The Instigator
srhelsel609
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SnaxAttack
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Should we abolish the draft?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
SnaxAttack
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 78713
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

srhelsel609

Pro

I respect and thank all servicemen and women that fight for us. But This debate is about should we have a draft or no in the USA. Should a government make someone kill or shot at someone, if that person doesn't want to? Should a government send citizens who don't even support a war to a possible death sentence. No matter if we are at a time of peace or war. Should a government be able to make decision like that without my consent or voice? I say no to all of these questions. My life is my life. If I want to fight and maybe die, that should be a choice. May be I want to use my life for something else other than going to war and be forced to fight. Is it fair?

May be I want to go college or open a new business instead of going to war? We are not the ones making that call to go to war or using the daft. The people who vote on that are congressmen, which they can't get drafted since most of them are to old to get drafted. May be we, as citizens should have a direct vote, if we, as the people of the United States of America want to use the daft or go to war. We are the ones who face rationing and see love ones go off to war and get word that they could be killed or wounded or be a POW.
SnaxAttack

Con

This whole debate is about self-choice. In society, everyone has a choice of what they do or don't want to do; but there will always be an effect that takes place afterwards. In this debate, we are discussing about whether or not the Draft should be allowed within our society; and I am on the side that the Draft is needed. The Draft is needed because of the defense we possibly need, as a country, for any possible future wars. Without it, we will not have the number of soldiers that we need to even withstand a potential war.

My opponent claims that this "forces" the individual into doing something that they don't want to do. With the given quote: "Should a government make someone kill or shot at someone, if that person doesn't want to? Should a government send citizens who don't even support a war to a possible death sentence. No matter if we are at a time of peace or war. Should a government be able to make decision like that without my consent or voice"? To answer these responses, I will Rebuttal against my opponent, with his or her own words italicized.

Should a government make someone kill or shot at someone, if that person doesn't want to?
First off, there are many jobs out there which require the potential chance of shooting someone. Examples being Police Officers, who made the choice to join the force willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of mankind. The same thing goes similar to the Draft because the individual coming into this country, is making the decision to even come into this country. People make the choice to come to this country, and must understand what is being asked from them to become a citizen of the United States. This situation is similar to purchasing a product from a store. You, the individual, decide to buy something; meaning you are willing to pay for it. Same thing as the Draft, where you are "paying" a price to live in this country. Also, I ask my opponent when the last Draft happened? As far as I can remember, it was during the Vietnam War; which was many years ago, and we are currently not at the point where the Draft is needed.

Should a government send citizens who don't even support a war to a possible death sentence?
Do you think most people who get drafted support the war? Most don't, they do it because they knew the price of coming into the United States. Once more, its your decision if you come here or don't, but if you do; you must be willing to "pay" the small fee for the benefits of this country.

Should a government be able to make decision like that without my consent or voice?
Technically the Government already makes decisions without the majority of the populations say. Examples being the Senate passing Bills, where they vote, within their house, and not going up to random people asking if they should or shouldn't pass a bill. Thing is, if a war does start, not everyone is going to ask if they want to go to war. That takes to long, when they need soldiers instantaneously.

I will agree that the Draft shouldn't be the frist priority of gathering soldiers, but should be used as a later resort. Getting rid of it completely would most likely diffuse our possible numbers of potential soldiers, and would weaken the strength of the United States. The people of this country decide to come and live here, and if they do; a price is needed to be paid. Its a small price, that will most likely not happen for the next few decades.

Also, my opponent quotes this "May be we, as citizens should have a direct vote, if we, as the people of the United States of America want to use the daft or go to war ". Unfortunately, my opponent gives an idea but gives that idea towards something called the "Daft". I don't know what a "Daft" is, but we should more so focus on the "Draft".
Debate Round No. 1
srhelsel609

Pro

I wish to clear a spelling mistakes, in my last round ,I misspelled draft. I am not perfect ,so forgive me. Your argument seemed more focused towards a person coming into the USA and becoming a us citizen. But I and many others were born here and our past generations of ancestors. Yes!the draft was used in the Vietnam war. Which was very unpopular.

It can be argued that in a cost-to-benefit ratio, conscription during peace time is not worthwhile.[35] Months or years of service amongst the most fit and capable subtracts from the productivity of the economy; add to this the cost of training them, and in some countries paying them. Compared to these extensive costs, some would argue there is very little benefit; if there ever was a war then conscription and basic training could be completed quickly, and in any case there is little threat of a war in most countries with conscription. In the United States, every male resident must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days following his 18th birthday and is available for a draft.

