Resolved: Military Consription (drafting) is unjust (LD Rules and Format)

I negate. The order will be standards, NC, AC. - - - - - - - - - - - - - I accept my opponent's definitions. I provide the following standards: The value is morality. Although justice is a good value, the resolution ultimately is posing a question of morality, since both justice and fairness (see definition for "unjust") are measured by an individual or society's ethos of morality, therefore we value morality in this debate. I conditionally accept my opponent's criterion of basic human rights. I clarify, however, that these freedoms include, but ARE NOT LIMITED TO life, basic liberty and property. If we are to accept this criterion, we must assume that the status quo upholds these freedoms in order to maintain evenness between the affirmative and negative. On these grounds, I accept. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contention 1: "A citizen's duty is to protect his society" Social contract theory is simple. When you make the willing choice to join or stay in a society, you are forced to conform to the standards dictated by said society and, more often than not, you have a significant say in what those standards are. An example of this is nudity. Society does not like its citizens flashing their goodies for all to see, so the standard becomes clothing in public. If a citizen does not abide by this standard, they are duly punished by society. Because the citizen stays or joins the society by free will, it is morally just to enforce the punishment upon that citizen and send them to the local nudist's prison or probation, or whatever society agrees. Now lets relate this to the resolution. A citizen is in the society by free will, he becomes legally recognized by the government and it hence listed on the military draft system. This, like the nudist example, is completely just because the citizen has agreed to the standard in society, which in this case becomes drafting. To put it in laymen's terms: "If you don't like it, get out" This impacts to our criterion of basic freedoms by showing that a military draft does not, in fact, force an infringement of any of these rights, which is thereby moral. Contention 2: "Who will get drafted? " Although I have already explained how conscription IS in fact just, we can look at the fact that only a certain amount of the populous will actually be enlisted in the draft. Subpoint A) In every society, there is a determined age where a citizen becomes legally recognized as an adult. It is at this age when a citizen would actually be drafted, thereby proving that children and underdeveloped persons are exempt from this conscription. Subpoint B) Although the majority of societies has a unisexual amount of rights, women have historically, and continue to have, the exemption from the military draft. Although the reasons in some countries are that of discrimination, others are because of family structure and societal stability. Pick any or all of these reasons and you clearly see that women will not be forced to enlist in the draft, although they still may willfully enter. Subpoint C) No matter how desperate a society could be for soldiers, it will always exclude the physically and mentally handicapped because of their inability to competently wield a weapon, or furthermore, fight. Because all three of these brands of citizens are overall exempt from drafting for various reasons, predominately being counter-beneficial to the military or society, you can see that even if negating the resolution does infringe on rights, it happens to a minority of people. By contrast however, affirming will never affect these people listed above. This is enough reason for you to negate, because the affirmative will not, because it cannot, impact to the majority of society. Contention 3: "The draft doesn't risk your life" Since we value human life very highly in this round, it is a key factor to decide weather or not a life is actually being sacrificed or risks sacrifice for the sake of the government. When on a military draft, you are actually available to several jobs, not just the commonly misconstrued infantry frontman. When you are on conscription, you are interviewed and, based on your traits, placed in a certain position. More often than not, this position is affected by your opinion and preference. In the US, during all of its wars, the military even allowed the conscientious observer option, which means that the citizen (for whatever ethical reason) pleads against joining and they are listed on the bottom of the list. They would only be put into the military if push came to shove, which historically has not yet happened. Since the actual act of being drafted is not life-risking or right-infringing, and the draft never actually forces you to perform a task that denies basic freedoms, you negate. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Now on to the Affirmative: 1. He states foremost that a draft violates the citizens right to life, but as you can see in my third contention, this is absolutely false. Cross-apply the Negative C.3 and you see that the affirmative's first point falls. 2. He goes on to contend that negating violates the rights to liberty, but he defines this as "the ability to do as you please" I address this in my first contention. We don't allow citizens to do whatever they please all the time, and therefore this argument is no longer unique and should fall. 3. I don't accept the pursuit of happiness to be measurable in this debate since (only in context of THIS debate,) it is no different from "liberty" in argumentation or impact. Nonetheless, you can see that his third point is false when you look at my first and third contentions, which prove that life is never involuntarily risked in the draft and that a citizen can always become exempt from the draft if they wish, even though it is their duty.