The USFG should abolish the Draft.

Opening Argument My reasoning for calling your label of conscription as a form of public enslavement was defended by the American social contract where the benefits of living in the Republic would one day, hypothetically come at the cost of blood when the nation needs it. If the person has no intention of joining a war which would require conscription, they can simply renounce their citizenship if they were born into it. They have the ability to renounce citizenship in a time of defencive war, and the option to join a college or university before responding to a draft notice [1]. I noted the current system of conscription that the United States has in place which is only as a contingency plan which became a point that was not refuted by you in your argument for Round 3. There is relevancy which you failed to acknowledge when I stated that the Selective Service was for an unprecedented hypothetical war that would require a draft (Refer to Source 1) in order to meet the standards to actually win a war. Pro stated that I refuted the efficiency standard of the volunteer army which is not true. I had only stated against your claim that with the example of the conscription service of the USSR, it was a proven necessity in order to win the Second World War on the Eastern Front. You did not refute my backed argument that it was a mass of forced and bloody drafts that saved the Allies from the Axis. Your research source can be properly labelled as bias. The document which you had provided offered no real evidence other than assumptions and simple factual statements in which their meanings were warped and could be subjectively considered as immoral and wrong. Another argument which I had made which you refused to acknowledge or refute was the emotional 'Heat of the Moment' per se, in which fear decides the actions of a person. I made an example of World War II where the draft services of multiple Allied nations was the saviour in battle and I'll make a second example through World War I. The British Empire needed Vassal states to give up their men in order to fight the Central Powers in WWI and instituted a conscription service due a severely weak lack of volunteers joining in the Royal Forces. If it was not for the forced conscription instituted by the British Empire, WWI would have been a much more gruesome, longer, and deathly war where more lives would have been lost [2]. Another World War II example of conscription being needed in order to take down the enemy who was willing to sacrifice much more for their totalitarian regime would be the Indian Army who refused to provide the proper numbers of volunteer soldiers to sacrifice their lives on the line for the fate of Europe [3]. The conscription service for India managed by the British Empire was a credited sway in order to actually give a stronger push for the turning point in WW II. Pro states that it is a form of slavery to fight for your government. It is not slavery, as I argued before, it is defending the people and sacrificing individual interests in order for the greater good. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." . If a nation was to surrender their ideals simply to uphold the temporary libertarian values they so stood for in order to work against the intruding enemy, the ideals would collapse upon themselves because they could not tolerate being temporarily restricted as an investment in order to keep them in the long-run. There are moments in which you need to sacrifice your rights when the surrender of your nation is imminent and you need the forced labour in order to uphold the foundation of your country. I have proven this twice with both World Wars and you failed to refute my claims in the previous round. "Furthermore, contracts are not valid if they are signed under coercion. Therefore being forced to sign this contract in exchange for basic rights of citizenship would not be valid under most legal standards. " can be very misunderstood. It is not coercion as I said before, because you aren't forced to sign the contract and you can destroy your citizenship in the time that war is near and you feel the urge to flee the nation. You also state that it would not be 'valid under most legal standards'. What legal standards? There are no international articles written by the United Nations, Geneva Convention or any other organization that deals in warfare that bans or constricts the need for conscription.Rebuttals and ArgumentsRothbard's statement is not relevant to the current time and the issues in warfare, today. Rothbard was targeting the controversially aggressive tactics that the United States was using and their unnecessary drafting policy in peace time and wars in which the American homeland was not in danger. The argument in which I am building is that the defencive contingency plan of the Selective Service is a necessity in order to prepare for any war where the battlefield will take place on American soil (Refer to Source 1).Pro states that my argument in the event of a defencive war-time where the war is taking place inside American borders is a fallacious statement. "Blood will be needed in return for the benefits the Republic gave" is not an assertion. The current American social contract states that "I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law." [4]. It can be found in multiple federal documents and orally such as the Oath of Allegiance and the American naturalization form of USCIS N-400. Pro states that I manipulated the argument which is not true. I stated before, I'll state again with the sources I provided previously that the American Selective Service is a defencive contingency plan. You provide no sources to back up your claim that the draft applies to offensive combative measures or do you provide sources where volunteer armies have successfully been in a defencive war and protected their country. I have with my example in WW I and my other 2 examples in WW II. Pro states that "the state exists to protect our rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)." which is *not true when other federal documents suggest otherwise, including the American constitution. *I place the asterisk because my opponent subjectively and persuasively makes her own interpretation of American libertarian values when the libertarian political spectrum is nothing more than a philosophical-social concept while the concept of war is not. Pro makes a second statement to her argument stating that we are not bound to any country and do not need to agree with the nation's conflicts. If this statement was applied to in the World Wars where each individual is looking to save their own backs and turns away from the war by cowardly fleeing in order to protect their lives, than the wars would be lost. The Selective Service is defencive, as I said so with sources before and before and before, and that if not for the forced conscription in order to defend the same libertarian principles which you are listing, the Axis would be oppressing more than the toleration your image is conceiving. Pro states that I also fabricated my 'Investment' statement, which is not true. I was trying to explain how temporarily restricting rights in order to make sure the enemy doesn't permanently oppress it is a worthy 'investment' to preserve the liberal values you treasure. She also states that she did not choose to become a citizen, which is not true. She was born a citizen, but at the time she became self-aware, she had and still has the option to destroy her citizenship and with it, the chances of being drafted. My opponent also states the argument of Japanese internment. This is not relevant to the argument. What the American federal government did was in breach of the constitution, but the draft is not, as it is stated in levels of documents that are equally ranking to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. My point? We have allegiance to our country. Pro has started to make argument that are entirely subjective naming things such as immorality and individual interests, destroying the unification that 4000 years of civilization has attempted to make. When everyone is looking out for themselves, and not each other in the synonymous Selective Service and defencive contingency plan it makes, the authoritarian principles of assured stability at the cost of the artificial concept of 'God-given rights' is factually righteous, and proven effective against the theories which my opponent is fabricating. Pro's argument in the following paragraph of her argument completely ignored my point of the targeting of the American draft to 'vacuum' the most undesirable and least successful of society. My opponent finishes her argument with quoting Ayn Rand, the extreme libertarian, once again without properly refuting my argument of the concept of human rights properly, other than marking it as an 'illegitmate claim' without foundation. Her conclusion states that she has proven everything in her argument which is fallacious. Half of what she had listed was subjective and politically biased without foundation. ConclusionI've backed up my historical examples, philosophical rebuttals and factual arguments of the conscription service being a necessary contingency plan in order to prepare for the worse and depending on the people is a lack of judgement as contemporary history has proven twice. Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.bl.uk...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)I'm glad I was able to debate with Danielle, one of the most prominent figures here in DDO. Thank you for this challenging debate.