The cost of conscription can be related to the parable of the broken window. The cost of the work, military service, does not disappear even if no salary is paid. The work effort of the conscripts is effectively wasted, as an unwilling workforce is extremely inefficient. The impact is especially severe in wartime, when civilian professionals are forced to fight as amateur soldiers. Not only is the work effort of the conscripts wasted and productivity lost, but professionally skilled conscripts are also difficult to replace in the civilian workforce. Every soldier conscripted in the army is taken away from his civilian work, and away from contributing to the economy which funds the military. This is not a problem in an agrarian or pre-industrialized state where the level of education is universally low, and where a worker is easily replaced by another. However, this proves extremely problematic in a post-industrial society where educational levels are high and where the workforce is highly sophisticated and a replacement for a conscripted specialist is difficult to find. Even direr economic consequences result if the professional conscripted as an amateur soldier is killed or maimed for life; his work effort and productivity is irrevocably lost.

American libertarians oppose conscription and call for the abolition of the Selective Service System, believing that imprisonment of individuals into the armed forces is "involuntary servitude." Ron Paul, a former presidential nominee of the U.S. Libertarian Party has said that conscription "is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents slavery and involuntary servitude."The philosopher An Rand opposed conscription, suggesting that "of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right"the right to life"and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle."

In 1917, a number of radicals and anarchists, including Emma Goldman, challenged the new draft law in federal court arguing that it was a direct violation of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. However, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the case of Arver v. United States on 7 January 1918. The decision said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. The Court emphasized the principle of the reciprocal rights and duties of citizens:

"It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government in its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need and the right to compel.".
Conscription has been criticized as sexist. Historically, only men have been subjected to conscription, and only in the late 20th century has this begun to change, though most countries still require only men to serve in the military. The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th century. Men who opt out of military service must often perform alternative service, such as Zivildienst in Austria and Switzerland, whereas women do not have even these obligations.- Wikipedia.

Also the draft can interfere with someone's religious and moral beliefs. Quakers Do not believe in war.(just to be clear, i am not a Quaker.)

We, all. Have the right to be, a CO. (a person who for reasons of conscience objects to serving in the armed forces.)

Also to address our augment against having a direct vote for war or the use of the draft. It would not take long,same as the poplar vote for president. If the event of the sudden need of troops, use the ones that have already sign up and are in the military.
SnaxAttack

Con

For this round of arguments, I will take certain quotes stated by my opponent, italicize them, and Rebuttal. I think this will be easier to address my argument, and post any new arguments within this round. So, lets begin!

Your argument seemed more focused towards a person coming into the USA and becoming a us citizen. But I and many others were born here and our past generations of ancestors. Yes!the draft was used in the Vietnam war. Which was very unpopular.

This argument is technically based around a person coming to the US and becoming a citize. The reasoning why is because when you come into this country, you need to follow certain rules. Examples being Taxes and having to sign up on the Draft. Something we must understand is that its the individuals choice to come into this country, and if you do; you should understand what is expected of you. You want the benefits? You need to be willing to cooperate with the countries rules.

Also, when has the last draft been used? My opponent, in the given quote, admitted that the Draft was used during the Vietam War. The reasoning why was because of going to war for a crazy theory that if one country fell into Communism, the others would do the same. The "Domino Theory" is what it was called, and many people thought that it was "silly". So, it hasn't been used recently; and will only be used if it comes down to a lack of soldiers. If we look at the current volunteers who volunteer to join the military, stated under "January 2010 Military Recruiting Statistics (1), it states that the estimation of volunteers they needed for the military were overexceeded, than expected. In fact if you look at the link, each military branch went over 100% of the scale that they were trying to achieve for volunteers. The only one that did not was the Coast Guard, but even they had 97% of volunteers, which is still pretty high up.

As we can see, we have plently of volunteers or the military, because of its benefits it gives out. The number, over the years, has failed to really reduce and shows that enough people volunteer that the Draft would most likely not be necessary. Also, if we get technical, the US actually has the number 1 military (2). Once more, the Draft is a last resort just in case we need soldiers. Its like this, having an emergency button in a 99% safe environment. That doesn't mean its 100% safe, but that does mean we have the emergency button just in case it comes down to it. Same thing with the Military Draft.

