The Military Draft should be abolished

== AFF CASE == C1) Rights Violations [Includes R1]. Con claims he has shown that the federal government's rights trump individual rights. The problem with this is that we are not just talking about legal rights issued by the government to its citizens-- we are talking about *natural* human rights. Con's argument from constitutionality only shows that there are some extreme cases in which the government can retract the legal rights it has issued. However, natural human rights such as those of life and liberty can *never* be retracted in the same way; they are extensions of our personhood-- to take them away from someone would be to de-humanize them. Thus, Con's rebuttal simply doesn't hold. I have demonstrated that the military draft is a violation of basic human rights, and Con has failed to show otherwise, instead giving an off-topic rebuttal that only pertains to legal rights. This contention alone affirms the resolution. C2) Utilitarian Critique Con has virtually dropped this contention. In response to my sub-point regarding voluntary armies, he simply says "it didn't always used to be that way", and then goes off on some irrelevant tangent about how a government has the responsibility to protect its people. But what does this have to do with my original argument? I showed that a voluntary army works *better* than a conscripted one-- by avoiding a military draft, the government can fulfill its responsibilities *more* efficiently. Con does nothing to contest my point. Additionally, he does not even mention my other sub-point about the general societal harm caused by the military draft from the social tension it generates. This contention, too, can affirm the resolution on its own. == NEG CASE == R2) Draft Ends War Quicker Con cites the theory of Thomas Hobbes, saying that "it does not matter how the government treats it's people, but as long as they're saffe. " However, Con gives us absolutely NO reason whatsoever to believe in Hobbes' theory, so it cannot serve as sufficient justification for overriding the majority rule of the people. By citing such a thoroughly anti-democratic and dictatorial political philosophy, he simply contradicts his other contentions, which are based in democratic ideals such as Constitutionality and Equality. That, combined with the fact that it is now too late in the debate (final round) to bring up philosophical support for Hobbes' philosophy, leaves Con with no choice but to concede this contention. R3) Draft helps mix Society Con claims that because the government distributes benefits equally to all soldiers after they leave the army, the draft helps mix society. This is completely different from what he initially argued, which specifically pertained to the egalitarian nature of army life. Anyhow, it does not really matter, as this new argument of Con's is defeated by the same rebuttal-- severe wealth disparities are *still* around and have not changed much at all since the last time we had a draft enforced. This shows that the class integration effect of the draft, if existent, is insignificant and does not even come close to outweighing the harm I have showed that the draft creates (i. e. rights violations, unmotivated/resentful soldiers, social tension, etc). == CONCLUSION == Both my contentions have practically been dropped; thus, it has been established that the military draft is a violation of human rights, and that there are significant utilitarian benefits from not enforcing it. Meanwhile, all three of Con's contentions abjectly fail to negate the resolution. The res is affirmed.