The Instigator
Seagull
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points

Military Conscription is Just

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/12/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 89553
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

Seagull

Pro

Resolved: Military Conscription is Just

I am arguing to affirm.

select winner/6,000 characters/4 rounds

lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Seagull

Pro

Resolved: Military Conscription is Just

Thank you to Lannan13 for accepting this debate. It is my third. Please bear with me, I am still learning the nuances of debate and this website.

Glossary


Due to terms not being defined in round one, these are up for debate. That stated, I simply found what I think are sufficient definitions.

Military: "of or relating to soldiers." (1)

Conscription: "compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft." (2)

Just: “guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness:” (3)

This effectively makes the resolution “In relation to soldiers, compulsory enrollment of persons through a draft is fair.”

Affirmative Case

Due to Justice being referenced in the resolution, it is the core value that should be upheld in this debate. Justice defined simply is giving each their due. The central query of the resolution is whether a military draft is justified. The mechanism by which we can weigh what is just, that is to say how we can determine what is due is by observing contracts.

Contracts

Contracts are “an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.”(4) I am sure most everyone is familiar with the concept of a contract. I will use my own experience as an example. I work Monday thru Friday. My employer pays me, I perform labor. We have a contract. If I do not work, he is not obliged to pay me. Likewise, if he does not pay me, I am not obliged to work. The contract we have determines what is due to each of use per our agreement. This is an example of justice. Just like the contract between me and my employer, there is a contract between individuals and society. This is known as the social contract.

The Social Contract

The core concept of the social contract is simple. Individuals consent to leave the state of nature and join society by entering into a contract with that society. This contract dictates what is due to the individual, and to society. In its most basic form, the individual agrees to obey the law and be subject to a society in exchange for the goods of that society i.e. protection, infrastructure, community etc. Perhaps the best known version today of a social contract is the U.S. Constitution. A social contract creates and defines both a relationship and a contract.

Contracts by their very nature are subject to terms and negotiations. 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.

Conclusion

Contracts serve as a reasonable measurement of what is due, and therefore what is just. Societies operate through social contracts between individuals and society. This contract may include conscription. It follows that conscription can then be just.

To negate this argument Lannan13 would have to demonstrate contracts themselves unjust.

Sources

(1) http://www.dictionary.com...
(2) http://www.dictionary.com...
(3) http://www.dictionary.com...
(4) http://www.dictionary.com...

lannan13

Con

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 [1]. 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 [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4]. 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. [5]" 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 [6], 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 [7]. 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% [8].

Sources
1. (http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu...)
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.
3. (https://www.theobjectivestandard.com...)
4. Ron Paul (2009), On Reinstating the Draft, house.gov,
5. (http://www.heritage.org...)
6. Groupman, Alan. "Should the United States Reinstate the Draft?" Retired Officer Magazine July 2000: n. pag. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
7. (http://www.press.uchicago.edu...)
8. (https://www.povertyactionlab.org...)
Debate Round No. 2
Seagull

Pro

Thank you Lannan13 for your argument.

My opponent makes two main contentions each with two parts I will respond to each in turn.

Contention 1: Individual Rights

1) People as a Means, not an end

Lannan presents the concept of a “Kingdom of Ends.” Such a world is likely not plausible nor is it probable. Individuals leave the State of Nature to join society. To do so comes at a price, or in other words a contract. Such a contract would include what is due from all parties involved. To claim that a society owes an individual the due of this kind of society with nothing in return would be unjust.

Next my opponent claims that it “is important as it is part of the society that we should strive to as it maximizes human equality…” On the contrary, if Lannan is concerned with human equality, he would be in favor of a draft. Conscription has real impact that brings about equality. Consider what William James argues in his essay “The Moral Equivalent of War.” He states,

“that so many men, by mere accidents of birth and opportunity, should have a life of nothing else but toil and pain and hardness and inferiority imposed upon them, should have no vacation, while others natively no more deserving never get any taste of this campaigning life at all, …. If now — and this is my idea — there were, instead of military conscription, a conscription of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, the injustice would tend to be evened out, and numerous other goods to the commonwealth would remain blind as the luxurious classes now are blind…”(1)

Con then states that “These individuals are being forced against their will to perform a task…” I would point out that this is not so much being forced to do some arbitrary thing, but rather force to fulfill what is due of them due to the social contract.

