Resolved: Military Conscription is Unjust.

RESOLUTION ANALYSIS: Ah, I see. In that case, I agree. 1a. First, a situation where a country is stripped of all it's other defenses it not hard to imagine, nor is it merely a hypothetical. As for the maintenance of the nation's status quo necessarily being the best situation for its citizens, if by status quo, my opponent means the lives of the citizens in addition to the rest of their natural rights, then yes, it is. 1b. False. Unicorns may not exist in the physical world, but it is rather simple to possess prejudice against "anything", considering that anything is at very least an idea. For instance, I can be prejudiced against "Spider-Man" (as in, I am completely against the character and refuse to read or watch anything the character is associated with), but that doesn't mean I have to believe "Spider-Man" exist as anything more than an idea. The IDEA of Spider-Man exist just as the IDEA of unicorns exist, thus, one is capable of possessing prejudice against both if existence it the criteria for being able to possess prejudice. To add, all prejudice really means is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." 1c. But heck, lets say it is just a hypothetical situation. My response: So what. PRO has burden of proving it isn't just. This would mean that no matter what scenario I was capable of pointing out, he should always be able to show it is unjust. Judging from the scenario I listed, it's apparent that PRO realizes we can consider it just and is simply using his erroneous "you can't use a hypothetical situation" argument as a gambit, realizing that he'd have to accept defeat by going any other route. 2. Apologies. Wasn't completely clear. When I said "The people then have the opportunity look at their options", I was speaking in terms of the effects of agreeing or disagreeing with conscription when it is not being abused. By no means did I mean to dictate that citizens had a choice on whether or not to sign up. As for not protecting rights any better than voluntary enlistment, we must keep in mind that I'm referring to a situation where voluntary enlistment fails. To add, this debate isn't about proving which system is better (to even suggest such contradicts PRO's own resolution analysis). PRO has made it clear that a just government is one which insist upon protecting its citizens natural rights at all times. I've simply provided a means of a government still being able to do this when every other defense fails. 3. False. I gave a situation and that is when voluntary enlistment fails, there's no other defense and the natural rights of the citizens are on the line. As suggested above, I'm not obligated to cite an actual case where such has happened. But even if I were, all the times nations have been conquered after already giving their best effort to defend themselves is sufficient in terms of my ideas being applicable to the "real" world. 4. I've already answered the "real world applicability" point sufficiently, so I guess I'll respond to his "effectiveness" point later. 5. Okay, now PRO's case is starting to sound a bit contradictory. Compare what he is trying to say in this particular point to what I have quoted: "even though only violating one would have been sufficient to render it unjust." He tells you that if a government were to restrain one right, then one could claim it is unjust, but in this point here, he is saying exactly what I based my rebuttal to his case on; he is saying that a government can restrain some rights and still be considered just. If anything, PRO is simply trying to have his cake AND eat it. 6. Re: "I did not state that military conscription violated justice ONLY when it violated ALL THREE of them more than volunteerism did." a)I never even insinuated that my opponent did state such. I don't even recall mentioning volunteerism. b) See #5 as to why this point violates the law of non contradiction. c) To a greater extent? So is PRO now suggesting that both systems are unjust? And how are we to determine what is considered to a "greater extent?" You are NOT to accept PRO's rendering of justice here as he is making it out to be completely arbitrary. #7. Straw Man. I'm not quite sure where PRO salvaged this "intent" argument, but if you look back to my very words, you'll note that I state "True, it may endanger lives, but it is not a system with the intent of taking away lives." This does not equate to saying that "Because this system has the intent of being just, it is just." Rather, I was countering PRO's fallacious claim that conscription kills people, thus, violates the natural right which is "life." #8. Cross apply the first section in this round since PRO is essentially making the same argument. #9. "They can volunteer, so you're not giving them anything they didn't have already have" Incorrect. If they are fearful of signing up for the war but are concerned with defending their own a natural rights, then this overrides any presumptions they may have about war and forces them to protect their lives. Clearly this is quite different than just allowing citizens to sit around worrying about their lives but not possessing the nerve to enlist. I reserve the right to elaborate on this point if necessary. #10. Uh, I guess you can refer back to #7 for me as well. I'm not even certain what PRO is responding to here. 11. a) I've refuted #8-10. b) "there IS a difference between the infringement on natural rights inherent in other laws and the infringement inherent in conscription" Not really. A law is a law. And I don't really need to say this again, but: Conscription is to be used when volunteerism (as well as all other defenses) fails. I'm not urging that conscription be used before anything else, thus this argument concerning which is better leads nowhere when determining whether or not conscription can be justified. c) False. When there is no one in your life to dictate what and how you're to do things, you have a far greater amount of liberty as you're free to do as you please (for the most part anyway as I don't wanna get too technical). Basically, you have the freedom to not have to worry about laws. 12. Who says the draftees have to take up jobs that put their life on the line? There are non lethal jobs in the military. Also, tis better that they defend their rights than allow them to be taken when it comes to a last resort situation. 13. Since WW2 clearly does not abide by my "last resort" argument, attempting to use it against me is pointless. 14. I don't buy this at all and neither should you judges. Even with PRO's "redefining" of what he was talking about, it still boils down to "success rate", which would clearly mean that citing "success rates" of conscription is beyond parameters of this debate. Since I don't accept, I'll simply point out that I've already shown the errors in "B" above, but in addition, I have not once attempted to argue in favor of success rate (which is essentially an "ends justify the means approach) in order to prove that conscription is just. 15. Wrong. Because the Vietnam war wasn't a case of "last resort" ( case where all other defenses failed), PRO can in no way use it's failure against me as his example wouldn't apply to my argument. 16. a) No, Daniel Webster did just this when he was talking about how Mothers end up having to part with their children because of conscription. b)Fortunately, the government isn't excessively violating natural rights. We must keep in mind that we give the government the power to issue out commands so that it may protect our rights. Putting us in a position to defend ourselves when the loss of all our rights (primarily, life) is imminent may restrain liberty (no different the EVERY law does), but in exchange, protects our rights. Hence, by no means can it be considered unjust.