The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Con (against)
Losing
42 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
58 Points

Resolved: Military Consription (drafting) is unjust (LD Rules and Format)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 16 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,898 times Debate No: 8068
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (16)

 

Charlie_Danger

Con

Yay! First debate on the national topic!!!

Rules are that of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Due to previous misconseptions, I will clarify that the rules of LD Debate can be found at www.nflonline.org, and we will follow these rules, since they are official.

I Negate the resolution, and because we follow the LD format, I will allow the affirmative to have the first speech.

I await my opponent.
wjmelements

Pro

I thank my opponent for this topic.

It seems necessary to define a few words.
Unjust: lacking in justice or fairness http://dictionary.reference.com...
Fairness: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice http://dictionary.reference.com...
Injustice: violation of the rights of others http://dictionary.reference.com...

The most important value at stake in this debate is justice. Justice is a key necessary aspect of society and without it there is no moral order.
To achieve justice, we must preserve the inalienable rights guaranteed through government.

Such inalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A military conscription violates all of such rights.
1. Military conscription puts a citizen's life at stake without his permission.
2. The draft makes military participation compulsory and therefore removes individual liberty.
3. When an individual is drafted against his or her wishes, then the government has interfered with their pursuit of happiness.

1. When individuals are chosen by the government to be obligated to be in harm's way and to risk life and limb, they have obviously been put into jeopardy of life. According to Thomas Jefferson, governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of men. Should a government implement a draft, it has interfered with such a right. Therefore, such an act of government is unjust.

2. Liberty is by definition the power to do as one pleases (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). When one is obligated to participate in the military, then government has obstructed that individual's right to his own will. Therefore, the draft is unjust.

3. The pursuit of happiness has often been associated with liberty, but often it is entirely different. When the government puts one in harms way and then that individual dies, then their pursuit of happiness has ended. If a government can obligate people to die, then such a government has crushed the rights of an individual to pursue happiness. For this reason as well as the ones before-mentioned, military conscription is unjust, or violating the rights of a people.

I now await my opponent's argument and prepare for rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Con

Thank you for accepting the debate and esspecially thanks for following the LD rules!

I negate.
The order will be standards, NC, AC.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I accept my opponent's definitions.
I provide the following standards:
The value is morality. Although justice is a good value, the resolution ultimately is posing a question of morality, since both justice and fairness (see definition for "unjust") are measured by an individual or society's ethos of morality, therefore we value morality in this debate.
I conditionally accept my opponent's criterion of basic human rights. I clarify, however, that these freedoms include, but ARE NOT LIMITED TO life, basic liberty and property. If we are to accept this criterion, we must assume that the status quo upholds these freedoms in order to maintain evenness between the affirmative and negative. On these grounds, I accept.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Contention 1: "A citizen's duty is to protect his society"
Social contract theory is simple. When you make the willing choice to join or stay in a society, you are forced to conform to the standards dictated by said society and, more often than not, you have a significant say in what those standards are. An example of this is nudity. Society does not like its citizens flashing their goodies for all to see, so the standard becomes clothing in public. If a citizen does not abide by this standard, they are duly punished by society. Because the citizen stays or joins the society by free will, it is morally just to enforce the punishment upon that citizen and send them to the local nudist's prison or probation, or whatever society agrees. Now lets relate this to the resolution. A citizen is in the society by free will, he becomes legally recognized by the government and it hence listed on the military draft system. This, like the nudist example, is completely just because the citizen has agreed to the standard in society, which in this case becomes drafting. To put it in laymen's terms: "If you don't like it, get out" This impacts to our criterion of basic freedoms by showing that a military draft does not, in fact, force an infringement of any of these rights, which is thereby moral.

Contention 2: "Who will get drafted?"
Although I have already explained how conscription IS in fact just, we can look at the fact that only a certain amount of the populous will actually be enlisted in the draft.
Subpoint A) In every society, there is a determined age where a citizen becomes legally recognized as an adult. It is at this age when a citizen would actually be drafted, thereby proving that children and underdeveloped persons are exempt from this conscription.
Subpoint B) Although the majority of societies has a unisexual amount of rights, women have historically, and continue to have, the exemption from the military draft. Although the reasons in some countries are that of discrimination, others are because of family structure and societal stability. Pick any or all of these reasons and you clearly see that women will not be forced to enlist in the draft, although they still may willfully enter.
Subpoint C) No matter how desperate a society could be for soldiers, it will always exclude the physically and mentally handicapped because of their inability to competently wield a weapon, or furthermore, fight.
Because all three of these brands of citizens are overall exempt from drafting for various reasons, predominately being counter-beneficial to the military or society, you can see that even if negating the resolution does infringe on rights, it happens to a minority of people. By contrast however, affirming will never affect these people listed above. This is enough reason for you to negate, because the affirmative will not, because it cannot, impact to the majority of society.