It is worth noting that even though this contention from pro is entitled “Individual rights” Lannan has not offered any justification whatsoever for individual rights. No mention of what they are (save one, life), where they come from, how they operate etc. He does however name the right to life.

2) Objectivism, the Right to Life.

Again, he offers no justification of this right. He claims they (individuals drafted) would be in no danger otherwise. This is odd, as perhaps one of the most universal justification for governments and leaving the state of nature is security. In the contract known as the U.S. Constitution, security is mentioned in the preamble. Security is due to the society via the contract. Sometimes the only way this is possible is to have a draft. Surely con is not arguing that an individual is on balance safer in the state of nature than in society.

Contention 2: Draft harms Soceity

1) Harms the military

Lannan claims that armies of draftees are of less utility then volunteers. This misses the mark. Nothing about a draft conflicts with volunteers. In fact if there were enough volunteers, there would be no need for a draft. Arguing that conscription is just is not at all in conflict with having a volunteer force. A draft is a way for society and individuals to meet the criteria required of the social contract.

2) Harms the Family Unit

My opponent claims drafts harm the family unit. On the whole, I think it is safe to say war harms the family rather than a draft specifically. As war is a reality, so too is occasion that a draft may be needed.

Con uses an example of the draft during WW1. This example demonstrates that a draft can be lenient. Here is a case where there was a need, a draft was held and there was also a way to apply for exempt status. Clearly this demonstrates reason and justice. Again Lannan brings up equality, and again I state that if he really values equality, he would be in favor of a draft. (Refer to my previous remark under his first contention) Lannan claims that drafts push the poor into war and leave the rich. This may be true of some drafts, but not the idea itself. There is nothing inherent about a draft that would affect the poor more than the rich. In fact, I would go as far to say that more poor are pushed in to volunteer services then the draft because of their social economic situation. Thus this contention that drafts hurt the poor misses the mark and demonstrates an issue that happens perhaps because there are not as many drafts.

Conclusion

Neither contention from Lannan addresses my argument. Even if you accept individual rights, which he has provided no justification for, it does not negate the obligations or justice of a contract. The same can be said about the second contention. Due to the social contract that individuals have with society, Military Conscription is Just.

Sources


(1) http://www.laits.utexas.edu...

lannan13

Con

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.

Opponent's Case

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 [1]. 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 [2]


Sources
1. (http://tinyurl.com...)
2. (http://tinyurl.com...)
Debate Round No. 3
Seagull

Pro

Giving Thanks

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.

Lannan’s Case

Contention 1: People as an ends not a means.


1) Lannan claims that under “The Kingdom of Ends” people are still entered into a contract and thus under my own criteria it would be just. Sure, I will let that pass as it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand. He does say that the quote I used talks about taking away freedom and that on that point alone, his case is made. I confess myself completely perplexed by this thought. Are we arguing about Justice, or Freedom? Obviously this is rhetorical, Lannan has not provided a clear link of Freedom to Justice and thus this point does not matter. Aside from this oversight, it is important to note that the quote I used demonstrated that a draft would make society more equal, which he claimed was “important” in his first round. This was the purpose of the quote.

2) My opponent claims that I misunderstood his argument. Quite the contrary, his argument misses the mark. He still has provided no justification for the existence of rights. Because of this huge misstep this contention is not relevant. Again I stress that we are arguing Justice, that is to say what is due. If people are due certain and specific rights, con would have needed to demonstrate this which he has not.

Contention 2: Harms Society.

1)
My opponent here spends his time attacking the idea of “enough.” This demonstrates that he missed my argument. I argued that if there are volunteers, there is less need for a draft. This does not impact whether a draft itself would be just or not.


2) Lannan again tries to use the quote I provided out of the context I gave it. I was not arguing for a draft in and out of war time, in fact if I did it would be irrelevant to the topic. He claims that the rich will buy their way out of a draft and thus a draft would disproportionately effect the poor. Again, as I argued last round, have career soldiers already does that, trust fund babies don’t tend to enlist. If anything, a draft would be more fair from a socioeconomic stand point that no draft.

