Military Conscription is unjust

Just got out of school yesterday, so I'm fresh for the fight :D Proper definitions: Military conscription: compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service: draft (Merriam-Webster) Unjust: failing to provide a citizen with his or her due (as adapted from Aristotle's philosophical definition) You will prefer my definitions for two reasons: 1. My definitions are sourced appropriately; 2. My definitions are neutral, while the affirmative's subtlely seek to provide abusive affirmative ground. a. The use of the word "coercive" in the definition of compulsory is unwarranted; conscription is only coercive if the state makes it so. The concept in and of itself only applies involuntary, which is not the same. b. Justice, while it can be defined in terms of morality, should not be. Morality does not take into account relativistic issues of cultural mores and ideologies. What is morally acceptable in the US is not always acceptable in France, or Zimbabwe, or China. Hence, the affirmative cannot universally affirm for the concept of conscription if we are seeking to achieve a single moral standard. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neg Advocacy V: Justice: as defined above, justice is giving each citizen of a nation his or her due. Within the framework of international politics and law, a legitimate government provides its citizens with dues such as human rights and their protection, economic and social stability, etc. Therefore, justice becomes an amalgam of many different pieces of the quality of life. C: Fulfillment of the Social Contract: according to most prominent government or political philosophers, an unwritten social contract exists between citizens and the government that seeks to provide protection to those citizens. It is only when this balance of obligations is successful that a nation can remain safe and progressive. Part of this obligation is the proper protection of the state. Hence, in times of great threat or violent conflict, citizens of a state must be compelled, if necessary, in order to preserve any justice that the state can provide. Overview: It must be said, first and foremost, that the negative's burden is not to prove that conscription is categorically just. As the affirmative's definitions point out (though unfairly), coercion may be used by illegitimate states to warp the concept of conscription into something that clearly violates human rights. As this seems to be a primarily philosophical debate, the negative's burden is simply to prove that conscription can, in fact, be a just action when applied as it should be within the philosophical realm. 1: Citizens have a clear obligation and interest in protecting the state. Within a legitimate government, the people are protected by the state which they themselves elected and legitimized. They are protected via regulation, via legislation, via domestic enforcement, etc. At times, they must also be protected from outside invaders who threaten the very core of their freedoms, and who seek to enslave or murder them. When faced with outside invasion, the state is acting in the best interests of the people by enforcing enrollment in the armed forces. If outside invaders do succeed because of a lack of standing militia, then the people's freedoms will be non-existent. Not only that, but citizens have a reciprocal role in protecting their nation. A government cannot function without the support of the people because the government is of the people. If citizens shirk this clear responsibility, then they have failed to hold up their end of the bargain. 2: Voluntary service leads to far more social injustice than military conscription. Consider the US system of voluntary service. The military, in order to attract recruits, offers monetary incentives, as well as opportunities to participate in higher education and extensive travel and vocational training. These are opportunities already afforded to the affluent of the nation, but not to the poorest and most underserved members of society. Hence, we see that, in a voluntary service nation, the state is only protected by the poor and minority groups of the state, and not by all citizens equally. Because the socially underserved have such extremely prejudiced and limited options for escaping their particular circle of poverty, voluntary service is coercive. Military conscription, on the other hand, is far more equitable. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response to Aff Advocacy: On the value: 1. I achieve more justice within the resolution, as "due" implied equity, or fairness. Apply my analysis on voluntary service being inherently coercive toward the lower classes of a given state. This is a key turn to the affirmative advocacy. 2. I also maximize human rights at the point where I protect an entire nation from invasion, eradication, and/or enslavement. The affirmative can only ensure "possible" freedoms, while I ensure real ones. On the VC: The compulsory nature of something does not categorically make it bad. First of all, with the proper training and outfitting, especially in the age of modern warfare, you are far less likely to die in combat. Simply consider the empirics of deaths in WWI vs. deaths in Iraq. But, far more importantly, consider the limitations of options and freedoms presented in the alternative, which is a voluntary service state. Please cross-apply my 2nd contention, and turn this criterion, as I equally distribute the obligation of protecting the state, while my opponent forces the disadvantaged to shoulder the burden of the state's safety. On my opponent's 1: Tag: 1. Again, the compulsory nature of something does not categorically make it unjust. There is no warrant for this claim. In fact, if the state is legitimate, as discussed in my case, then no form of conscription is 100% mandatory. In the US, for example, when the draft was in effect, there were multiple exemptions, including religious exemptions, political exemptions, and joining the National Guard. 2. While necessity does not necessarily justify an action, the negative advocacy doesn't claim necessity. So, look to my case for the justness of the act. 3. Since when can a legitimate state enforce laws that it knows to be unjust? Justice is necessity in a legitimate state, and the affirmative attempting to link somehow to practicality is confusing and unnecessary. On my opponent's A: 1. This is largely unwarranted, and I'd like you to cross-apply my social contract analysis and the fact that citizens have an obligation to protect the state that in turn protects their rights. Certainly an illegitimate state might use fear to force military service on its citizens, but we are looking at the concept, and not necessarily its application. While it is important to examine the empirical nature of an abstract theory, I can bring just as many examples to the table of legitimate conscription as the affirmative can of illegitimate conscription. Hence, the empirical nature of its application is a wash at best. 2. Turn this argument: again, there is more coercion present in a voluntary service model than in a conscription model. Poor and minority populations fear the prospect of remaining socially and economically stationary so much that they are willing to join the military in order to escape such a miserable existence. The affluent escape their obligations entirely, and are able to prosper further because of the protection provided by a standing military. I thank you all for reading, and encourage you to vote Con. I await my opponent's response.