The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Should High Schools with a JROTC Program be required to take one year of JROTC?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/16/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,033 times Debate No: 71758
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I think that all students in High Schools with a JROTC Program should be required to take one year of JROTC.


Except in times of war when the draft is in effect, our nation relies on an all volunteer military. It is better that way. Besides, many people have objection to military service for religious or moral reasons.

For what purpose should these people be forced to lay aside their principles?
Debate Round No. 1


Well you see JROTC is a program, not a recruiting service, its a class in High School. No one is making you join the military, or not. But JROTC can teach skills for other jobs as well.


To say that JROTC is not a recruiting service is disingenuous at best, since in 1999 the Commander of the United States Army Cadet Command ordered that it be used for that purpose:

"JROTC SAI and AI will:

a. Actively assist cadets who want to enlist in the military. Emphasize service in the U.S. Army (all components).

b. Facilitate recruiter access to cadets in JROTC program and to the entire student body.

c. Encourage college bound cadets to enroll in SROTC.

d. Work closely with High School guidance counselors to sell the Army story..." [1]

Furthermore, the JROTC cadets have a chain of command which includes the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States. [2]

Neither compulsory service in the Armed Forces, or their recruiting and propaganda programs can be required consistent with the Constitution.


1. (Page 3).

Debate Round No. 2


Read a. Again "cadets who want" JROTC isn't a recruiting program, it's designed to have students think about it, but more so it's a extra class to have fun in.

Yes recruiters come and go but it's YOUR decision if your going in to the military or not; and the chain of command is meant to help you learn to keep track of politics and the govt, again JROTC is a student/ cadet run program, the instructors mostly insure your going in a good direction.


Let us review.

My opponent still claims JROTC is not a recruiting program, although JROTC instructors have been ordered to facilitate recruiter access not only to the cadets, but the entire student body, and to enlist other school employees to help "sell the Army story". In fact, he ignored those two points.

Keeping track of politics and government can certainly be done without subjugating the students in the direct chain of command of the Secretary of Defense and the President. Furthermore, my opponent has not explained why those with religious and moral objections to such a service should be mandated to join.

JROTC is NOT cadet run, I have shown that this is a program administered directly by the Defense Department.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Cya10000 3 years ago
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 3 years ago
Hmm... Interesting topic.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daem0n 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments: Pro never actually presents a reason to require students to take JROTC. Con says students can get the benefits of JROTC (whatever they are) elsewhere, without sacrificing their religious and moral principles. Sources: only Con cites any.