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

THW implement mandatory military service

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/19/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 525 times Debate No: 98216
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




In a world where "freedom of choice" is a right people abuse wrongly, today on proposition, we believe that mandatory military service should be an exception to this abused right.
Today I will begin the debate with two arguments:
1 How it will promote Equality
2 How they can protect others, and those before them.
But to begin, I will present my Model:
You must join between the age of 18 and 35, and you can have a week off for weddings, funerals, etc. Your time in the military will end after 3 years.

I present my first argument, how it will promote equality.
If the motion were passed, no matter who you are, a tramp on the streets, a celebrity in a mansion, you are still required to join the military. Under the threat of death in war, rich people will have to work together with these poorer people, and they will understand each other. The celebrity will finally have an honest day's work, and the poorer person will help close the discriminatory gap by helping out the richer.

Moving on, onto my next and final argument, about how it means that you are protecting those before and after you. When you enter the military, you are protecting the society, just like the elderly will have joined the military to protect you! By joining the military, you are protecting the next generation, who will grow up to protect you, and you are protecting the elderly, who have protected you before!

To implement mandatory military service to promote equality and protection, I am proud to propose


Although I am unclear as to the entity being referenced, I contest that such an entity should not implement mandatory military service.

Freedom is the foundation of any great society. Freedom drives innovation an motivation. Freedom allows individuals to achieve their personal goals and achieve greatness in the fields best suited to their desires. Such a group of individuals will create the best society in terms of the utility of its members.

Mandatory military service directly opposes this tenet of a great society. There are individuals whose greatest talents and skills have no military application. Thus, by imposing military service upon such individuals, one limits their contribution to society.

Thus stands my main argument. I will refrain from addressing my opponent's argument until Round Two.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Agonist for accepting my debate, and I will firstly rebut his standing points:

Agonist: There are individuals whose greatest talents and skills have no military application. Thus, by imposing military service upon such individuals, one limits their contribution to society.

This is incorrect, as serving the military means that you are helping out the military, there is no guarantee that you will be fighting, you may be a nurse or doctor, a mechanic, you are putting your skills to the test, under a serious and in-pressure situation. Even if you are wasting the talents you have, you are being given the chance to learn some other skills, widening your skill pallet.

Agonist: Freedom is the foundation of any great society. Freedom drives innovation an motivation. Freedom allows individuals to achieve their personal goals and achieve greatness in the fields best suited to their desires.

Firstly, we accept that freedom of choice is important, except, the benefits of mandatory military service outweight the so called "importance" of freedom. Opp is abusing this right. they don't want military service. Why? Because he doesn't want it. This is the basic point of freedom of choice......

I would like to add another argument to the debate.
With mandatory Military service in place, It will help ensure high levels of Governmental Participation.
With every citizen required to joined in the armed forces when the need arise, the public will be more aware and watchful of the government"s decision, especially in terms of national security and the like. With their lives at risk or at sacrifice, people will seek to understand more about the threats that face their country and will seek a greater voice on how their government approaches problems.

I thank Agonist again on accepting this debate, I apoloise for any mistakes made, as this is my first debate on


For the Second Round, I will rebut my opponent's First Round Arguments and then address my opponent's contentions offered in the Second Round.

My opponent argues that we should favor mandatory military service because it promotes equality. I agree that the logic here is sound, but I disagree that the end of equality justifies the means. There exist a myriad of methods to increase equality in society. For an analogous example, all citizens are required to lick toilet seats. Such a rule would increase equality, millionaires and paupers would both experience the distasteful tonguing of a toilet. However, it would not increase the overall utility of society. Equality is insufficient to justify a mandatory act.

My opponent's second argument is an appeal to tradition. He/she fails to state why tradition is desirable in-and-of-itself.

In rebuttal to my opponent's claim that my argument, "There are individuals whose greatest talents and skills have no military application. Thus, by imposing military service upon such individuals, one limits their contribution to society" is incorrect, I simply state that it has not been adequately rebutted. Though it is true that an individual may learn skills in his/her military service, it does not refute the premise that these skills are potentially not those that represent the maximum potential of the individual. In other words, one may learn something, but learning the skills one desires is better nonetheless.

My opponent now introduces a new argument: mandatory military service ensures more Government Participation. Although government participation is desirable in democratic political structures, it does not justify the means required. Reductio ad absurdem: "We should require all citizens who fail to vote be put to death, as such a policy will ensure more government participation." Ensuring more government participation is not sufficient to establish a policy.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Agonist for his rebuttals, and I admit they have been really good ones.
My 3rd round speech will defend my previous points.

Agonist's rebuttal: Equality is insufficient to justify a mandatory act. He used the example of tonguing of toilets.
However, toilet seats are not an accurate example. The main point of equality in military services is that in life or death situations, rich people and poor people will be in the same crisis. Toilet seats, however, are something clearly disgusting, the rich and the poor are not sharing a crisis that they have to work out of. In the military, their lives may be under threat, and they will seek to get out of the crisis.

