Military Conscription is Just
Resolved: Military Conscription is Just
I am arguing to affirm.
select winner/6,000 characters/4 rounds
Resolved: Military Conscription is Just
I would like to thank my opponent for sending out this challenge and I wish him luck as this debate progresses.
Contention 1: Individual Rights
1) People as a Means, not an end
In a civilized society, we as humans must live together peacefully. One key issue is that we should move to create a Kingdom of Ends. The Kingdom of Ends is where people are treated as an end of themselves, not a means . This is important as it is part of the soceity that we should strive to as it maximizes human equality and the ability to live together peacefully. The Kingdom shows that many people can live together under common just laws as they are able to live as ends instead of means. At the End, they are able to live together as citizens in this Kingdom to be treated as ends and this will lead to an equality through individiual rights . The Draft violates the Kingdom of Ends as it forces rational beings into the military to serve their country. These individuals are being forced against their will to preform a task that does not treat them as an end. This makes the draft an unjust law as it violates the rights of Rational Being and destroys the ability to fully establish the Kingdom of Ends.
2) Objectivism, the Right to Life.
Dangers that occur with the draft is that they attempt Altruism where they abridge the rights of the individual for the gains as a whole . One thing that is over looked is that without the individual, there can be no society. Each man has the right to life, where they have control of their own destiny. The Right to Life must be acknowledge as it spurs people to do and create an innovative world where they could even make it a safer one. The draft, on the other hand, abridges this right as the State takes control of the individual for the draft and forces them to preform whatever task that the government so chooses. By enforcing these people to do as the government wants enforces Involuntary Servantude upon all individuals where they have to serve in the military against their own will . These individuals face death or potential injury where they would not have if they had the right to control their own lives. This creates an image that the individual is disposable making it a harmful world.
Contention 2: Draft harms Soceity
1. Harms the military
When we look at the generally military we must observe how it is affected by such an investment. Instituations as well as Top military officers have noted that when comparing these two groups, that a force of voluntiers is way better than those who have been drafted, forced against their will, into the military. "The all-volunteer force has had immense success in drawing highly motivated individuals... America's military leadership is adamantly opposed to instituting a new draft. The generals and admirals argue that a draft would weaken mission capability and create enormous structural and management problems. Morale and force cohesiveness would suffer intensely, particularly with a two-caste military. " This kind of system in the military shows that there is a strong opposition amongst military leadership that this will create this system in the military that harms those who were drafted into it, which would later alienate those who had been in the military previously.
2. Harms the Family Unit
This is continously pulled against as a key example occured in World War 1, where 17 million people who were registered for the draft were able to pass tests for the draft, but 8 million filled for exempt status , showing that nearly the majority strongly pushing against it in anyway they can. Several draft riots have occured throughout US history due to the harm of the family. Many of these riots have turned bloody as generally the lower class and minorities tend to be sent off to the military in the draft while the rich are exlcuded . The issue occurs when the women in the family have their husbands have to leave to go into the military and have an increased chance of death severally harms themselves, but also their household income. From the Civil War to the Vietnam War, the widows have been put into poverty. To make things worse. The draft has been shown to increases crime rate by 4% .
2. Stephen Palmquist "'The Kingdom of God is at Hand!' (Did Kant really say that?)", History of Philosophy Quarterly 11:4 (October 1994), pp.421-437.
4. Ron Paul (2009), On Reinstating the Draft, house.gov,
6. Groupman, Alan. "Should the United States Reinstate the Draft?" Retired Officer Magazine July 2000: n. pag. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Thank you Lannan13 for your argument.
I would like to note that before I start that I will attempt to get through all the debate arguments this round. Some may seem a bit choppy, but this is so I can get to each with the assigned character limit.
For this section I'm grouping my opponent's two arguments together for the sake of space.