It can be argued that in a cost-to-benefit ratio, conscription during peace time is not worthwhile.[35] Months or years of service amongst the most fit and capable subtracts from the productivity of the economy; add to this the cost of training them, and in some countries paying them. Compared to these extensive costs, some would argue there is very little benefit; if there ever was a war then conscription and basic training could be completed quickly, and in any case there is little threat of a war in most countries with conscription. In the United States, every male resident must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days following his 18th birthday and is available for a draft. The cost of conscription can be related to the parable of the broken window. The cost of the work, military service, does not disappear even if no salary is paid. The work effort of the conscripts is effectively wasted, as an unwilling workforce is extremely inefficient. The impact is especially severe in wartime, when civilian professionals are forced to fight as amateur soldiers. Not only is the work effort of the conscripts wasted and productivity lost, but professionally skilled conscripts are also difficult to replace in the civilian workforce. Every soldier conscripted in the army is taken away from his civilian work, and away from contributing to the economy which funds the military. This is not a problem in an agrarian or pre-industrialized state where the level of education is universally low, and where a worker is easily replaced by another. However, this proves extremely problematic in a post-industrial society where educational levels are high and where the workforce is highly sophisticated and a replacement for a conscripted specialist is difficult to find. Even direr economic consequences result if the professional conscripted as an amateur soldier is killed or maimed for life; his work effort and productivity is irrevocably lost. American libertarians oppose conscription and call for the abolition of the Selective Service System, believing that imprisonment of individuals into the armed forces is "involuntary servitude." Ron Paul, a former presidential nominee of the U.S. Libertarian Party has said that conscription "is wrongly associated with patriotism, when it really represents slavery and involuntary servitude."The philosopher An Rand opposed conscription, suggesting that "of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man's fundamental right"the right to life"and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man's life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. "In 1917, a number of radicals and anarchists, including Emma Goldman, challenged the new draft law in federal court arguing that it was a direct violation of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude. However, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the draft act in the case of Arver v. United States on 7 January 1918. The decision said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and to raise and support armies. The Court emphasized the principle of the reciprocal rights and duties of citizens: "It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government in its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need and the right to compel.".
Conscription has been criticized as sexist. Historically, only men have been subjected to conscription, and only in the late 20th century has this begun to change, though most countries still require only men to serve in the military. The integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th century. Men who opt out of military service must often perform alternative service, such as Zivildienst in Austria and Switzerland, whereas women do not have even these obligations.- Wikipedia.

Voters, I wish to state that my opponents main argument for this round was Copy & Pasted. He did not provide his own argument, supported by these facts, but instead just Copy & Pasted to "claim" that this was his own argument. You can tell by the quick change of grammar usage, in which wasn't very great in the first place, and the fact that at the bottom of the argument he used the source "Wikipedia". Wikipedia is the least reliable source, especially for a debate, and cannot technically be creditable. Stated under the ruling of the Modern Language Association.

So, this argument cannot be reliable and used for a debate because it defeats the purpose of a debate. A debate being a differentation of opinions supported by facts, and is definately defeated by using Wikipedia as his source. Also, my opponent fails to post the link of his source at the end of this argument, so its tough to see if it is indeed reliable if all of it was not from Wikipedia.

Also the draft can interfere with someone's religious and moral beliefs. Quakers Do not believe in war.(just to be clear, i am not a Quaker.)

I ask my opponent on how the Draft can affect religious beliefs? Stated under the website "Pew Research Center"(3) it states that in the US 70.6% of people claim to be Christian, while the other percentages vary. If most of the population follow the Christian religion, we must look towards their Bible on what is said about war. In fact, the Bible approves of war if it is justified under a number of quotes (4). Also for the Quakers, I looked up to see how "big" their religion is, and it isn't by much. In fact, stated under the Quaker Religion (5) site themselves, there are only a total of 358,923. That is a small number, and percentage of the number of religions supported in the U.S shows that it is a small number. Technically, the Draft is not impacting most peoples religions and is not "taking" their beliefs away.

Also to address our augment against having a direct vote for war or the use of the draft. It would not take long,same as the poplar vote for president. If the event of the sudden need of troops, use the ones that have already sign up and are in the military.

A vote would take to long. To determine the President scenario, it takes about two years (6). The reason why is to determine the candidate, have everyone vote, and wait a few months before the President is allowed in office. It takes longer, especially when you need troops fast, and is not as effective as waiting. Also, I agree that volunteers should go first, but the Draft is just a last resort just in case we need troops very quickly.