Contention 3: "The draft doesn't risk your life"
Since we value human life very highly in this round, it is a key factor to decide weather or not a life is actually being sacrificed or risks sacrifice for the sake of the government. When on a military draft, you are actually available to several jobs, not just the commonly misconstrued infantry frontman. When you are on conscription, you are interviewed and, based on your traits, placed in a certain position. More often than not, this position is affected by your opinion and preference. In the US, during all of its wars, the military even allowed the conscientious observer option, which means that the citizen (for whatever ethical reason) pleads against joining and they are listed on the bottom of the list. They would only be put into the military if push came to shove, which historically has not yet happened. Since the actual act of being drafted is not life-risking or right-infringing, and the draft never actually forces you to perform a task that denies basic freedoms, you negate.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now on to the Affirmative:

1. He states foremost that a draft violates the citizens right to life, but as you can see in my third contention, this is absolutely false. Cross-apply the Negative C.3 and you see that the affirmative's first point falls.

2. He goes on to contend that negating violates the rights to liberty, but he defines this as "the ability to do as you please" I address this in my first contention. We don't allow citizens to do whatever they please all the time, and therefore this argument is no longer unique and should fall.

3. I don't accept the pursuit of happiness to be measurable in this debate since (only in context of THIS debate,) it is no different from "liberty" in argumentation or impact. Nonetheless, you can see that his third point is false when you look at my first and third contentions, which prove that life is never involuntarily risked in the draft and that a citizen can always become exempt from the draft if they wish, even though it is their duty.

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal and urge a full vote for the negative at this point in time.
wjmelements

Pro

I thank my opponent for a response.
-----------------
My opponent claims that justice is based upon morality; however, morality is a rather shaky substance. Morality can vary from one society to another. In Islamic Nations, it may be immoral to eat a pig. However, no such moral exists in the United States. While morality is shaky, it is justice that holds society together.
The Holocaust was considered moral to the Nazis. However, it was not just.
------------------
In response to the negative case:
Contention 1:
My opponent's argument essentially states that a society can be unjust to its citizens as it chooses, and the citizens are forced to emmigrate if they feel that they are abused (i.e. "my way or the highway"). However, government's job is to guarentee rights to society, not to thrash them as it chooses. A just government lies in the people's hands. Any other such government is immoral and unjust.
Further, forcing someone out of their homes to flee oppression is clearly a violation of property rights.

Contention 2:
My opponent's second contention states that drafts are okay, because only a minority is abused. However, a just and moral government should protect the whole of society rather than the majority.
Subpoint A: My opponet's subpoint can be summed up by saying that people do not have rights when they are adults; rather, that governments should only protect the rights of citizens under 18.
Subpoint B: My opponent's second subpoint declares that the draft is just because only men are opressed by it. When a government opresses any rights of any human, it is unjust and immoral.
Subpoint C: My opponent's third subpoint declares that citizens who are physically-fit are the only ones that deserve to be opressed.
My opponent basically argues that government can oppress a minority. This goes against his arguments of morality and my value of justice.

Contention 3:
My opponent basically concedes that some people will lose their lives because of the draft. This clearly violates the rights of humanity. Further, my opponent acknowledges that all people drafted will be required to give up some of their life to a government occupation. This is clearly a confiscation of liberty, as one cannot opt to do anything else besides work for the government.
-------------------------
Now, I shall show why my opponent's arguments against my case are irrelevant:
1. My opponent claims that just because some people don't die that nobody dies. This, however, is false logic. The argument that it is "only" a minority that is being opressed shows that a government that implements a draft is immoral and unjust.

2. My opponent claims taht to allow liberty would be to allow societal anarchy. I concede that some liberties, such as to walk around nude, are absurd, but most liberties are a right of humans. The right to live one's life as one wishes, to guide one's own life decisions, etc. are generally good things. My opponent has taken an absurd part to say that the whole of liberty is absurd; rather, the majority of liberty is necessary. Clearly, when one is forced to participate in the military, they have lost liberty.

3. My opponent again claims that life is "never involuntarily risked in the draft", though it clearly is. Government implements a draft so that it might have people to replace those who have died. These people are just as likely to die as the last group. People die from being drafted. My opponent makes a silly point.
I accept that in most cases liberty and the pursuit of happiness are similar, but liberty allows the ABILITY to pursue happiness. In this way, they are different.
-----------------------------------------------------
In summary of my opponent's case, my opponent argues that the draft is okay because only a minority are oppressed by that, and of that oppressed minority, not all people die.
I argue that government's DUTY to mankind is not to protect the rights of the few or the rights of the majority, but to protect the rights of everybody in government's society.
I await rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Con

Charlie_Danger forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his last round. VOTE PRO because military drafts infringe on the rights of citizens.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
It happens.
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Yes.
I apologize greatly, I wasn't able to get online in time to rebut you.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
The forfeit was a shame.
Posted by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
... is LD truly dead?

you use values like Justice defined as what is just and morality defined as what is moral... Neither of you actually have a value. The Aff is saying it's unjust because it's unjust while the neg is saying it's moral because it's moral...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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 mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by slobodow 8 years ago
slobodow
Charlie_DangerwjmelementsTied
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:70