My opponent groups together a case and states that the individual has to serve due to the state for protection and such, but my oppoent makes a series of mistakes in his argument. First is that of Humme's Law, by the natural assumption of what "is" is ought to be. He does this by simply accepting that since the draft simply exists in real life and links it to being a contract, which I'll get into soon, makes it just. This is simply not so as there is no other reasons argued in it that show that conscription is just outside of him arguing that these people live in a nation. In some nation's, people do not have the barganing power that my opponent speaks of. The vagueness of the resolution can apply to a nation ran by a dictator where the people have zero barganing power and it would not actually be applicable under this set of arguments my opponent has put forth and henceforth, making it unjust.
Not all contracts may include the freedom to bargin. One side may have more bargaining power over the other. On example, using my opponent's definition is that Germany had elected Hitler to power, trusting his policies that he would put forth. Hilter then went on and created many devistating things that happened to the Germany people, the Holicost. My opponent's argument simply states that as long as it is an agreement between +2 parties and freedom is there, it is just. The political freedom was there in the election and many of the NAZIs supported this plan, so the support and negoiating power was there, but many people were killed under this for reasons seen "just" by the government though they were crimes against humanity. The same can be seen with the draft as we send countless thousands into the military off to their deaths like in Vietnam when a great portion of the nation was against it, but didn't have the power to change it.
Contention 1: Indivdual Rights
1. People as an ends not a means.
My opponent claims that this would be unjust since the society would not be recieving anything in return, but this is false. The soceity would be under a contract, but at the microlevel. Each individual would have a contract with other individuals to not violate the Kingdom of Ends. This is still a contract and is just under my opponent's argument. This means that this argument holds and the draft is unjust due to the violation of the Kingdom of Ends.
My opponent brings in a quote, but the interesting thing about it is if you read it you will find that it talks about how inferior the youth is an how they should have no freedom in their life choices and be in the military. Under my opponent's own case, the sole fact that it opposes freedom makes the case for me.
My opponent then moves to state that it's justified for them to uphold the social contract, but why would the ending of one's life when they object to this issue for whatever reason, having their freedoms stripped away for a small portion of their life, be just. The answer is once again, under my opponent's case it argues for me. My opponent has dropped the harms of the distruction of the Kingdom of Ends, so I'll extend that across.
2. Objectivism, the Right to Life
My opponent is confused with my argument, but I would like to remind him that the Social Contract is when a group of individuals create a contract with themselves to form a government to carry out order and when the government doesn't do this, the government is disbanned. Hence the idea that it's the "People's government." When you begin to infringe upon the right of the individual, the very people who are on both sides of the contract, you are violating the terms of the argeement by puting people in danger via the Right to Life . By this, the people would be able to break the contract as the very thing that they have created as an agreement amongst themselves had harmed them. I'll extend across my arguments on the individual harms.
Contention 2: Harms Society
1. Harms the Military
My opponent completely ignores the fact that the creation of the consription would create a military caste system which would harm those in and out of the military. It wouldn't matter on size, it would still harm the status of these indivduals in soceity creating a new level of discrimination in and out of the military, once again harming society. My opponent states "enough," but what is "enough" the US's military spending matches the next several top militaries on the list, but where is "Enough." "Enough" is a fairly vague term and hence should be a discarded argument for that very reason. The fact that these people are not as effective in the military is still a key factor as they won't be able to do as much and harm the military's ability to function.
2. Harms family unit
My opponent states that war harms more than the draft, but as William James from my opponent's quote did point out. The conscription is manditory service, in and out of war time. This would create a constant burden, even outside of war time.The fact that people apply for this status and many are even denied this, some even go to other countries to escape this shows how bad and how people's individual freedom's are being harmed. The fact is no matter what, the poor fight and the rich can buy their way out of it no matter what war.
