The Instigator
Jokerdude
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
oboeman
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,553 times Debate No: 4839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (8)

 

Jokerdude

Pro

Ill start by defining the topic

Military Conscription is known as the draft where the military forces teens and older to join the military.

Contention 1

It has been realized by people 30 years ago that this is a bad idea. During the Vietnam war hundreds of people skipped out because they did not want to give their life for something they did not believe in. A few years later our president Jimmy Carter had the common sense to grant these people amnesty. This an example of how Military Conscription is wrong and the choices made to amend this mistake.

Contention 2

The Federal government has no right to mandate that citizens should have to go into the military. Under the Constitution we have the right to do as we choose so long as we don't infringe upon other peoples rights. As such since none of that has happened the government has no authority to implement this.

Contention 3

There are other things to do to benefit the US in a positive manner then fighting in a war. Artistry technology and politics are just three of many examples that helps maintain the wonderful society that we live in today. Again for those who think enlisting is the right choice then that is the right choice for them

In conclusion Military Conscription has no lawful backing and is unfair and unjust to those who do not wish to be involved in dangerous conflicts
oboeman

Con

Greetings to my opponent, Jokerdude.
I look forward to this debate.
May the most flawless logic compellingly prevail.

I plan on first making my own claim against the resolution, and then rebutting against each contention made by my opponent.

I am negating the resolution that "military conscription" is unjust.
Therefore, I argue that it is not unjust.
I am not experienced with the specifics of LD debate tournaments; however, I assume that I can contend (rather than explicitly complying with) the definition initially provided by my opponent. I would like to say that military conscription does not have to include teens, and that it should begin after undergraduate education, at the least.

POINT 1: Socialistic functioning and ethics.

Statement: A society will be defined as a collective group of individuals having a specific organization and rules.
Reason: Given.

Statement: There are many, many different societies in the world.
Reason: The world has many "collective groups of individuals having a specific organization and rules."

Statement: Ethics are defined as the philosophical study of values and rules, right and wrong, applied to a society.
Reason: Given.

Statement: Ethics are determined by the collective society.
Reason: Ethical values, applying only to a single society, reside in the only ones being affected by the ethics.

Statement: The only ones being affected by the ethics are the individuals in the specific society itself.
Reason: See definition.

Statement: Each society may have differing ethics.
Reason: Each society has the potential to have differing individuals (people who decide ethics).

Statement: Military conscription is an "ethical" issue.
Reason: By definition, it is either right or wrong.

Statement: Military conscription has the potential to be just.
Reason: The potential exists, as a specific society may derive, on their arbitrary ethical scale, that military conscription is indeed just. It is up to each society to ultimately decide its role, and therefore, this validates such a potential.

Statement: The resolution states "Military conscription is unjust."
Reason: Given.

Statement: The resolution is explicit, meaning that the instigator must prove that military conscription is indeed unjust (and therefore cannot be just).
Reason: Semantics.

Statement: The resolution is evidently false.
Reason: The resolution, inferring that military conscription cannot be just, leaves no room for the potential for it to indeed be just, in any circumstances. However, as evident in preceding statements/reasons, such a potential does exist, therefore invalidating the resolution, effectively making it false.

POINT 2: Governmental decision-making.

Decision-making and law establishment set forth by the government creates rules. The major role of the government can be defined as protecting its society, as well as providing for its society to ultimately aid in its amelioration. The government should, ideally, act in a manner that would best serve the collective society as a whole. Of course, it is ideal to have public input regarding decision-making at the governmental level. However, ultimately, the government legislates, enforces, and interprets the laws made.

POINT 3: Patriotism.

Military conscription would improve patriotic values more readily. Essentially, promoting patriotism would be beneficial, as it exemplifies support for the country. Such behavior is altruistic, willing to help assist others with no direct beneficial effect on the altruist. Ultimately, patriotic values help to bring about greater action of the collective in general. It establishes more grounds for trust between individuals in the society, as they are all focused upon a common cause to better themselves, and perhaps life itself.

POINT 4: National protection.

Military conscription would easily bring about more military personnel (hence its designed purpose). More military personnel mean that there are more people to help defend a society. In case of the need to engage in any type of warfare, a military would be large enough to combat unforeseen problems, preparing itself in case of emergency.

POINT 5: Character attributions.

Military conscription, leading to national service, would likely ameliorate character, building appropriate chain of commands, higher levels of trust, greater effort, teamwork, self-discipline, and elevated respect for authority. Such character is necessary in the military, later in life, as well as the workforce.

POINT 6: Beneficial service to the community.

It is appropriate for everyone, as a part of their collective society, to help serve their society in order to better it, and keep it functioning within normal parameters. A society, by definition (see above) is composed of individuals. It is therefore the responsibility of the individuals to form an effective and functioning society. In order for a society to be effective, it should have an effective defense system. As stated, the defense system would be more protective if there were a larger number of people to serve. A larger number of people to serve would be accomplished via military conscription. Such duties (ha) would be beneficial to the society.

The military does not entail only fighting, combat, and weaponry. Rather, it also entails scientific research and such. Therefore, pacifists would also have another option, other than engaging in combat.

It would seem logical to implement such military conscription.
If any one of the points in which I have extrapolated is indeed valid in proving the resolution to be false, I, logically, win.

I plan to rebuttal against the arguments of my opponent.

"It has been realized by people 30 years ago that this is a bad idea."

I would agree that there might have been some flaws 30 years ago. However, a more ideal system could be generated at the current. Military conscription does not mean fighting or combat, necessarily. Rather, scientific research or medical care for various branches could be considered viable alternatives. If the choice were given to citizens of the society, they could pursue what best suits them. Military conscription can vary from the conventional. Perhaps only volunteers could serve in other countries, allowing more leniency for those serving compulsory service (similar to a policy in the Swedish armed forces).

