Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

On whether I need an advocacy or not (first paragraph of aff's RD 2 response): Actually, if I prove that conscription is not slavery, then I have broken your syllogism, which is directly negating the resolution, hence proving that conscription is not unjust. Since you claim that conscription is only unjust because it is slavery, I just have to break that chain to win. But besides that, my rebuttals to your case directly contain my advocacy (which is that conscription is just in that citizens of a legitimate government have a clear obligation to defend the state from outside invasion/attacks). I just didn't see the point in restating it and labeling it a "case," as it was a space waster. Response to 2nd paragraph of aff's RD 2: Unfortunately, as I've outlined, this issue is not "clean and simple," as my opponent states. In fact, the issue of possibly giving one's life to the state in exchange for the state's protection is a highly convoluted issue. Please note that my opponent has nothing to say here about a citizen's obligation to protect the government which furnishes him with the protection his rights (social contract, etc. ). Though one may die in the process of military defense, is that not sometimes a necessary sacrifice to protect the state and its citizens as a whole? A military is a real world necessity: no country gets along without one. The alternative to conscription in times of invasion or severe conflict is a volunteer service, and I've already outlined the complete inequity in that system. Conscription divides a necessary duty to one's state equally amongst citizens, at least moreso than the affirmation's alternative world. On the wealthy not needing to serve in military: Okay, so poor people have nothing better to do than die for the protection of the state? What about underserved minority populations, like some African American or Hispanic populations, who are essentially forced into military service by their desire to quit the poverty into which they were born? My opponent does not address the fact that his alternative also forces people into military service; at that point, the forcing of people is essentially a wash, as I pointed out in round 2. Conscription, as an alternative to voluntary military service, is far more equitable, and therefore more just. Not only that, but the wealthy have just as much of an obligation to protect the nation as everyone else. Legitimate governments are not just of the wealthy people. They are of all people, and therefore all people should be equally responsible for the duties and sacrifices it takes to establish and maintain the state. The chances of those wealthy people dying for their country in CEO offices on the 50th floor is very unlikely… On the right to choose: This isn't about the "right to choose. " In the real world, citizens have obligations which they cannot shirk, such as the obligation to protect the nation in which they live. Certainly- citizens could "choose" to stay home in times of war and not risk dying. If that was the true case, then an invasion would certainly succeed due to the state's inability to defend itself. At the point where the invading nation enslaves the population, or oppresses the population, you won't have most of the rights you had in the first place. Consider the entire African continent for an empirical example of what happens when a nation cannot defend itself from foreign invaders. Not only that, but the voluntary service alternative is equally, if not far more, forcible than conscription. The affirmation cannot escape a world in which we discriminate openly against those who cannot afford a life without committing to military service. For these reasons, I encourage a sound vote for the negation of this resolution.