“someone has to tell me how rich people are forced to serve along with poor people. Rich people can always find doctor who can say they have a bad knee...not ready to go back to a totally unfair system when we ask the poorest people in this country to serve.”- Sen. John McCain 
Before I start my final remarks, I just want to thank a few people. Hayd, thank you for allowing me to participate in this tournament that I was not even qualified to participate in, it means a great deal. Thanks to Lannan for taking the time to participate in what has been a great debating experience for me. I hope I have presented a challenge for you. Lastly, I wanted to thank all who will read and those who will vote. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, but like all good things, this too must come to an end.
Despite this being a cross-contention argument, I would like to bring up and note that my opponent has not refuted and hence dropped my John Locke argument on the Social Contract being between a group of individuals with other individuals. This shows that the government's duty is to respect the rights of the people as the people created it for the people and if it failed to preform its duty then it may be overthrown. This key argument was dropped which shows a shift from my opponent's altrusitic view on government to a focus on individual rights which defeats my opponent's case at face value, but for the sake of debating I will continue.
My opponent goes throw this debate and states that due to Social Contracts that the conscription is just, he gives no reason for why this is true nor does he give any other reason. We have no reason to accept his argument as he has failed to uphold the Burden of Proof and show how there is a link here and why it is just. The only referrance he makes in round 2 is a vague sentence that simply calls the Constiution a Contract and people have to uphold it and protect it, and the draft is part of that. This is extremely vague, as I have previously pointed out, and my opponent has declined to expand on this idea and, as I mention before, dropped the argument that I have presented on Locke's Social Contract in R3. My opponent also skims over the NAZI Germany example showing that it has nothing to do with the draft, but fails to see that it attacks the Contract argument. Which showed that people have more bargining power and can create the deal under my opponent's condition and do horrible things. I can give more examples, but I do not want to run out of space. My opponent drops the Vietnam case, so I'll extend that across the board. He also drops the previous argument on
Contention 1: Individual Rights
1. Kingdom of Ends
My opponent drops the fact people enter into the Kingdom of Ends as a Contract and this is the natural utopic state we should strive to. Hence this argument is important as it shows that we should work towards this soceity and performing the draft destroys this. Dropping this argument goes against my opponent's own case as it upholds contracts, so even if my opponent's case stands, this argument will hold weight as it applies to this contention.
My opponent claim that there is not a link between freedom and justice, but my opponent himself states it in Round 2, " The society as a whole and the individuals involved are free to negotiate the contract or refuse to enter the contract. This is only just. As this freedom exists, it is reasonable that a society could determine the possibility of a draft as part of this contract."
By this, he shows that this freedom to negotiate and justice corrilate and destroying this, like what occurs in the James quote harms the ability to negotiate and is against his own case.
2. Objectivism, The Right to Life
My opponent continiously asks for justification of this right, but I have stated and justified in in R2 where their ability to control their own destiny is key and this, once again as stated before, applies to my opponent's case as without the ability to control one's destiny, they are unable to be able to "negotiate the contract" hence going against my opponent's case. My opponent has dropped my John Locke Social Contract argument as well as the disposable human argument.
Contention 2: Draft Harms Soceity
1. Harms the military
Here my opponent has dropped a very key argument on how the draft creates a casete system, harms the militaries ability to fully perform, and creates discrimination of military members. These are key arguments as this raises the question of why have the draft if it harms the main group it is trying to aid, the military which is important as my opponent tried to make this debate military-centric. I extend my "enough" argument as he fails to understand the vaguness in his argument he presented.
2. Harms Family Unit
My opponent claims that the year round draft argument on his quote is irrelivant, but fails to realize that his quote provides the vagueness for it as well as other nations requiring it even in times of peace. Thus this argument stands and my opponent's arguments are negated.
To conclude, we can see that this debate revolves around the rights of the individual as my opponent has dropped the John Locke Social Contract argument to show that the government is a creation of people between people to protect the rights of people. This is important as we, as a society, must move towards the Kingdom of Ends and reach this Utopia, which my opponent has dropped. He has conceded on a great deal of arguments, but even if his case stands, many of my arguments are applicable to his very own case.
With that I thank you and urge you to vote Con.
|Who won the debate:||-|