the philosophical, because the empirical world is a wash. This leaves plenty of ground for both sides. Neg Contention 1: His response 1: Compulsion does not equate to instilled by fear. We are compelled by laws to not commit murder. We are compelled to pay taxes in support of the state. Should we not pay taxes or refrain from murdering people because we are compelled to do so by the state? Compulsion out of obligation is legitimate. If we pay taxes, the government uses those taxes to improve our quality of life and protect its citizens. If we serve equally in the military, same story. His response 2: I have no clue what "cont." means, so I don't really have a good way to address this response. However, since it mentions the real world and empirics, I remind you that my opponent has conceded this to be a philosophical debate, and that empirics are a wash. Each and every state isn't completely dictatorial, either. His response 3 (on domestic enforcement being bad): Besides being relatively incoherent, my opponent is giving an isolated example that doesn't actually prove anything unjust about conscription. He says that domestic protection of the state is bad because history shows us that innovation out of Alexander the Great's societal structure was spread across his burgeoning empire. However, who is to say that the same technologies and revolutionary concepts could not have come out of those "old" societies that my opponent refers to? My opponent assumes that these conquered societies needed to be conquered. Though the conquest happened and progress resulted, that doesn't diminish the right of the state, in general, to protect itself from outside invasion. Legitimate states, as recognized by the UN, have the right to independence and sovereignty. The affirmative advocates destroying that sovereignty. This is an incredibly dangerous advocacy, since it essentially justifies 3rd world colonization if we are to believe that some societies inherently outweigh others, and that to violently conquer them all is the best route to "progress." Neg Contention 2: His Response 1: The affirmative misses the point of the turn, here. I am proving military conscription just via attacking his ideological preference, which is voluntary service. He states this in his own advocacy. Military conscription is inherently more equitable than its only alternative, which makes it just. I didn't stop my analysis at "voluntary service is unjust." He didn't actually address the analysis on military conscription at all. His Response 2: In a society that respects both democratic mechanisms of government and the social contract, what is necessary and what is lawful is what is just to that society. I say this in my RD 1 posting and affirmative clean drops it. Please extend. His Impact Analysis: well, since he didn't actually take out anything in the negative advocacy, disregard. Aff Advocacy Aff V: 1. My opponent doesn't claim voluntary service to be unjust, so don't let him shift advocacy to attempt a win, here. He claims specifically in his RD 1 posting that he is in favor of voluntary service. Also, he can't conditionally affirm by trying to wipe out my ground by saying that "oh, we'll still have the draft, but it's unjust." That nullifies the point of debating in the first place. That, and I give plenty of philosophical warrants linking positive obligation to justice. 2. I do prove military conscription just, since protecting the state is obligatory, hence just. Clearly, my opponent isn't understanding the link between "due" and "obligation." Please re-read my RD 1 posting. 3. My opponent misses the point entirely of "possible" vs. "real." Bottom line: I ensure more exercised rights because I actually protect the state. Aff VC: Please cross-apply my analysis from above on why compulsion does not require fear. Retribution in a certain sense, sure, but not fear. For example, if I murder someone, the law of the land says I answer to the state for my crime. But, no one would call a law against murder coercive. Aff Contention 1: His Response 1a: He didn't disprove anything. Please extend arguments regarding compulsion vs. fear. His Response 1b: My opponent concedes, then, that military conscription is equalizing, since it requires 100% enrollment in the military. This is just because it is equitable, and it distributes the burden of defending the state equally amongst the citizenry that comprise it. My opponent seems to be under the impression that the state and its citizenry are two competing entities. In fact, this is false. They are one in the same. His Response 2: Extend the turn, as it was dropped entirely. Military conscription is just because of its equalizing power with regards to obligation of the citizenry. His Response 3: This is still conditionally affirming, which is a no-no. The whole point of debating the merits of an action are to eventually come to a conclusion about that action. If we decide, for example, that genocide is unjust, but "necessary at times," then what conclusion have we actually come to? I ask you to require the affirmative to actually *defend* his position. His Response 3a: My opponent has a serious misunderstanding of LD debate if he believes that no evidence is required of him. All debates require some sort of evidence, whether it be logical warrants or actual cards. Though my case reflects no cards due to time constraints, it includes sound accounts of philosophical theories, as well as sound logical warrants for all claims I make. I repeat, the direct link from compulsion to fear is not made adequately by my opponent. There's no logical warrant for why all compulsion must be rooted in fear, especially in a government which is maximizing the social contract. As I point out, military conscription is born directly of obligation or duty, which is why it isn't based in fear. Not only that, but I reiterate that laws in a legitimate state, which compel people to act in certain ways, are not considered coercive. Since my opponent hasn't posted any comments, I will assume that this concludes our argumentation. I encourage a strong vote for the con. Thanks for reading!