Summary of Case

I have demonstrated that con’s case is off topic. He argues about rich and poor, when drafts would be held, and freedom. None of these contentions have been properly linked to the topic of whether Conscription is Just. The only one that could perhaps is freedom, though as rights were never justified or shown how they tie to justice the only mechanism we have to weigh Justice in this debate is contracts. This is why I win.


Affirmative Case

I argued that this debate rests on the value of justice and that the mechanism by which this can be examined is contracts. This was dropped by my opponent and thus my framework stands. Due to Social Contracts, military conscription is just. The only contention Lannan really gives this is to say that this is not so. He does not say why not, he does not provide an alternative way to measure or achieve justice. If not contracts, then what? He doesn’t say.


He says that I am committing the is ought fallacy. This is not so. I am not arguing that because drafts exists they are just. I am arguing that because individuals have a contract with society, if that contract is inclusive of drafts then they are just.

He gives the example of Hitler, this again will demonstrate missing the topic. He argues that because the people consented to Hitler that crimes against humanities were committed and thus contracts are not just. This is a non sequitur. He only shows that just because a contract is just, does not mean the actions taken are just. Essentially I am saying that those unjust things done by Nazi Germany and Hitler are not due to a draft. Nor are they inherent evils of a draft. Rather, they are entirely independent.

Finally, Con presents the example of Vietnam. I confess this hits very close to home. I have several family members who fought in Vietnam. Two uncles on my mother’s side were drafter, one went and the other dodged. This debate topic for me is not just an exercise of debate, but has roots that run very deep for me. Do I blame my one uncle for dodging the draft. No, was the state just to draft him, absolutely.

Essentially my case boils down to this. The relationship of a person to the state via social contract makes conscription just. This is because contracts dictate what is due. This is how Justice has been defined. Thus I affirm, Military Conscription is Just.

lannan13

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, but like all good things, this too must come to an end.

Pro's Case

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
conscientious objectors.

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.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: tejretics// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote appears entirely sufficient, analyzing arguments made by both sides and coming to a decision informed by those arguments. Contrary to the report, moderation is not used to determine whether a voter interpreted a given argument correctly or chose the correct arguments on which to base their votes.
************************************************************************
Posted by YYW 7 months ago
YYW
Clear and overwhelming win for Lannan. http://www.debate.org...
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
== Part 1 ==

This vote is from the Voter Union. Contact donald.keller, TUF or me if you wish to join, or if you want to submit a vote to be judged by our standards. We reserve the right to veto any application, though.

It's clear that Pro isn't arguing an "on balance" consideration of the topic, but merely saying that conscription is just in specific scenarios. Pro should have made an observation that this was sufficient to fulfill their burden, but Con makes an error in failing to contest Pro's approach, so I have to agree with Pro's approach. Pro essentially argues that contracts are the means by which justice is fulfilled, and that those in a social contract, thus, must repay to their society based on this contract. Pro also brings up the offense -- later in the round -- that war harms society more than conscription, and by Con's own standards, conscription is just. Con's response to the contract argument is that Pro is committing an is-ought fallacy (I presume he means simply because there is a contract doesn't mean there ought to be one), but Con drops Pro's framework with regards to contracts upholding justice, so I buy Pro's contract-based argument.

Another major point of contention with regards to Pro's case is on whether Pro is required to defend conscription in and out of war, but Pro says that isn't his burden -since to show that "conscription is just" is not necessarily to show that "conscription is just in most cases." Con doesn't justify that Pro has to defend universal, mandatory conscription. This point of contention goes to Pro, which allows Pro to turn Con's utilitarian argument.
Posted by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
== Part 2 ==

Con has two arguments: (1) the contract violates justice by infringing on the right to life and treating humans as a means to an end, and (2) the contract poses a net harm to society. The first argument seems to explicitly contradict the second one -since the former would mean each individual should be considered, while the latter implies a utilitarian and collectivist framework. The collectivist argument - the second one - is successfully turned by the argument that war harms society more, and conscription helps end war. I'd have liked more on the link re: collectivism ends war, though.

