Military conscription is unjust.

Rebuttal 1: Yes, I do base my rebuttal on the idea that all laws force individuals to obey them. If we are to follow his belief that there are ANY laws that are just, then we must surely conclude that conscription, according to PRO, is just. If we are following the idea that conscription is unjust, then it is concluded that all laws are unjust. But since PRO is arguing in favor of there being just laws, then you have no choice but to agree that conscription is just. That said, PRO tries to "prove" that there are some laws which don't force individuals to obey them, but the fact of the matter is that there is a penalty for violating ANY law. PRO says that traffic laws are put down in order to maintain safety. No one is suggesting that no good comes from such a law. However, people are still FORCED to obey the rules of the road. For instance, when driving to work, you can't just decide to ignore all of the red lights and go about your day. For if you do so, you are going to be punished by an authority. Therefore, you don't have any choice (in the context we're talking about), but to stop when you reach a red light. And as for there being no intention to force people to do anything but rather to insure safety and order on the roads, this is simply PRO trying to be a trickster. The intention of laws IS to force people to do something and that is to OBEY THEM. For in forcing people to OBEY the law, safety and order is maintained, hence, you're being forced to help maintain safety and order (even if you disagree). Tie this back to conscription and it's essentially the same. It is a system which is created to maintain the nation's safety and order, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. Rebuttal 2-3: My fair judges, once again, PRO has made a move which will only hurt himself. There are four problems with his rebuttal. 1) At no point does PRO rebutt my actual argument which is that equality has nothing to do with conscription. The idea that congress could simply become less chauvinistic or in fact include themselves as part of conscription was merely meant to portray just how irrelevant inequality is when it comes to conscription. Thus, my argument goes unquestioned. Therefore, you are to agree that PRO's quibble is not a quibble against conscription, but rather the United States' chauvinism/bias as you don't need "inequality" in order to have conscription; inequality or equality, conscription still remains. 2) To pacify PRO for the argument's sake: PRO insists that if we are to have our leaders be a part of conscription in order to promote equality (which, by the way, was his intention since he insisted that conscription wouldn't be just UNLESS the leaders were forced to serve), the country would become unstable. THIS CONCLUSION HURTS NO ONE BUT MY OPPONENT!!! Think about it. I asked PRO to clarify on what he thought justness and fairness was. He insisted that fairness concerned equality and that justness did as well. Also, during the round, he insist that justness is infringed when there is a lack of choice. So what is the problem? At no point is "lack of stability" considered as being unjust (lack of choice or inequality amongst everyone), therefore, I could very well agree that insuring equality would lead to lack of stability, and uphold my side of the resolution. Him suddenly saying that "lack of stability" is unjust is simply no more than the "changing the goal post" fallacy. In other words, he is redefining the definition after seeing that I've refuted his stance based on his previous definition. 3) To pacify PRO even further: Lack of Stability can easily be avoided. During WW2, the US was known to immediately promote lower military soldier to the next level of military soldier every time the military soldier above the aformentioned military soldier was killed. This was very effiecient as contrary to other nations, the US was never in a dissaray when it came to handing out orders as new soldiers were always read to take one anothers place. To link that to conscription, potential candidates from the left over individuals who were not drafted could immediately be promoted to new leaders. Whom these "pre-promotes" were could be determined during the usual elections for the regular leaders. In other words, think of every "head authority" as having a deputy. Every time the head authority was sent off to war, the deputy would take his/her place, only then being eligible for drafting. This would insure both equality and stability. 4) Sex/gender inequality argument is dropped. Rebuttal 4: PRO acknowledges that people do gain from conscription, but the fact that some people lose out still makes it unjust (or in more concise terms, unfair; not everyone experiences the same effect) 1)People lose out ( no one denied this), but people also gain (self preservation as well as the other positive effects that were listed). Saying that some people lose out doesn't do him any good, for if people gain as well, THEN BY HIS LOGIC, we would be obligated to conclude that conscription is neither just or unjust since it is both fair and unfair to people (which would cancel each other out), but neutral on balance, which would lose him the debate as I only have to prove that conscription ISN'T unjust. 2) But to momentarily neglect the above point, I'm gonna go the extra mile and insist that the good that comes from conscription outweighs the bad. If you look back to my first rebuttal during this round, you'll note how I discuss PRO's interest in laws that have the intention of maintaining order and safety. Well, this is exactly the intention onf conscription. When all other defenses fail, the nation's order and safety can continue to thrive through relying on the extra miliatary forces provided by conscription. Not to mention that conscription helps in preventing people from dying, for if there is no other defense left, then enemy nations can easily act in eliminating all of the civilians. Whether or not the soldiers that are part of the conscription forces lose their lives, their actions will greatly benefit in the mission to protect the lives of others. Whereas without conscription in a last resort scenario, not only will these others be put in jeopardy, but the ones who could have been conscripted as well. 3) The purpose of the "mental treatment" argument was to demonstrate that people weren't at "irreparable" (which was how PRO described it) harm. Moreover, easily fixable mental damage is a small price to pay in order to insure the safety and order of the nation. All the same, should we really drastically raise speed limits so that people who sometimes need to make it to the hospital urgently will be more capable? BACK TO MY CASE: PRO's only response to my case is that his 3 arguments that supposedly show that conscription is unjust still remain, but I've refuted all three of those, so don't look to that as being a reason to not consider my case. Furthermore, he is simply saying his points outweigh mine as he never provides an argument as to why his arguments should be upheld moreso than self preservation (he only says my case doesn't prove conscription is just). In other words, he has no argument other than "I'm right because I say so", all the more being reason to dismiss his argument. As for the argument which spawned from C/X, I thought I would be focusing moreso on this argument, hence why I suggested I would elaborate more in the comment section, but what PRO is saying is that you simply look back at the comment section. Well, if you look at the comment section, you should note my arguments as I've not only listed a country which is not currently abusing conscription, but also gone into detail as to why citing other countries does not impact this debate. With that said, I await the next round. REMINDER: No new arguments are allowed. PS: I can vouch for PRO not having forfeited as I during the glitch.