Sources:
1. http://usmilitary.about.com...
2. http://www.wearethemighty.com...
3. http://www.pewforum.org...
4. http://www.christianbiblereference.org...
5. http://www.quakerinfo.org...
6. http://www.infoplease.com...
Debate Round No. 2
srhelsel609

Pro

I would like to first defend my usage of Wikipedia in this debate. Wikipedia can,yes be biased and wrong at Times. But Wikipedia has put safeguards and protections against that type of content in their articles. Also we never rule out copy and paste before, so I felt like I was not break any debate rules. Yes this maybe consider plagiarism, but I listed automatically below the section in question "- Wikipedia". Yes,i regret not adding the URL. But this debate is about the draft. My opponent, i feel is not understanding my view point and the point of the debate. No offense if mistaken. This debate was to share ideas and thoughts about where or not having people sign up for the draft and using the draft when in case of emergency. I oppose using it at all ,even in national emergencies. I would also petition my opponent to accept the text from Wikipedia and try to counter it. He did response to my claims against the draft for sexism and servitude and the coast of the draft. I will not responded until he addresses these arrangements For Wikipedia.

yes, my opponent point out that the U.S. military has over 100% of the troops need. But I will ask you , whatever if that number dropped until 0 or 10 %?
SnaxAttack

Con

For this round, I wish to point out certain flaws in my opponents argument and then conclude this debate. To begin, in the last round I addressed that my opponent used Wikipedia, and I stated that, that it cannot be considered a reliable source for the fact that it can be changed. My opponent even admits this statement with the following quote "Wikipedia can,yes be biased and wrong at times". This proves that Wikipedia cannot be a reliable source, and even if my opponent did use it; he should have put the URL code in the source link below, which he had fail to do. So his argument is tough to see whether or not it is factually correct, while I provided evidence that follows the topic about the Draft.

Then my opponent claims that I am not following the topic, even though I am. The topic is as follows "Should we abolish the Draft". I am following the topic to the tee, with my argument that it should not be abolished completely, but more so used as a last resort. In the previous round, I brought up the percentage of volunteers willing to participate in the military, which is a very high percentage, and the Draft would most likely not be used within the next few decades. That doesn't mean it should be abolished, definition of abolished is "Formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution)", it should more be used for National Emergencies, or a last resort if we ever need troops.

In this round, my opponent makes the claim with the following quote: "This debate was to share ideas and thoughts about where or not having people sign up for the draft and using the draft when in case of emergency". My opponent did not state these as "Rules" in the First Round, and I am sharing my ideas of it being used in the case of emergency. Also, my opponent claims that I should Rebuttal against my opponents source of Wikipedia. I refuse to do this because of two reasons, my opponent has failed to Rebuttal against my own arguments while I did most of his; and Wikipedia cannot be Reliable so its hard to determine if its good or bad.

Voters, as we can see this debate really did not go anywhere. My opponent has failed to use reliable sources, like articles, while I used multiple sources. I counter-argued most of my opponents statements, while my opponent didn't even counter argue one of my own statements; however, I will let the Voters decide if me not Rebuttaling a Wikipedia article should grant me any points. Also, throughout the debate, my opponent has used bad grammar since the start. Examples including a little joke I made about his wording of the word "draft", and my opponent saying "daft".

To conclude this debate, my opponent really did not counter-argue any of my arguments, yet I did in the second round. My opponent used an unreliable source, and lacked sources compared to my own. Also, to answer my opponents question with the quote "Yes, my opponent point out that the U.S. military has over 100% of the troops need. But I will ask you , whatever if that number dropped until 0 or 10 %", my response is that will most likely never happen. The only way that could ever happen is if World Peace is achieved, which is mostly impossible, or we eliminate the Military completely. As long as the military gives benefits to society, people will be influenced to join it. And my opponent even agrees with my statement given the last quote.

Overall, I urge you to vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
We could have more to discuss, but you did not discuss anything more.
Posted by srhelsel609 1 year ago
srhelsel609
I still believe that we have more to discuss.
Posted by SnaxAttack 1 year ago
SnaxAttack
You did not establish any rules. You just gave an argument in the first round, and didn't even state any rules. At this point, you are going to a last resort on trying to win this debate.
Posted by srhelsel609 1 year ago
srhelsel609
My opponent is twisting my words. I wish that he could message me , so we can talk about this debate a hit more and about the rules. I am openly asking snaxattack to message via debate.org to discuss some rules about the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
srhelsel609SnaxAttackTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate. The main arguments here were the following. Forced service, emergency defence, and civic duty. Forced service, goes to Pro, Pro showed that forcing someone to go to war is a violation of the thirteenth amendment. This point was completely ignored by Con. So 1-0 Pro. Emergency defense goes to Con, as Con stated that the draft should be used as a last resort, and it is the most efficient and quickest way to ensure military numbers don't deplete, and ensures our safety. This point goes to Con, and it's also tied in with civic duty. Con stated that each US citizen has a duty to defend their nation if the circumstances call for it. This is true, and this point was ignored by Pro. Who had a weak rebuttal, stating that some people were born in the US. This has nothing to do with the fact that citizens have a duty to protect their nation. These two points [civic duty and defense] go to Con. 2-1 is the final tally, arguments to Con.