The argument from "the kingdom of ends" isn't clearly elucidated at all. Con says humans are an end, not a means to an end, and this has to be recognized to uphold justice, but doesn't clearly elucidate why that is the case. Con's link is that people are forced to do something they don't want to do, and that this violates justice. Here, Con's concession of social contract-based justice harms him. Pro correctly notes that Con hasn't connected freedom with justice. Con's second part of this argument is the infringing on the right to life. Con says the right to life is important and an individual's right to life should not be violated for any purpose. Pro responds saying the contract doesn't guarantee an absolute right to life (e.g. the US Constitution prioritizes security). Con's response -which is somewhat compelling- is that people no longer consent to the contract when it harms them as individuals, which is the purpose of the social contract. But on a broad perspective, I don't buy this because prioritizing security is present in a contract to which the people do consent -which Pro brings up earlier. While Pro made a strategic mistake in dropping this argument, their earlier argument outweighs.

Since I find Pro's case compelling and don't find Con's case as compelling, I vote Pro.
Posted by Seagull 7 months ago
Seagull
Thanks for reading and voting!
Posted by n7 7 months ago
n7
RFD part 1/2

The Social Contract:

Pro's case hinges on the social contract. If conscription is in said contract, then conscription is just.

Lannan attacks the social contract by pointing out some contracts don't include the freedom of negotiation. Therefore a social contract =/= freedom or justice. Pro's rebuttal seems to have missed this point. He argues that just because the contract was just, doesn't mean his actions were just. Con points out this wasn't his argument, but that his argument had to do with a social contract entailing freedom to choose said contract. Since a social contract can be one sided, I don't find Pro's argument convincing. There simply being a social contract isn't enough to establish its justice.

Individual Rights:

Con argues that people shouldn't be treated as means. A Kingdom of Ends is the best for equality and freedom. He also argues we have a right to our lives.

Pro rebuts that a Kingdom of Ends is unlikely. We would need a social contract. He says the right to life is unjustified and that protecting national security is better than a person's rights.

Con says that a contract might just be to uphold a Kingdom of Ends. It may not include a draft. And that the very point of a contract is to protect an individual's rights. Pro says that Con made no clear link of freedom to justice and that no justification of rights was made.

Con points out Pro doesn't address the fact that the Kingdom of Ends might be made into a contract and therefore make the draft unjust. He shows that Pro's case requires the existence of a link between freedom and justice, otherwise there is no negotiation of the social contract. It also justifies rights, because there can be no negotiation without rights.
Posted by n7 7 months ago
n7
RFD part 2/2

I think these are strong arguments. Con shows that Pro's case necessarily entails contradictions in his rebuttals. Con properly defends and rebuts here.

Draft harms Society:

Con argues that a draft harms society and is therefore unjust. I don't necessarily see the link. If a riot-ready mob believes a man is guilty, when he isn't, not punishing him would be harming society. Yet we still don't consider it just to punish the innocent.

Pro's rebuttal argues that war is what harms families and believing conscription is just has nothing to do with accepting a volunteer force. If there were enough volunteers, no draft would be needed. Con claims that it would also be a burden outside of war time and that "enough" is vague. Along with something about the rich getting out of the draft. I agree with Pro, the parts about the rich aren't relevant, and nothing about his case suggests a German-type in and out of war draft.

I think Con attacks strawmen in this section, I'm not convinced by this argument.

Overall, Con wins because of his individual rights argument. It was close though, good debate either way
Posted by Seagull 7 months ago
Seagull
No worries, I am really not that impatient. I hope you feel better.
Posted by ColeTrain 7 months ago
ColeTrain
I am very sorry... I have an RFD in the works, but I'm sick and simply don't feel like doing it at the moment. I'll try my best to get it complete before the voting period is over.
Posted by Seagull 7 months ago
Seagull
I got my hopes up and everything!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 7 months ago
tejretics
Seagulllannan13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by n7 7 months ago
n7
Seagulllannan13
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.