Agonist's rebuttal: Tradition is not desirable in-and-of-itself.
I accept I have not made any explanation of why tradition is importan. I will explain that further now. Protection of the next generation is important because they will grow up and serve you, help to protect you. If you serve in the military now, not only are you protecting the people who will protect you later, but also people who protected you before, e.g. the elderly.
You are now:
1: protecting people who will protect you later on
2: protecting people who have protected you before.

Agonist's rebuttal: one may learn something, but learning the skills one desires is better nonetheless.
Not everyone can have what they want, working in the military can give you skills that may be something you need. In school, if you want to learn Algebra, but you have to learn sequences first, that doesn't mean you should ban school. This again a prime example of opp abusing the freedom of choice argument. Just because I want to, I will. Because I don't want to, I won't.

Agonist's rebuttal: Ensuring more government participation is not sufficient to establish a policy.
I disagree, as with people in an age where they seek to know the truth, the reasons behind the actions being done, with their lives in the balance, no objections will be given against the goverment, therefore a more productive military force will be formed.

In the next round, I will be summarising this debate. Please vote prop.

P.S. Agonist, is it okay to challenge you to more debates?


In regard to the equality argument: I posited that equality is insufficient to justify a mandatory act. The accuracy of my analogy withstanding or not, I entreat my opponent to give reason why equality is an higher order value than freedom from enslavement (mandatory service).

In regard to the tradition argument: My opponent states that mandatory service results in an individual not only serving those who served before himself/herself, but also those serving after himself/herself. This tidy delineation of generational duty, however, is not sufficient cause for the policy. It implies that reciprocity is inherently necessary to the act of protecting. However, if a fraction of the population is capable of providing protection for both the prior and succeeding generations, then not all the population is obligated to provide protection. Therefore, mandatory military service is not necessary for this reason alone.

In regard to the skills argument: There is a problem regarding what skills we consider desirable versus what skills an individual may consider desirable. There is a balance to be struck here. For example, some may consider literacy to be an unnecessary skill, but many consider mandatory nonetheless and the skill is mandatory in public education. I posit a weak version of the argument: there are some skills that should be mandatory, but it is not necessary they be taught via military service.

In regards to the government participation argument: I am unsure what my opponent's rebuttal means, yet I retain my stance that increased government participation should be only be a second-hand benefit of a democratic government's policies and not a determining factor.

Before summary, I will entreat the audience to believe that freedom from coercion creates a better society. As long as systems are able to ensure the basic needs of a sovereign society, freedom should be the primary goal. As such, mandatory military service should not be implemented.
Debate Round No. 3


I thank Agonist for his defensive rebuttals, and now I will be comparing and analysing the major clashes in this debate.
I see a major clash in the debate: The importance of Freedom.

As I have said repeatedly, Freedom is important, and on Prop, I value freedom. It is just that freedom of choice is very much abused. Agonist has tried to tell us that Freedom is what drives a society forward. I accept that, though there is a problem: Military service will not destroy your whole life, contrary to that. In fact, you can learn many skills, though that is not the point. Working in the military for 3 years will not end your life, wars are not very common. Your life has many more chances to have freedom, to learn and improve your life.
I believe that Prop should win in this debate because:
1. Prop gave you a wider perspective of looking at mandatory military service.
2. Opp has only one argument: Freedom, and that was a) rebutted b) not important when you look at the cost and benefits of everything else I brought to the table

Basically the debate was this:
3 Benefits of mandatory military service vs Freedom

We accept that Freedom is important when debating this topic, but we believe that the benefits of mandatory military service outweigh the harms of mandatory military service.

I thank Agonist again for accepting my first ever debate,
Please vote Prop


Though I still contend freedom (especially from the very real risk of death) is the foundation of a great society and supercedes almost all other values, I would like to comment on my opponent's reasons for viewing mandatory military service as beneficial to individuals and society.

The various stated benefits of military service (equality, personal development, tradition, et cetera) are also benefits that could be potentially provided by other mandatory service programs. Because military service presents the very real risk of harm to soldiers of many nations, if one wanted to achieve the benefits of mandatory service, one would be better off implementing a mandatory non-military service or services. Programs similar to the American Peace Corps or Teach for America provide similar benefits to military service in terms of personal development, equality, and service to others without the risk of harm or the often harsh environment of the military. It would even be possible to implement mandatory service but enable citizens a choice of program to avoid reaching the extreme end of the coercion spectrum.

Nonetheless, I believe my opponent's initial and subsequent arguments to have been shown to be either invalid or weak in the face of alternatives. I invite the reader to look back upon the preceding rounds and vote against against implementing mandatory military service.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Sidetrack 1 year ago
Some people were born to do specific things and they do them and are successfull. Some people are born not to do things, try anyway and fail. No one should be forced be in the military. The military should only be taking people that want to be there and are competent for the job. Do you want somone watching your back that thinks you are a baby killer?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument that joining the military would in some cases work against the individual from achieving personal goals. Pro's rebuttal that mandatory service would only help, or wouldn't hinder those goals greatly was rebutted nicely. I could see an art student getting put on the line, if he had very little skills. Pro claims that mandatory service would not be dangerous and that freedom of choice is abused, but doesn't ellaborate on either point. In the end, it was an argument about freedom, whether you want real freedom, or you want to give up (3 years of) that freedom.