"The Federal government has no right to mandate that citizens should have to go into the military. Under the Constitution we have the right to do as we choose so long as we don't infringe upon other peoples rights."

First, as mentioned previously, the government, presiding the society, has an obligation to do what is right for the society as a whole. Secondly, an analysis of Locke's Social Contract theory implies, "people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order." In order to preserve social order, for the well being of the society, the government ought to implement military conscription. National defense ought to be prioritized.
If my opponent's claim regarding the constitution were true, it would be optional to attend grade school. However, the government has realized that education is a necessity for the country, and thus, made it compulsory. The same ought to be likewise for military conscription.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"There are other things to do to benefit the US in a positive manner then fighting in a war."

Of course, there are many ways to help society. However, military conscription does not need to deprive people of other benefiting professions. Perhaps military conscription could be applied to mandate a lesser amount of time for serving, such as 1 year, or even less. Once completed, citizens could honorably resume their course of educational study.

Cheers,
Oboeman.
Debate Round No. 1
Jokerdude

Pro

Jokerdude forfeited this round.
oboeman

Con

Alllrighty then:

"This round was forfeited because the debater did not post their argument within the allotted time."

It is seemingly unclear as to how this counteracts my assertions and points of contentions made in my Round 1. I fail to see any rebuttal continuity.

Therefore, my arguments are standing quite firmly, residing intact.

If it were not implied in my Round 1 argumentation, I remind readers, voters, judges, and my opponent that, as stated in the comments section, my value and criterion for this debate are basically as follows:
As implied in my opening round, the central value I, as the contender, am utilizing is justice. In order to achieve justice, societal benevolence is essential, aiding in greater ethical parameters and social order.

I await the remainder of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Jokerdude

Pro

I concede the round and withdraw from the tournament sorry to have wasted your time in this debate..
oboeman

Con

Acknowledged.

As well, on the contrary, I would hardly denote this debate to be without purpose. I have learned a lot, myself, from arguing from the given viewpoint I was already supplied. I consider debate to be a progressive search for truth, in the realm of mystery.

Thus, vote CON.

Oboeman
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Geek.Rachel 8 years ago
Geek.Rachel
In regards to the instigator's first contention, the fact that the United States is no longer under a program of military conscription does not mean that it is completely unjust. That is similar to say that if one student in an entire school commits suicide, the entire school is suicidal. It would probably be best to refrain from making such assumptions. :)
Posted by 10max01 8 years ago
10max01
http://debatecoaches.org...

You can look at many cases including Theis who won this years TOC. A value criterion is not needed explicitly, in theory the only two are really deontological or consequencialist. IE - Who upholds the most or the greatest "right" (life, sovereignty, etc.)or who saves the most lives/rights. There are other weighing mechanisms but those are two most common.
Posted by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
birdpiercefan - When an LD/policy tournament was suggested, I was against it for this reason -- I mentioned that I personally had no "formal" debate experience, and I'm sure that this would be the case for some participants from the site (debate.org) who also wanted to join and participate in a tourney of some kind. I'm assuming that like myself, oboeman did not want to be excluded from the debate experience regardless of whether or not it had "LD" written in front of it. On one hand, it could have cost him the debate, because he did not adhere to LD guidelines. On the other, it would be unfair to penalize oboeman for this discrepancy and not any other debater. I'll admit that I too had no idea that a V/C was *necessary* and as such did not provide one in my R1. Further, some may argue that a V/C is NOT necessary at all, and further still, if this was such a make or break point then I strongly feel that the tourney director should have made some kind of note of it. Otherwise, it discourages good debaters from debating -- I'm sure most people would be more than happy to see people eliminated for such a reason, as it makes their job (or getting to the finals) a Hell of a lot easier. Also, consider the fact that neither Pro nor Con introduced the concept of or even knew about a V/C policy. How would one judge this debate if neither of them offered anything of the sort...? From a judging standpoint, I'm glad this debate was forfeited.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
mogget: i also agree with that, but really, its hard to win w/out one.

@ oboeman: I understand, but really when there is an "LD" and "policy" difference, somethings goin' on.

But anyways, that's good that you are learning....i'll probably judge you one round or two....
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
birdpiercefan3334,
I signed up for the LD tournament, assuming it was similar to the previous tournament. However, either way, I have been doing some research regarding LD debate and its specifics. Thus, seeing as my opponent has conceded, I would be prepared for future LD debates in the tournament.

Mogget,
I suppose I agree with that.
Posted by Mogget 8 years ago
Mogget
A case can have meaning outside of a value and a criterion. -.- It's just much for vague, and a great deal harder to judge.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 8 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
@ L-M: LD debates still need a Value and criterion: otherwise the case has no meaning.

and to oboeman & Jokerdude: Why did you decide to be involved in an LD debate tournament, when you did not know what LD debate is?
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
OH well, I suppose conceding didn't matter as you (PRO) would have lost anyway since it's apparent that you have no V/C
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Okay, so basically, your value is justice and your criterion is societal order. Interesting pick for this resolution. I look forward to reading later rounds. :D
Posted by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
Regarding my value/criterion:

Logical-Master, I admit I am vague on the specific concept, having no formal debate experience. However, here is what I have basically led my opponent to induce:
As implied in my opening round, the central value I, as the contender, am utilizing is justice. In order to achieve justice, societal benevolence is essential, aiding in greater ethical parameters and social order.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by KendallAntigone 7 years ago
KendallAntigone
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jose_barahona 7 years ago
jose_barahona
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Geek.Rachel 8 years ago
Geek.Rachel
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by CP 8 years ago
CP
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Katie01 8 years ago
Katie01
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
JokerdudeoboemanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03